4 ms·

This is the flip side to the Cooper Union story [1] that's gracing the front page right now—a reckless strategy that is only lauded because it paid off in this

This is the flip side to the Cooper Union story [1] that's gracing the front page right now—a reckless strategy that is only lauded because it paid off in this one high-profile instance. I'm not sure where the line between reckless gamble and calculated risk is, but this feels like it's over the line. Yes, the company would have likely folded either way had the founder not gambled and won, but this strategy together with the "never give up on a particular business" cockroach mentality feels akin to winning a lottery and subsequently advising people that lottery tickets are a viable way to prepare for retirement. Also, I'm quite sure that the founder would have found himself in a lot of personal trouble for gambling company funds on a blackjack table had he lost. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599385

moogleii 14y ago
I agree it would have been over the line, if it hadn't been so desperate. It sounds like it was do or die - in that sense, it shouldn't be interpreted as a strategy, reckless or not. Everyone involved admits it was a gamble. I get the feeling the Cooper Union situation was, although bad, not as bad as what Fedex was in. Cooper Union made a gamble, failed, and was still able to continue to run (2 years of debate, plus funds to run until the 2014 school year when the fees actually kick in). That tells me it wasn't a do or die situation; they still had rope left. Even now, I'm not convinced they exhausted all available, smarter avenues. I'm also kinda surprised their books aren't open if they've been debating for 2 years.