Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: Lynn Winebarger <>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 09:22:34 -0500

On Friday 20 September 2002 05:19, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>>>> "Lynn" == Lynn Winebarger <> writes:
>     Lynn> On Thursday 19 September 2002 19:10, Brian J. Fox wrote:
>     >> It's my belief that we on this list are looking for business
>     >> models that are sustainable, scalable, and easy to understand.
>     >> Being "VC Fundable" is one marker that these goals have been
>     >> achieved.
>     Lynn>     I don't know why "scalable" would be a requirement.
>     Lynn> Doesn't the list maintainer run a "lifestyle business"?
> Because investors want to be able to reinvest in a known success.  The
> business doesn't have to be scalable.  The _model_ does.  [We need to
> talk investors if we want to talk self-sustaining growth; life-style
> businesses by definition are eating the owners' wealth (at least
> potential wealth).]  
     That measure of wealth fails to count whatever values the owner
is exercising (not sure what the correct wording is, referring to your
response to Kragen).  But don't economists take the fact that they
are not taking the potential wealth as a measure of economic
value in and of itself (i.e. >= the potential wealth)?  
> However, even with that, it's much cheaper and safer to grow
> exponentially with an exponentially growing success than it is to find
> an exponentially growing number of fixed-size successes.  I don't see
> a way to impose McD-style quality control on a myriad of small devel
> businesses, though.
     I don't know how you plan to impose McD-style quality control
on programmers period.  See Fred Brooks.  It seems to me there's
leverage there (at least for those 10x more productive ones).