Aspies Do It Better: Conservatively Run a Company

Page 1 of 1 [ 6 posts ] 

zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

07 Jul 2013, 3:02 pm

I forgot the guys name, but I remember reading about him in Forbes. I think he has Asperger's, or at least displays symptoms of it. I have to say, this is probably one of the most well run and conservatively run companies: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=UBNT . Just look at the balance sheets! It is a tad overvalued, but I think for a tech company, being debt neutral is really rare for a tech company. In any case, just an observation.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

07 Jul 2013, 6:29 pm

zacb wrote:
I forgot the guys name, but I remember reading about him in Forbes. I think he has Asperger's, or at least displays symptoms of it. I have to say, this is probably one of the most well run and conservatively run companies: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=UBNT . Just look at the balance sheets! It is a tad overvalued, but I think for a tech company, being debt neutral is really rare for a tech company. In any case, just an observation.


From my own experiences, I can believe this easily. In my own case as a manager, I tend to stick with things that work, which is the essence of at least philosophical conservatism. Since my executive functions aren't that good, I keep things as simple as possible. And in my own personal life I've never borrowed a dime because of having to pay interest and because of the consequences for failure to repay. In my case, I believe all of these are related to my AS, and all have served me very well.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,784

08 Jul 2013, 7:16 am

Businesses need people in their correct roles. Someone bad with details and money should not be handling financial decisions. Sadly, a lot of companies don't think this way, and they suffer for it.



Thelibrarian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Aug 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,089
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas

08 Jul 2013, 9:19 am

zer0netgain wrote:
Businesses need people in their correct roles. Someone bad with details and money should not be handling financial decisions. Sadly, a lot of companies don't think this way, and they suffer for it.


Zero, if you are referring to the ability to pay attention to detail, I must respectfully disagree with you. My forte is seeing the big picture, and I'm actually awful when it comes to the details, though I am a good money manager. What I have is an assistant who is very good with that kind of thing.

I'm reminded off President Carter in the midst of his Iranian hostage rescue fiasco when he was more concerned about the parking assignments at the Bureau of Indian Affairs building than he was with a failed military operation that in part cost him his presidency.

We can, and should, delegate somebody to do the detailed, technical work. The good manager has vision and sees the larger picture.



zacb
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2012
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,194

19 Jul 2013, 7:49 pm

This thread reminds me of a little debate I had with my mother about homes being a liability. Sure it builds equity, but you must BORROW in order to access it. An asset by contrast will pay you, thus you will have a positive cash flow. Now if you did not live in it, and rented and or sold it, then it would be an asset, because you turned a profit. Sometimes I moan over the difference between me and my generation. All in all, I think this generation might be screwed, thus I am planning accordingly.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,633
Location: Reading, England

21 Jul 2013, 11:53 am

zacb wrote:
This thread reminds me of a little debate I had with my mother about homes being a liability. Sure it builds equity, but you must BORROW in order to access it. An asset by contrast will pay you, thus you will have a positive cash flow. Now if you did not live in it, and rented and or sold it, then it would be an asset, because you turned a profit. Sometimes I moan over the difference between me and my generation. All in all, I think this generation might be screwed, thus I am planning accordingly.

A house is an asset because the alternatives are rented accommodation or homelessness. Rented accommodation requires similar payments, but you can't get your money back by selling the property. Homelessness is extremely undesirable, and leads to poor health and social exclusion, to name just two things, and combating these will require extra spending. So whilst a mortgaged property doesn't provide you with income as such, it provides economic benefits that renting and homelessness do not.

At least, that's how I see it.