[dalbasal]

IDK... In theory, choices are good and you can just choose the better one. In practice, the financial dynamics of a business tend to create head or tail wind forces that become a part of the company's character.

All else equal (including the decision maker), a positive float business will tend to be more growth oriented than a negative float business. In theory, not so much. Float is just a type of capital (working capital). In practice, it's different.

Other people's money businesses will tend to take more risk. Publicly listed companies tend to be risk averse and quarterly report focused. These aren't carved in stone. Some publicly listed companies (eg amazon, tesla) have sailed against this wind. But, the wind is still there.

For a personal example, take the difference between having a trainer vs exercising yourself. It's theoretically possible to do the same training and have the same results, or do better. The tendency though, is meaningful, and when you pay a trainer there's a tendency to be disciplined.

Returning to the "friend's argument," it is observably true that structural constraints affect business owners.

[tunesmith]

That is all true, but you wouldn't use those "probability" statements to support a boolean outcome. For instance, a trainer might be better, but you wouldn't use that to conclude that someone shouldn't exercise without a trainer.