[tshaddox]

> In my 32 years in the industry the best performing companies always did these things regardless of the macroeconomic climate.

I think the question is more about whether doing these things caused the company financial success, or whether the company's financial success caused them to do these things. It strikes me as plausible that it's almost always the latter, even if the company's financial success isn't attributable solely to the macroeconomic climate.

[fnordpiglet]

Usually the issue is you can’t encourage creative risk taking with structured austerity. Structured austerity is about improving operational efficiency and there’s a place for that. But at companies that survive and thrive on creative risk taking, giving the reigns to the CPAs kills the culture.

I think it’s usually a sign of success that to protect the golden goose you stop taking creative risks and focus on operational efficiency.

Macroeconomic conditions really matter a lot more for capital intensive enterprises like manufacturing, refining, real estate, etc. Most creative / R&D based companies are much less cost of capital sensitive and frankly low interest rates matter a heck of a lot less for their planning and operations.

[whiplash451]

I see a third causality option.

Both « being successful » and « doing these things » could be caused by a single root cause: a leadership team playing the long game.