Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ThrobX
C] small fish tend to have a larger number of big fish who can buy them out (if you're a "build and flip" kind of person).
But it really depends on how big the "pond" is, how many other small fish and big fish there are, etc. If you're a big fish in a very small pond, it's easy to dominate today, but where can you go tomorrow? You may have low growth potential, as well as few who could buy you out. Once you eat all the small fish, you have no more food and you starve a slow death. If I were in a small pond, maybe I'd want to be a medium fish. 
I guess maybe the best business for a big fish in a small pond is to sell fish food, so you eat at wholesale and sustain all the small fish?  |
You're right that there are a lot of variables and that the question was purposely phrased to be simple (because how could you do a poll with a hundred variables?)
That said ... I'm for the big fish in the small pond for a variety of reasons.
To this: "small fish tend to have a larger number of big fish who can buy them out" and this: "Once you eat all the small fish, you have no more food and you starve a slow death." I say no. A big fish can be bought out from a bigger fish in a bigger pond.
Also to this: "Once you eat all the small fish, you have no more food and you starve a slow death." I'd have to reply. No, you don't starve a slow death, o contraire; you now have a monopoly!
