4 ms·
The flaw to that argument (from my perspective) is that if a company wants more capital they can find lenders, issue bonds, or even issue new shares. If Kodak h
by bb2018 8y ago
The flaw to that argument (from my perspective) is that if a company wants more capital they can find lenders, issue bonds, or even issue new shares. If Kodak has a real way to pivot they could have raised money. Instead, it is pretty clear their business was dying and they had no way to compete against larger tech companies who could provide a better product with cheaper costs to consumers.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> The flaw to that argument (from my perspective) is that if a company wants more capital they can find lenders, issue bonds, or even issue new shares. Well yes, but that's the problem. If you issue new shares when your share price is lower, you get less money and it may not be enough. You can't just sell an unlimited number of shares, each one dilutes the others and at some point no one will buy them. And all the other lenders rely on your ability to issue new shares to pay them back if it comes down to that, so they won't lend to you if your share price is too low, or will demand interest rates you can't afford. > Instead, it is pretty clear their business was dying and they had no way to compete against larger tech companies who could provide a better product with cheaper costs to consumers. They could have at least been GoPro if not the company supplying the cameras in half the phones on the market.
- bb2018 8y agoAgree to disagree! Maybe no one will buy them because the business plan is crap!
- turtlecloud 8y agoThe shorts are symptom, not the cause. Kodak was a hot mess. Even raising a ton of money couldn’t have saved them from their incompetence. If they didn’t have the vision to see digital cameras, what makes u think they could dig themselves out of the hole they were in?