• SNEWSLEYPIES@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    that totally normal corporate financing

    The point, I think, is that it perhaps ought not to be.

    • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why? Are you not allowed to give gifts to your family until you pay off your mortgage? Paying dividends while using debt financing isn’t inherently imprudent. I would have preferred vital services to remain in the control of the state and think the regulators have been laughably weak in allowing these companies to enfeeble themselves to the benefit of shareholders and ultimate cost to society, but demanding dividends not be paid until a company is debt free, in our current capitalist system (and any remotely similar system) is financially illiterate.

      • SNEWSLEYPIES@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your analogy is a little off. If I were in the slightest danger of defaulting on my mortgage, you may be assured that even my closest family would be getting handwritten free hug vouchers for christmas.

        It’s not about being debt free, it’s about not using your debt for stupid things.

        • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right but if you were not in any danger of default they would think you a dick if you spent nothing on gifts. You’re moving the goalposts. The statement was that no dividends should be paid while there is any debt, which as I say is a stupid one.

          • SNEWSLEYPIES@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            On the contrary, I’m putting the goalposts back where they were before you misunderstood them.

            From the article:

            Hall concludes the companies have borrowed to pay dividends, rather than to invest in infrastructure projects. The £123bn of capital expenditure spent by the companies has all been financed by customer bills, the analysis states.

            • julietOscarEcho@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Read the thread you’re commenting on mate.

              Under no circumstances should a company be borrowing and paying dividends at the same time

              I have no objection to particular instances of imprudent dividend paying being criticised. I specifically rejected this absolute statement.