Quote:
Originally Posted by secondcurve
Stan: when you are taking massive dividends they must be paid for in some manner such as increased prices, reduced benefits and/or limited capital expenditures. This is a penny business and choices must be made. I agree that customers shouldn't be harassed and as I posted above I don't think this is happening in a meaningful way. I also don't think the employees are trying to close the business rather they are trying to drive it in a direction that is mutually beneficial for capital, labor and customers. Further, when a massive non unionized workforce pulls together with this much moxie they know exactly what the facts are. One of the owners has a black hat and one has a white hat. It is cut and dry.
|
You are making my point for me.
Are you saying the board came in one day and said lets take a $300m distribution, we can pay for it by raising prices?
Or did they say we have a huge amount of cash on the balance sheet, lets pocket some and we'll still have plenty left? You don't know the distribution schedule, this could have been planned for some time.
You don't know, and I don't know - but to say the only way to pay for a distribution is to raise prices or reduce spending/benefits is overly simplistic and not true. Companies accrue cash - at some point you do something with it.
Again - your theory is based on an assumption that cannot be proven. You assume prices will have to be raised, I see no reason why that is the only reasonable scenario.