I can be a bit of a cynic when it comes to this topic. I’m sure there are times when one would like to take back control of one’s destiny. There is a time and place for debt restructuring. However, I do not believe that there is a time and place that is right for this kind of a move.
For some reason, some people are more easily moved to this subject than others. They are all the same in my estimation. They are all a bit of a “debtor” and don’t pay attention to what is going on around them.
The fact is that the more debt you have, the more likely you are to default on it and become a bad debtor. The more your debt the more it increases your likelihood of defaulting, and the more likely it is to get you in trouble with your creditors. In other words, the more debt you have, the more likely you are to be in trouble.
Companies that default on debts typically get a lot of attention. Companies that don’t default on debt get much less attention. Even if they get attention, it’s often just the attention of the creditors. So if you don’t default, you are often spared the attention of those creditors.
This is all part of the big restructuring that is under way in the US. Companies are required to file with the government an “entity report” every two years to have their debt restructured. The government then makes a number of adjustments to the debt in order to get the best deal for the companies and to ensure it wont default.
The government also makes adjustments to the debt in order to ensure it wont default. For instance, in the US the government can now force companies that owe more than 90% of their debt to pay it off in three years. This is because the government thinks that they can make companies less profitable and more profitable long-term if they get their debt restructured.
It seems like a lot of people are looking for the ultimate tool in debt restructurization — the government. But actually, the government might be the worst tool because it isn’t about making companies less profitable, it’s about making companies more profitable.
I wouldnt go so far as to say that companies arent more profitable, but they obviously are. But as an investor I dont think its right to say that companies arent important. They have to be. And they have to be profitable. So that means that the government has to take those interests into account in its decision to force the company to take these losses.
The government is the most likely reason of all for a company to go out of business. It would be the last thing a company would do to make it profitable. So the government has to make sure that its decisions are made with the interests of all stakeholders in mind.
The government is also the most likely reason a company has to fail in the future. So if a government is in charge, it has to make sure that the company it is taking on will make it profitable in the present. This would mean that the company is in a position where it can make a long-term decision on its future, and this is what the company plans to do. So it has to make sure that it will be in a position to be profitable in the future.
