This paper examines debt and equity financing strategies for three major American companies — Campbell's Soup, Goodyear, and Hewlett-Packard — to determine the optimal ratio of debt to equity financing given their respective market positions and economic circumstances. The paper begins by outlining the fundamental differences between debt financing, which preserves managerial control but increases financial obligations, and equity financing, which avoids debt but grants investors a degree of operational influence. It then applies these principles to each company, arguing that Campbell's strong fundamentals support a higher debt load, Goodyear's exposure to economic cycles calls for a moderate debt ratio, and Hewlett-Packard's recent instability makes equity financing the more viable path.
The paper demonstrates applied comparative analysis: it establishes a theoretical framework in the opening sections and then uses that framework as a lens to evaluate real-world cases. Each company section references the same set of variables — economic stability, product price sensitivity, debt capacity, and investor appeal — ensuring that the comparisons are methodologically consistent rather than ad hoc.
The paper opens with a brief framing of the financing problem, then dedicates two sections to defining debt and equity financing respectively. The final three sections apply these definitions to Campbell's Soup, Goodyear, and Hewlett-Packard in turn. Each company section reaches a distinct recommendation, with the degree of debt financing recommended decreasing as company stability decreases — from Campbell's (high debt acceptable) to Goodyear (moderate) to HP (equity preferred). The conclusion is embedded within the HP section rather than standing alone.
While there are general rules that each company can rely on to help determine the best strategies for financing its short-term and long-term goals, each company must ultimately make financing decisions based on its specific needs and market position.
Companies exist to make money. However, in order to create the products or services with which they earn revenue, companies must also bring in money before the point of sale. Building up an inventory requires money — or other forms of capital — and no company can succeed unless it has a well-thought-out strategy for financing both its ongoing expenses and any extraordinary long-term expenses, such as building a new factory.
Balancing long- and short-term goals is difficult enough, especially given how volatile the overall economic marketplace can be. What makes decisions about how to design a company's financing mix even more difficult is that each company has a particular mixture of debt and equity financing that will serve it best at any given moment.
This mixture is determined by overall market conditions, the position the company holds in its particular market, the history of the company (including such factors as whether it is a start-up), how closely the company's finances are held (i.e., whether it is publicly traded), and the nature of its product — including whether it is seasonal, whether it is highly subject to fluctuations in demand, and whether it contains aspects that are likely to affect its long-term profitability and stability. This paper examines three important American companies — Campbell's Soup, Goodyear, and Hewlett-Packard — to determine what ratio of debt financing to equity financing is best suited to each given current market conditions.
Before discussing the specific strategies that each company should consider, it is important to outline the two basic options a company has for financing its operations. (This assumes that the company is operating under normal conditions and is not an exceptional case such as a vanity project.) The first basic way in which a company can finance itself is through borrowing money — that is, through the process of acquiring debt. This is the same process that individuals use when borrowing money to pay for a mortgage or a new car.
There are both advantages and disadvantages to a company going into debt to fund its operations. When a bank, individual, or other entity lends to a company, company officials are relatively free to do what they want with the money. While they will be prohibited from doing anything illegal and will generally have made an agreement with the lender regarding the purpose of the funds — a plant expansion, for example, or a new IT system — a lender does not gain any managerial or operational control over the company.
This is analogous to the way a person is affected when she takes out a car loan. The lender may require the borrower to carry car insurance so that there is a way to repay the loan in the event of an accident; however, the lender cannot dictate what color car she buys or what radio stations she listens to. So long as the borrower repays the money according to the agreed schedule, the borrower retains a very high degree of freedom in terms of how the money is used (Peavler, 2011).
This is the major advantage of acquiring debt to fund a company: it provides needed capital without granting the lender control over the company's direction. However, there are also notable disadvantages. As a company becomes increasingly indebted, it can become a target for takeover by another company. Additionally, a company carrying a high level of debt will have less financial flexibility and may be forced to make relatively conservative decisions that it would not otherwise need to make (Damodaran, 2005).
The other major way in which companies can finance their activities is through equity financing. This can be seen as a mirror image of debt financing: under this system, the company does not take on debt. Instead, an individual or institution provides money to the company in exchange for an ownership stake. This is what venture capitalists and angel investors do. This strategy allows the company to avoid going into debt, relieving it of the disadvantages described above.
However, while equity financing allows a company to avoid debt, it is not without its own limitations. When a company allows an investor to acquire equity, that person or institution also gains a say in how the company is run. This can be a mutually beneficial relationship, but it also has the potential to become a source of significant conflict (Peavler, 2011).
So what is the best strategy for each of the three companies under consideration? Each company has significant strengths, but the degree of strength is not equal among them (Harvey, 1995). Campbell's Soup Company is a well-established company with a history of strong sales. It is affected by seasonal fluctuations to some extent — people living in the desert Southwest are less likely to eat soup in August than in December — but the range of products the company sells is in demand throughout the year.
Moreover, a company that sells moderately priced food is well positioned to weather even serious economic downturns. As consumers eat out less during a recession, they are likely to turn to prepared foods they can eat at home, thus guaranteeing a strong market for Campbell's. A company with such strong fundamentals can sustain a higher debt load without being significantly weakened by it, while at the same time avoiding the complications associated with equity financing.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.