Kresnik said:
You said they could sell off more buildings and that would be fine for them, but their buildings are their assets. They don't get more money by selling them. They just turn a fixed asset into a liquid asset which they can use to pay off a liability by selling them. So by comparing 155b in assets vs. 124b in liabilities, you're effectively saying that those assets are enough to cover all liabilities. And as Soundwave says, assets on balance sheets can be recorded higher than their actual value, so realising them through sale might mean that the asset value of the company goes down. And of course, if liabilities ever exceed assets then the company is technically insolvent, because they literally don't have enough money to pay off all their debts. 8b cash in hand compared to 124b liabilities is a drop in the water. (Of course, 124b in debt isn't going to need to be paid all in one go, but in theory there always needs to be enough money in existence to cover anything they would owe) |
I know how they work. I didn't want to go too off topic because of warnings from other mods. Since you are replying I'm assuming it's fine? I was just going off of how much they can sell and with the cash on hand they have. They could survive for around 20 more years at the loses they have been getting the past 8 years without going under with those factors. It was poorly worded and I didn't explain enough.
