Companies share price matters to shareholders and implies an ability to raise additional capital. It doesn’t have anything to do with solvency unless they borrowed money to buy back shares (which some companies did do when interest rates were low and share prices were depressed). Employees on stock incentive plans probably are eating the burden more than anyone.
While it's true that there is no direct link between share price and solvency, share price is the market's valuation of the company. This is very much impacted by the (future) profitability and the solvency of the company.
If the market thinks the company won't be able to make a lot of profit, or the market thinks the company is approaching insolvency, the share price will tank.
In other words, falling share price is not a cause of insolvency, it can be an indicator for it. The share price quite literally is the market value of the company.
The share price reflected the company’s state, but the share price didn’t induce the companies state. Debt and obligations were what brought down Lehman, not the stock price. (Well, not directly - if the stock had been worth a lot they could have raised capital… but just like their credit spreads blowing out, their stock price drop made capital raising impossible)
Of course it does. If a stock goes to $0, the company is essentially insolvent. Sure there are details of timing -- insolvency isn't exactly the same as bankruptcy isn't exactly the same as a stock price of $0 -- but in practice they all tend to go together and the company as a going concern owned by present investors is effed.
I’m sorry, you’re just wrong. While share price generally correlated to the market investors view of future value there’s no direct relationship between equity valuation and corporate performance in any way whatsoever, other than the ability to raise additional capital. Once the equity has been sold in the primary issuance it’s only relationship to the corporation is an ownership claim and a weak claim on assets.
I literally said they're not exactly the same. But in practice, if the share price is $0, it's because the company is generally unable to pay its bills for long and bankruptcy is imminent. If the market thinks a company has zero value, the company is unlikely to survive for long, unless some miracle proves the market wrong.
Splitting hairs over these technicalities is important for lawyers and analysts and management and in bankruptcy court, but not terribly important in the larger view. In the larger view, market cap via share price is a very practical reflection of the overall health/viability of a publicly traded company.
See the parallel comment about Lehman. Share price was fine. Company wasn’t. Only once it was public the company was effectively dead did the shares fall. They are unrelated.
But it’s also not splitting hairs. It’s important to realize that equity price has no bearing on the company itself. You’re talking about something different than what was being discussed. You’re saying share price is correlated to expectation of company performance. What was being discussed was company performance is related to share price. One direction is true but the other isn’t. Companies see their valuations fall for all sorts of reasons that are not reflected in actual performance. Thats often because of a hype cycle that deflates, or maybe a scandal involving an executive, or whatever. This fall in valuation doesn’t impair the company in the least, except for if they need to raise capital by issuing equity.
May companies get delisted, which effectively brings their share price to the penny stock levels. They sometimes resurface and relist. Companies also can do certain corporate actions that make their stock basically worthless. The key is that while a stocks price sometimes corresponds to actual performance, actual performance is never impacted by stock price.
Stock markets are secondary markets. When you buy or sell Meta stock no money flows in or out of Meta. If Meta don't want to raise more capital, which they don't, ... their stock price means nothing to them until the shareholders revolt and vote for change (except they can't in Meta's case, since Zuck has total control).
There’s a technical detail here to note though. To management the share price actually does matter because they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder returns, and the board even more so. So while it’s true equity has no bearing on current operations, current operations does have to consider share price.
Well, it does exist but it’s premise is twisted and unclear. Dodge v Ford established such a duty exists but over time (as discussed in the article you linked) it’s been interpreted as a duty to the long benefit of shareholders. Dodge v Ford hinges on the fact Ford stopped paying dividends to pay his workers and that it was an enrichment of the employees at the expense of the equity holder. That’s been twisted around but never fully dismissed or accepted. But you can see shareholder value lawsuits all the time. However it’s a common law civil duty, not like a financial manager fiduciary responsibility that can bear criminal teeth.
