Talk:Capital structure

message: the most buck for its bang
:Is it not the other way?--Jerryseinfeld 09:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the langauge a lot, the articles should contain more "buck for its bang", "screw up", "get out of here".--Jerryseinfeld 09:57, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: What's the best way to determine your company's capital structure? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.98.179 (talk • contribs) 
:Do you mean calculating the existing structure? Or calculating what might be the optimal structure? Ewlyahoocom 17:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital Structure 

message: what does financial structure mean, total debt / total asset, or long term debt / total asset? And if short term debt debt is included, then are account payables also included? Jackzhp (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: unclear definition or unadressed trivial thing

message: The first sentence, as is still the case with many Wikipedia articles, assumes this article is about the words 'capital structure'. Which is an incorrect assumption.
I'm changing the first sentence from starting with 'In finance, capital structure refers to', so it instead says 'In finance, capital structure is'. And I encourage everyone to edit other article introductions where this somewhat tiresome mistake is discovered. --62.16.186.44 (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The popular use/mention error 

message: Greetings Wikipedians! It looks like there has been no activity this talk page in over five years. Anyway, I deleted the statement "A firm's capital structure is the composition or structure of its liabilities" because it is technically incorrect. Equity is part of a firm's capital structure, but it is not a liability. This is evident in the basic accounting equation "Assets = liabilities plus equity," which I'm confident holds true in every industry despite the many differences in how companies structure their balance sheets. I've adjusted the first sentence in the article to correct this. This is part of a larger effort to improve the article by adding more citations to reliable sources and improve verifiability.Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect statement

message: Most of the text is concerned with Miller/Modigliani and "relaxing assumptions" about their theory. How about some text about the practical issues financial executives and corporate board members wrestle with? Such as a) Finding the right capital structure for the business; b) risks involved in too much leverage; benefits swamped by investor concern over the company's risk profile; c) rating agencies' scrutiny of capital structure. These things should be presented as real-world problems, not just discussed in the framework of a theory that says capital structure makes no difference. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk)
::Since writing the above message I have endeavored to expand the article with respect to the practical issues outlined above, with citations for verifiability. Seems to me there's still undue space devoted to the Miller/Modigliani and related schools of thought, but I guess the academic side of this is important to someone so I left those sections intact. BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Too academic

message: Voice 124.123.178.87 (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Components of capital structure