Corporations might want the money to invest in new material or build new plants, to expand and improve their operations, or because they want to grow big and grow now in order to keep ahead of competitors.

As a result, they cant wait, or dont want to wait, for the money to collect before they can invest. Taking on debt might be a strategic decision that a company takes without ever actually needing the money: its simply a route to develop faster .

To meet its financial needs, a company could ask a bank for a loan. could issue more stock. or could issue bonds. Each strategy has different advantages (there is also the strategy of operating at a higher level of sales, profit and efficiency, but of course this doesnt directly have to do with financial markets).

Borrowing from a bank

If you want to borrow all the money you need from one bank, the big question is if you want to borrow a lot, will the bank agree. and will it have the capital for that? An additional concern is that, in this context, the bank would be the only buyer. as a result it would hold a lot of power over the company.

Instead, with lots of “little bondholders”, as long as they don’t group together into one powerful voice, a company can power ahead with whatever it wants to do – whereas a bank is much more likely to put a company under more stringent scrutiny.

That is why a huge multinational like Nestlé might prefer to issue bonds instead, raising all the money it needs from thousands of people in very little time .

Selling more shares

If you want to issue more stock (that is, sell more shares), the problem is that is dilutes shareholder equity . In other words, it makes the share of each shareholder less valuable. If the company doesnt increase its capital, but only issues more shares, it means each share is worth less: if the size of the prize doesnt change, but the number of people partaking in it is higher, everybody will get a smaller slice of the pie .

This reduces the worth of each share: shareholders wouldnt be too happy with that, of course, and they are the ones who get to make the decisions, since shareholders vote in decisions that affect the company they own. So they are unlikely, save in some very special circumstances, to vote against their own interests – all the more so since, according to the law of supply and demand, more of the same product might cause its price to decline if demand remains the same.

Also, the company might not be interested in entering a relationship with people who will in effect become decision makers, for an indefinite length of time: shareholders become de facto owners of the company, and they enter a relationship with the company that could last as long as they dont sell their share.

Issuing bonds

Bondholders on the other hand are creditors. once the company has paid back its debt, their relationship to the company comes to an end. The company might prefer to just benefit from lenders money, for a definite amount of time, and would be ready to yield other advantages in return for the loan. Whats more, interest payments that the company would have to pay out regularly to its bondholders are tax-deductible .

This is interesting for potential bond buyers, for several reasons:

paying out interest on bonds is an obligation ; whereas paying out dividends to shareholders is optional.

if the company files for bankruptcy. bondholders, as creditors, are first in the “pecking order”. They are paid back first (if there is any money left), whereas shareholders might never be paid back at all.

But a shrewd investor might say Wait a minute this company needs more money because it is going for growth. Instead of buying this companys bonds, why dont I buy its shares. If this company grows, its shares will become more valuable, so I might be able to sell them in a few months or years time at a nice profit …

Indeed you could buy stocks, but you shouldnt disregard bonds, and this for several reasons: the stock price could fall and there is no guarantee that it would rise. whereas bonds still provide fixed income. So you might have a stock strategy on top of your bond strategy, but dont think stocks and bonds are competing financial products: they are complementary. They serve different objectives. The question is not Should I buy bonds, or should I buy stocks?, but What proportion of bonds and stocks do I want in my portfolio?

The first thing you might have thought of when I mentioned countries, would be the national debt that is used to fund the deficit. Indeed, this might be the most pressing financial need of several governments at the moment, and the one we hear about in the news all the time.

The recession has become synonymous with national deficit, as the expenses of governments have risen with the costs of the live register. while revenue dwindled since governments were taking in less tax.

And then there are less tragic reasons to borrow money and issue bonds a country or a local authority might have a particular project to fund .

It might be a project that will bring in revenue. and so will pay for itself: an airport that will charge airlines, shops and passengers to use it, a motorway with a toll system. etc.

Or it might be a project that is needed now, but will be funded by tax over time. you might want to provide users with better infrastructure now and there simply isnt the time to wait for tax revenue to fill the gap.

Perhaps you remember the example of Laoiss growing population and the need to invest in roads. The government could issue general obligaton bonds to bring in money today and the money would be repaid with taxes collected over time, as the people living in Laois will continue to pay taxes in the form of Pay & Display parking. etc. In this case, bonds serve to smooth out cashflow .

Sign up for my monthly newsletter and get more content like this, learn about business opportunities, and never miss my Savvy podcast .