Looking at the recent history of economics as reflected in the automotive industry, one pattern is clear. Companies that focus more on products and profit are able to survive hard times better than companies that focus more on Share Value.
The most dramatic example is Studebaker vs Nash. Both were about the same size in the 30s, with cars in the same mid-priced range. Studebaker paid shareholders first, constantly acquired other companies, and went bankrupt in 1933. Nash improved its factories first, avoided debts, and survived until 1987 with only a few losing years.
The reason for the distinction is plain. Hard times are made by Wall Street. 1907, 1929, 1973, 2000, 2008. All made by Wall Street to benefit the investors who created the crash. If your main goal is satisfying the shareholders, you’re fully dependent on the whims of investors.
When I ask why companies choose the product route vs the stock market route, the answer is not clear. Some of the non-stock types (Nash, Chrysler) were founded by men who had worked for GM and got tired of its stock shenanigans. They decided to run their own companies oppositely, based on savings instead of share offerings and debt. But other non-stock founders (Hudson, Ford) never worked for GM.
I guess the simplest answer is just personality.
People are different. Some enjoy bets and debts, some enjoy making things and collaborating with other makers.
Polistra's Mill 