[JumpCrisscross]

> Toys R Us was profitable before it was bought

“In 2004, after years of flat sales and falling profits, the Toys R Us board of directors put the company up for sale” [1]. Then, over “the next five years, sales at Amazon quadrupled to $34 billion”.

Toys ‘R’ Us was bought as meagre profits fell and right before Amazon went for them. Blaming this outcome on the debt load is inaccurate.

[1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketplace.org/amp/2018/03...

[HappyRobot]

The article you reference blames the debt load.

> To compete, Toys R Us would have had to invest significantly in its website and stores. But the retailer was using most of its available cash to pay back its debt.

Yes, profits were falling crazily, but the company was still profitable. Without the debt load, they could've spent some time losing money while they pivot to a new business strategy. The debt load really prevented them from trying anything except surviving as long as they could.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they could've spent some time losing money while they pivot to a new business strategy

There is zero evidence, in the history of Toys 'R' Us or their failed competitors, that another strategy would have worked. More likely? It would have limped along until the next recession. In any case, I see no reason to blame capital structure when a simpler explanation abounds: Amazon taught people to buy toys online.