Right. That's why I suggested Groupon be wound down, not that they continue operating at a loss but invest their cash differently.

This does raise an interesting question, though. There seem to be a lot of corporations out there that have no obvious reason for existing: minimal to negative profitability on a sustained basis, uninspiring business with little potential, and a long track record that doesn't suggest a turnaround is likely. Groupon is just one of many. Presumably in many cases, equity in these corporations is held primarily or even entirely by index funds. Why should such a company remain in business? By definition, if all your shareholders are indexers, there is not a single person alive who considers you an above-average investment. In a rational market, such a company would be wound down or the price of its shares would fall so low that it would be taken over by someone who believes he can do better. But the index funds create a sort of circular reasoning, or perhaps an isolated reality separated from outside feedback, allowing these zombies to keep living. A variant of this was covered by http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-22/index-funds..., but this seems like a more extreme case. Of course, Groupon's "institutional ownership", which includes various active and passive funds, pensions, endowments, etc. is only 65% per Google Finance. There are corporations with 100% and even >100% institutional ownership (i.e., there are a lot of non-institutional shorts). Why do they continue to exist, and what can be done to kill them off?