Executive SummaryTraditionally Gainesboro had been able to maintain its position as an industry leader in theCAD/CAM market. The case illustrates how increased market entry and competition can create adilemma for companies and put downward pressure on earnings. The result is that if a companylike Gainesboro is to have a fighting chance they must be innovative and come up with productsthat not only challenge there competitors but set them apart so they can once again be thepowerhouse they once were. The ability to accomplish a competitive advantage does not solelylie in innovation but on a company’s ability to structure itself correctly. Gainesboro’s task atreinventing itself should include the corporate image advertising campaign and the residual-dividend payout policy. To be successful Gainesboro needs to signal to the market that the knowwhat business they are in and communicated what that is effectively, the also must maintaincontrol over cashflows by controlling dividend payout and boosting revenues through productinnovation etc.Questions1. In theory, to fund an increased dividend payout or a stock buyback, a firm mightinvest less, borrow more, or issue more stock. Which of those three elements isGainesboro’s management willing to vary, and which elements remain fixed as amatter of the company’s policy?It is clear that Gainesboro, as a matter of company priority wants to increase per sharevalue to shareholders. It is also quite clear the company’s goal is to pay a dividend (this ishighlighted throughout the case and in Gainesboro’s letter to shareholders stating theintend to resume the dividend payout in 2005. Another issue that is clear aboutGainesboro is that the organizational culture is one that is adverse to debt. The cap thecompany has imposed is 40%; this means the debt to equity ratio is never to exceed thispercentage. In 2004 when the company had to borrow funds externally in order to pay adividend the debt level rose to 22% and the case indicates that it was an issue discussedoften in meetings and is still a issue of discussion among the company’s older executives.In light of the company’s sensitivity to debt (fixed element) I deem it an unlikely sourceof funds to finance the 2005 dividend they promised. Although a 2005 dividend was