It's a complex question that affects GOIG, but thanks for asking:
Not all debt is equal and not all debt is "bad", depends on what it's used for, the way the debt is paid and how it's secured.
Some debt is secured against assets, some is unsecured.
First issue is to determine what value an asset has. Look at the recent collapse in the housing market: Many milions of homes were worth much less than the prices people paid for them. Doesn't make those houses worthless, but it does make them worth less. Not so good if you're the party lending against a secure asset.
Second issue is debt needs to be serviced. Someone has to pay the bill (shareholders or revenue generation or new loans to rollover old loans etc).
Third issue is how the debt is used: To generate productive assets (develop new services for revenue generation for example) or to pay the CEO a large salary.
Fourth issue: Is the debt level sustainable or is it getting too large to service under the current arrangements.
I don't see any negative in GOIG carrying debt, or debt in general. Debt has allowed the US to grow and has been a factor in the amount of innovation over decades. I do see a negative when the CEO is paid a (relatively) huge salary and GOIG doesn't generate sufficient revenue to service the debt it's accumulating (Add-On Exchange doesn't generate real revenue, but Is going to add lots of new debt).
In a major sense my issue is more with GOIG shareholders (me) paying the bill through dilution than the debt. On a per share basis that means GOIG's price falls and the GOIG "currency" is worth that much less going forward.
As a shareholder I want to knowing I'm buying GOIG on December 20, 2010 and by December 20, 2011 it will be worth x% more. I don't see that with massive dilution (not per se the debt itself but more the way the debt is accumulating and who is paying for it).
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
