The common characteristic of all negative covenants is ensuring that the issuer will not take any actions that would significantly reduce its ability to make interest payments and repay the principal. Bondholders, however, rarely wish to be too specific about how an issuer should run its business because doing so would imply a degree of control that bondholders legally want to avoid. In addition, very restrictive covenants may not be in the bondholders’ best interest if they force the issuer to default when default is avoidable. For example, strict restrictions on debt may prevent the issuer from raising new funds that are necessary to meet its contractual obligations; strict restrictions on asset disposals may prohibit the issuer from selling assets or business units and obtaining the necessary liquidity to make interest payments or principal repayments; and strict restrictions on mergers and acquisitions may prevent the issuer from being taken over by a stronger company that would be able to honor the issuer’s contractual obligations.