On paper, Dana Incorporated just delivered one of the more impressive operational resets we’ve seen out of a legacy industrial company in years.

But Wall Street isn’t throwing a parade yet… and the reason is leverage.

Dana exited 2025 after doing most of the hard, unglamorous work:

This is the part management wants investors focused on: a slimmer portfolio, higher-margin contracts, and a $750M three-year new business backlog ~$200M of which hits in 2026.

The hesitation isn’t about execution so far. It’s about balance sheet math.

Even after paying down roughly $1.9B in debt, Dana is still a leveraged business with:

That combination explains why some analysts remain neutral despite improving margins. Dana doesn’t have the luxury of a prolonged downturn, a messy OEM cycle, or a stumble in cost execution. The company has less financial cushion than peers with lighter debt loads.

In other words: this is a company that needs the plan to keep working.

Strip away the headlines, and Dana’s real priority for 2026 is simple:

De-leveraging before the cycle turns.

Management has been explicit that proceeds from asset sales and operating improvements are being used to strengthen the balance sheet — not chase growth for growth’s sake. That’s why flat revenue with higher margins is being celebrated internally.

For investors, this is a “prove it” phase:

Here’s the local takeaway that gets lost in earnings calls:

Dana is choosing discipline over expansion; and doing it while staying headquartered in Maumee.

That signals:

This isn’t a company chasing headlines or flashy growth narratives. It’s a company trying to earn its valuation back the hard way.

Dana’s reset is real and so is the scrutiny.

The company has bought itself credibility with execution. Now it needs to buy flexibility with debt reduction. If margins hold and leverage keeps coming down, the skepticism fades fast. If not, the balance sheet will remain the limiting factor.

Either way, this is one of the most important companies to watch in Northwest Ohio in 2026; not because it’s flashy, but because it’s focused on execution.

When people talk about “Toledo” needing major investment, what they usually mean is the city proper. Yet in most conversations with people who do not live around here, Toledo refers to the broader northwest Ohio region: Sylvania, Holland, Maumee, Monclova, Whitehouse, Waterville, Bowling Green, Oregon, Ottawa Hills. In those places, growth is visible and accelerating. New neighborhoods are rising, restaurants are multiplying, businesses are opening and surviving, families are putting down roots.

The contrast is striking. If the region is growing, why does capital keep stopping at the city limits?

Part of the answer is narrative. Large regional media consistently frame Toledo proper as a place defined by decline. Opportunity is rarely centered. Momentum is treated as the exception. Capital follows signals, and the signal being sent is clear. If Toledo is the product, it is being marketed in a way that repels buyers rather than attracts them.

But narrative alone is not the core problem. The deeper issue is that private capital has not been intentionally organized, invited, or structured to invest in the city.

If Toledo proper wants outside capital to move back in, it has to operate the way investable cities do. That means being explicit about where capital fits, how risk is shared, and what success looks like. There are four practical levers that matter in my opinion:

First: Seed and early-stage investment.

Downtown Toledo lacks a visible venture and angel investment pipeline. Outside investors see no deal flow and move on. The fix is straightforward. Create a Toledo-focused angel network made up of local high-net-worth individuals, alumni, and business owners willing to make small, frequent investments in early-stage companies. Pair private capital with limited city co-investment or tax incentives to reduce early risk. Fund two or three high-visibility startup pilots downtown and let success do the signaling. Capital does not follow hope. It follows proof.

Second: Real estate and mixed-use development.

Developers choose the suburbs because risk is clearer and execution is predictable. Toledo can change that by structuring small-scale co-investment vehicles that allow multiple investors to share risk on downtown housing, retail, and adaptive reuse projects. Pick one or two blocks and execute them exceptionally well. Successful streets market themselves far better than planning documents ever will.

Third: Corporate and institutional capital deployment.

Major employers in the region continue to expand outside the city because it is easier, not because the city lacks potential. Corporate venture partnerships, downtown innovation hubs, and employee-linked investments in housing or training can redirect a portion of that capital inward. When companies invest where their talent lives, capital compounds locally.

Fourth: Narrative and information as capital.

Investors avoid what they do not understand. Toledo needs a clear, factual capital playbook that maps opportunity zones, incentives, successful case studies, and the people who can execute. Pair that with small, curated investor roundtables held downtown and publicize outcomes, not aspirations. When information improves, perception follows.

None of these ideas are theoretical. They are standard practice in cities that compete for capital and win.

The money is already flowing into northwest Ohio. Toledo’s challenge is not scarcity. It is structure, signaling, and leadership. If the city wants private capital, it must stop asking for belief and start offering opportunity that capital recognizes.