> Couldn't it transform into a high-dividend company?

This is cigarette-butt investing. It ignores terminal value. If the terminal value is already close to zero, it's the right move, an orderly wind-down and re-allocation of assets. If there is terminal value, it's a pillaging. Cases like these, where the terminal value starts looking more theoretical than practical, are how those incentives shift.

What happens in the situation where there isn't a "terminal" point for a company?

Coca-Cola has no reason to "terminate" itself, so why shouldn't it distribute profit excess to its operating requirements back to shareholders?

The terminal point doesn't necessarily have to apply for the company, or even the financial asset based on the company.

There is an simple model in finance [1] that collapses an infinitely growing stream of cash flows into a finite present value. So to your example of coca-cola, even if you assume they will exist and distribute growing profits forever, you can still find a terminal value.

[1]: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/va...