Microsoft's $40 Billion On Hand

eMilkshake writes "CNN/Money magazine report here that Microsoft has more liquid reserves than 'Ford, ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart have combined' and 'enough to buy the entire airline industry -- twice. Or all the gold in Fort Knox, four times over. It is enough to buy 23 space shuttles or every major professional baseball, basketball, football and hockey team in America.' This is thanks to (according to WinInfo Update) the fact that 'Microsoft handles its investments with an inhouse software application called--seriously--the Catastrophe Hedging Program 2.5.' I wonder what I would do with $40 billion?"

Comments

Illegal to Have That Much On Hand

[loggia]

Did you know that it is illegal for a public company to have that much on hand and not pay dividends to shareholders?

Apparently there is some murkiness to get around this for Microsoft. The reason they don't want to pay dividends are the huge tax implications for those that are own massive amounts of stock (read: Bill Gates, Steve Balmer...)

Makes you want to puke

[ScooterComputer]

This article makes me sick. I used to be rather anti-capitalist. Then I went on a personal crusade, reading Smith, Marx, Keynes, and, most recently, Schumpeter...I realized that much of what I THOUGHT I knew about Capitalism was incorrect. I also realized that most of what OTHERS THOUGHT about Capitalism was wrong. After my readings I came to appreciate Capitalism, but also to loathe it--primarily because one of the most basic tenets is that the consumer MUST make CONSISTENTLY INTELLIGENT purchasing decisions. And I feel that it is far too easy in today's mega-adverstising, high-incentive, low-intellect environment to expect that. In short, big companies (including the government) have found success far simpler to attain by buying off the intelligence of the consumer. And the result is companies like Microsoft.

Let's look at this company for a short second...it certainly didn't have any where NEAR $40B in the bank in 1995, just prior to Win95 being released. Win 3.1 pretty much ruled the roost; and IBM was desperately trying to released the stranglehold that MS had over them due to the (favorable) DOS licensing. Microsoft was very powerful, but at that time Office hadn't yet driven EVERY OTHER competitor out of the market, and the Internet wars hadn't even kicked up yet. But there is one indisputable fact: the trend had been well established in the American (nee World) consumer mind that Intel/Microsoft was a standard and compatibility with that system was absolutely mandatory.

So, 7 years later, Microsoft made Bill Gates the richest guy around, had TONS of cash sitting in banks, runs competitors into the dirt, and basically laughed off US Gov't legal action--several times! This has to be about as clear as it gets that Capitalism as we understand it is an incomplete model. Previously in history, mega-wealth like this was built on the backs of slaves--the railroads, for instance. But not Gates'. There were no slaves...merely consumers. One could argue that this is truly "Capitalism at its best!" for certainly it was Capitalism that provided Gates with such wealth. Only that is a short sighted thought, considering it is Capitalism that ALSO states that in such a market competitors should have been clamoring to compete! And I REFUSE to believe that DOS/Win3.1/Win32 was absolutely the best, most marketable product during that period...okay, it may have been the best, but was it "97% of the market" best? I just don't believe so--I mean look how quickly Linux has stormed the scene. Are we to assume that NO ONE else but Microsoft was so astute at making operating systems until some kid sat down at his PC? Something just DOESN'T make sense here.

So what dynamic about Capitalism are we missing? What overlooked problem could explain a seemingly complete breakdown of basic competition? Or, can it be explained with what we already know? Personally, I look at Microsoft's accounting tactics. But of course they really didn't start until AFTER a pretty good amount of money had been made. I then look at the role of the US Government in making Billy G. a gazillionaire...after all, think of all those government agencies sending YOUR tax dollars to Redmond. Of course the relationship doesn't end there--military contractors would conform their systems to the Gov'ts, and state and local gov'ts would do the same. It is nearly like a viral chain of Microsoft infection. And all the while, we were supporting government research that could have/should have been capable of creating an open source operating system.

So is it the infamous Keynesian "invisible hand" run amok that created this? Does any one have a GOOD idea as to how much money Microsoft has profited (taking into account the top-down, hierarchial spread of influence) off the US Government since 1990?

Given my newfound respect for the dynamism and aggressiveness of true Capitalism, I refuse to call Bill Gates a Capitalistic success story...to do so would be to forever sully the greatness of the fair-market system.