Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Microsoft and Google Hold 23% Of All US Corporate Cash Outside the Finance Sector (geekwire.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Apple, Microsoft, and Google are the top three cash-rich U.S. companies across all sectors of business, not including banks and other financial institutions -- holding a combined $391 billion in cash as of the end of 2015, or more than 23 percent of the entire $1.68 trillion held by the nation's non-financial corporations. Apple leads the pack with $215.7 billion in cash, followed by Microsoft at $102.6 billion, and Google at $73.1 billion. The numbers are documented in a new report from Moody's Investors Service that shows an unprecedented concentration of cash in the tech sector. For the first time, the top five companies on the Moody's cash ranking are tech companies, with Cisco and Oracle following Apple, Microsoft, and Google. Technology companies overall held $777 billion in cash, or 46 percent of the total cash across all non-financial industries.
They should buy a country and funnel all profits to that. All these pesky tax havens being made illegal.
Why not include the financial sector in this analysis?
Because Apple, Microsoft, and Google would only hold 2% of all US corporate cash, and we would feel bad for them.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
That's not how it works. The economy ground to a halt because money was too easy to get and people borrowed way more than they could afford (mostly on houses), which drove up a bubble, cramped credit, and combined with other factors (like huge international competition for things that the US never used to have to compete for) to impact the entire economy. The companies you're complaining about are doing exactly what most households are now doing: saving money so they don't get burned again by relying on debt. Want those companies to park money in US banks instead of overseas? Reduce the egregious tax rate.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Are there any longer term data on the nature of their cash holdings -- ie, has this amount increased over time or is it fairly static?
I'm also curious about the economic impact of cash hoarding like this. Presumably having this much capital tied up in short-term non-working assets is suboptimal in a macroeconomic sense.
My understanding is that it mostly gets parked in high liquidity accounts and instruments, and that even banks have begun charging negative interest rates on large deposits because the short term nature and liquidity demands prevent them from being able to use it as capital.
I'm also curious how shareholders feel about this. It would seem kind of obnoxious for a corporation to hoard cash that could be paid out as dividends. Obviously some amount of cash (even relatively large) is a good idea for future investments and acquisitions, but maybe not at the levels shown here.
In the USA, there was never a 90% tax rate on corporate profits, even if you consider the double taxation on dividends. Besides, these are cash holdings, meaning that the companies already paid their f***ing taxes in the process of acquiring the cash.
These companies aren't obstructing economic growth. The Federal Reserve has effectively destroyed the interest rates on cash and cash equivalents for the express purpose of forcing people into more risky investments. If there were positive returns to be had by increasing capacity or making new investments, these companies would most certainly be taking advantage of them. It's not like there's a surplus of new and promising business ventures out there which are starved for cash.
Government policy has ground this economy to a halt by rewarding "financialization" and trying to cure a debt-based recession by doing everything possible to increase outstanding debt.
> When a Google gets "burned", that means potentially the stockholders end up moving from rich to slightly less rich. For the middle class, "burned" means
Those damn stockholders, rich people saving up tthousands of dollars in their 401k. Fuck them. They don't need to retire, to have hundreds of thousands of dollars when they're 72. Tax the hell out them, they can eat dog food when they're old.
You're attempting to draw a distinction between "stockholders" and "middle class". You're missing the fact that "stockholder" means "everyone over 30 who has half a clue". Stockholders ARE the middle class, all middle-class people who aren't ignorant or irresponsible invest for retirement. One day, not too long from now, you'll be old, 60,70,80 years old. You won't be able to work like you do in your twenties. That means you'll need enough savings to last you for 20 years or so - a million dollars or more. How the hell do you save up a million dollars so you can eat and pay bills for 20 years when your retired? You put the first 10%-15% of your income into mutual funds while you're working; you become a stockholder.