In the case of the big publicly traded companies, I have been assuming that this was simply a way to securitize the large overseas cash holdings in these compan

In the case of the big publicly traded companies, I have been assuming that this was simply a way to securitize the large overseas cash holdings in these companies. If the stock market values the overseas cash holdings as though they were local reserves, then the companies can effectively pay some of their biggest expenses (local employees' salary) with the investor's collective belief in the overseas money. A strictly rational market might price the book value of that cash at its face value, less the tax burden of moving it to where it would be used. But I don't think they are being rational overall: The potential future tax liability is not counted as a liability, and the company's management is also being given a multiplier as a reward for keeping all that cash (ex, trusting Alphabet/Facebook/Apple as investment firms of sorts, expecting returns greater than the investor's next best alternative). That's really weird to me, since I would expect that to count as a discount against the company for holding onto it as opposed to paying some of it back to the investors through dividends. The net effect is that means that it costs the company somewhat less to pay its people in stock than in cash.