4 ms·

Plus some companies (which will remain unnamed) are unable to use cash parked overseas for US purposes. But they can borrow against it at low interest rates for

Plus some companies (which will remain unnamed) are unable to use cash parked overseas for US purposes. But they can borrow against it at low interest rates for capital.

JKCalhoun 9y ago
> are unable to use cash parked overseas for US purposes "Unable."
- abritinthebay 9y ago
  Unable without incurring costs that make Bonds/Loans vastly more economical. The US situation with repatriation is silly. I’m all for some level of taxation but right now it provides a negative incentive due to interest rates.
Analemma_ 9y ago
Apple and Microsoft, for those wondering.
- Fezzik 9y ago
  really, it is any US company that earns substantial assets abroad that avoids (at present) repatriating the money. GE, Pfizer, Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, Google, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, McDonald's... they all have billions in offshore profits that they stash. But I imagine the Apple was the implied company.
  - lorenzorhoades 9y ago
    What would be the economic implications of changing US policy to allow Stateside based companies to bring back overseas capital at treasury rate tax costs? I can't really fathom the implications here cause i'm not to privy on the economic theory behind this. Obviously their would be some kind of inflation due to all the money that would flood into the US market, but that would be good for all the corporations with stock, resulting in more money inflooding. But the investment in US based industry would receive a considerable boost, which would be potentially good. I don't really see a downside here, so why does current economic policy dictate such a punishing tax cost to bring overseas cash into the stateside market again?