Not sure I agree with the urgency angle to this analysis. Sure, if sales and the influx of cash slows Apple will need that cash to pay off its bonds, but... 1.

Not sure I agree with the urgency angle to this analysis. Sure, if sales and the influx of cash slows Apple will need that cash to pay off its bonds, but... 1. There's no reason to believe that's going to happen anytime in the near to distant future. They are in the midst of a super upgrade cycle which figures to result in record profits again when they report in January and that growth is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. 2. Pulling the cash from overseas doesn't make sense simply because they can issue bonds at a far lower rate, practically zero, than what they would pay in repatriation. I'm not so sure if the repatriation rate were lowered permanently that they would even bring much back at all. If it were a one-time benefit, then sure. If/when they need cash they can hold their nose and pay the tax rate, but I would argue that the market has already priced the supposed tax penalty into the share price. To put it another way, if they were granted a one-time repatriation rate far below what they would be forced to pay currently, you would see the share price jump because that is effectively adding billions of cash to their balance sheet from the federal government's. 3. Going back to the first point, if sales did slump they would probably need the cash anyway with or without the bond issuances. Hoarding enormous piles of cash to avoid taxes is a luxury of the few extraordinarily profitable international companies of the world, not those that have diminishing sales.