3 ms·

The conversation came up because I was trying to fathom why a company would sit on billions of dollars when they could make more billions with it They already

The conversation came up because I was trying to fathom why a company would sit on billions of dollars when they could make more billions with it They already are, in the cheapest, riskless way possible: those massive cash stashes are sustaining, or even boosting, their valuations. When a company grows too big, it's in its best interest, as in investors best interest, not to spend a few billions on an initiative that could lead nowhere.

abundant 8y ago
I think the point was not that a company like Apple ought to invest their billions into ongoing fusion research, indeed the exact opposite: it might be more rational for a company like Apple to hide their billions under a mattress, so that they can make a single, economy-controlling investment on the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  on the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital. Wouldn't that be too late? Or, put it this way: it is already a problem of capital. If you have enough, you can explore all technology tree branches till finding the one that leads you to it, even in parallel.
  - philipkglass 8y ago
    There's no guarantee that any of the technology tree branches have profitable fusion power in them. I'm reasonably confident that controlled fusion with net energy gain is technologically possible. Determining whether it can be profitable is a lot harder. Profitability depends on what every other competitor can do, as well as what your own technology can do. That's why extremely well-proven technologies like coal-fired electrical generators can become unprofitable when competing technologies improve. If there were a global carbon tax, it would give fusion an advantage against fossil fuels, but that would also be to the advantage of fission and renewables. In the absence of a global carbon tax, is fusion going to be cheap enough to displace fossil fueled power? We've had the technology for emissions-free electricity for decades, but it's difficult to profitably compete with fossil-based generators enjoying unpriced externalities.
ChuckMcM 8y ago
Ah but cash is dangerous, in a proxy fight it can be used to fund a leveraged buyout. Harder to do with various share classes restricting voting rights but even so. Consider SpaceX, its a growing business that took what, 10 billion in capital? That is below the 'material' threshold for some of these companies holding 100 to 300 billion dollars in cash equivalents.

abundant 8y ago

I think the point was not that a company like Apple ought to invest their billions into ongoing fusion research, indeed the exact opposite: it might be more rational for a company like Apple to hide their billions under a mattress, so that they can make a single, economy-controlling investment on the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital.

bassman9000 8y ago
on the very same day that profitable fusion power becomes merely a problem of capital. Wouldn't that be too late? Or, put it this way: it is already a problem of capital. If you have enough, you can explore all technology tree branches till finding the one that leads you to it, even in parallel.
- philipkglass 8y ago
  There's no guarantee that any of the technology tree branches have profitable fusion power in them. I'm reasonably confident that controlled fusion with net energy gain is technologically possible. Determining whether it can be profitable is a lot harder. Profitability depends on what every other competitor can do, as well as what your own technology can do. That's why extremely well-proven technologies like coal-fired electrical generators can become unprofitable when competing technologies improve. If there were a global carbon tax, it would give fusion an advantage against fossil fuels, but that would also be to the advantage of fission and renewables. In the absence of a global carbon tax, is fusion going to be cheap enough to displace fossil fueled power? We've had the technology for emissions-free electricity for decades, but it's difficult to profitably compete with fossil-based generators enjoying unpriced externalities.

ChuckMcM 8y ago

Ah but cash is dangerous, in a proxy fight it can be used to fund a leveraged buyout. Harder to do with various share classes restricting voting rights but even so. Consider SpaceX, its a growing business that took what, 10 billion in capital? That is below the 'material' threshold for some of these companies holding 100 to 300 billion dollars in cash equivalents.