6 ms·

I don't see anything wrong with Apple maintaining this much cash, it has serious strategic (albeit unquantifiable) value. Who could outbid them if they saw a se

I don't see anything wrong with Apple maintaining this much cash, it has serious strategic (albeit unquantifiable) value. Who could outbid them if they saw a serious opportunity? One of the best ways to maintain a strong lead is to have the cash necessary to dispose of the competition at will. What's the alternative, bankrolling dipshit* startups as an expensive way of handling recruiting ala Google? *I jest, don't freak out and get into yet another argument with me, I beg you.

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Oh I 100% agree with you. I think the idea in the financial press/industry that a cash stash like this must always be put to work earning some measurable ROI is short-sighted, fallacious, herdish-thinking, and completely blind to the fact that by not risking it, Apple is making an unmeasurable but valuable return. It is insurance, a hedge against uncertainty and the worst case scenario, a psychological edge where they never have to worry about losing the company and can focus their attention and energy elsewhere (invaluable imho). With Foreclosuregate clearly demonstrating that the US banking system is still in tatters even after trillions in Govt. stimulus and Fed backstops, and QE2 and international currency wars coming up, I could go on and on about the invaluable but unmeasurable ROI of conservative management of that stash in volatile times. In a nutshell, not losing money is often a better strategy than chasing returns. It may not be 'actionable', but it is wise. I just meant by my comment to point out that the article doesn't argue for one position or the other, but seems to fairly cover the basic arguments of both. Judging by the title, I thought it was going to make a case for Apple seeking higher risk/return, but it didn't.