Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Well, this is very interesting. Given what just occurred, I think it's likely that Ballmer did not get fired. Instead, he appears to have bitten the bullet by resigning earlier than he wanted and giving ValueAct board seats in order to lessen any ammunition they might use (or gather) to torpedo the NOK deal. Good for Ballmer -- he has always tried to do what's good for MSFT, and has been made a scapegoat by the media and by activist investors like Einhorn. As to the acquisition itself, it makes sense. It is a concession that the OS provider/OEM hardware partnership model is not working for Windows Phone because of the Android threat. I don't think it will drive the most important OEM partners away from MSFT. A lot of the vendors have been putting out both Android and Windows devices out there, having much more success with Android. And the guys who are remaining Windows shops (I think Dell might be the only pure Microsoft shop right now, while HP has a couple hybrids out there) have essentially stopped putting out phones. To the extent that Windows Phone market share is accelerated, that could help drive Windows on tablets and PCs. As to the price, MSFT had no choice but to pay that amount. NOK is worth more to MSFT than it is to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTEJD1997 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Wow: Just can't believe this. This is a prime example of the "bladder theory". A company will hold too much cash. The pressure on it's bladder to piss it away becomes unbearable.... This just makes absolutely no sense to me... Why would they buy Nokia? For the brand name? Nokia has not been hip or relevant since the 90's? Maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but not too much. Reports have it that MS is not going to use the Nokia name. For the O/S? I do not think this is the case. MS is going to use Windows Mobile. For the manufacturing capability? if so, this is foolish, there are TONS of Chinese contract manufacturers that will build whatever you want....cheaper than Nokia can do it. For the engineering talent? OK, this is the ONLY thing that makes even a lick of sense to me. However, how many people are going to jump ship? Couldn't MS just cherry pick and hire talent? All in all, I think this is going to be a HUGE mistake. I don't think I've ever actually seen ANYBODY using a MS phone in the wild. Majority are Apple Iphones, followed closely by Samsung. Then you've got a scraggly bunch of Android stuff, and then the odd Blackberry... If I were a MS shareholder, I would be FURIOUS. MS needs to shut down Bing, Xbox does not need any more subsidized losses, it needs to sink or swim on it's own. MS needs to focus on what they make money on. Windows, Office, Enterprise. Everything else is just throwing money down a pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 MS needs to shut down Bing, Xbox does not need any more subsidized losses, it needs to sink or swim on it's own. MS needs to focus on what they make money on. Windows, Office, Enterprise. Everything else is just throwing money down a Yes, MS should sell its growing divisions that are expected to be key in the future and focus on its declining divisions. Are you serious? On one hand MS bears complain about MS not innovating and depending too much on legacy assets like Windows and Office, and when they do build out new businesses, then they still complain, and say, "MS should focus on legacy assets". My only opinion on the Nokia acquisition is "WTF?", but I don't believe for a second that MS should forget about future product groups and only try to milk a declining business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 MS needs to shut down Bing, Xbox does not need any more subsidized losses, it needs to sink or swim on it's own. MS needs to focus on what they make money on. Windows, Office, Enterprise. Everything else is just throwing money down a Yes, MS should sell its growing divisions that are expected to be key in the future and focus on its declining divisions. Are you serious? On one hand MS bears complain about MS not innovating and depending too much on legacy assets like Windows and Office, and when they do build out new businesses, then they still complain, and say, "MS should focus on legacy assets". My only opinion on the Nokia acquisition is "WTF?", but I don't believe for a second that MS should forget about future product groups and only try to milk a declining business. So plowing money into money-losing businesses versus "milking" the cash cow for all its worth will increase intrinsic value how? I'm confused. You did just pass Level 3 of the CFA, correct? On one hand MS bears complain about MS not innovating and depending too much on legacy assets like Windows and Office, and when they do build out new businesses, then they still complain, and say, "MS should focus on legacy assets". Why would a MS bear - i.e. someone negative on MS's business, and potentially shorting - "complain" about MS not innovating, thus implying said bears believe MS could reinvigorate the business by innovating? Wouldn't it be the MS "bulls" that are complaining about the lack of innovation? If you instead mean "bulls" and not "bears"..... The "bulls" don't complain about the lack of innovation, they complain about the lack of shareholder-friendly capital allocation and a rational, coherent vision from management. Purchasing Skype and now Nokia without communicating to shareholders one single f$cking metric on why the deals would benefit per share intrinsic value over a simple buyback or special dividend is just flat-out appalling. Perhaps you are advising them on their capital allocation? This is just another example of the nauseating arrogance displayed by mother f$cking Ballmer who can't even drag his fat ass onto a conference call but can appear side-by-side, hand-in-hand on the front page of the FT with the CEO of a terminally ill hardware company. Atrocious. Where the f$ck is Gates in all of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTEJD1997 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 MS needs to shut down Bing, Xbox does not need any more subsidized losses, it needs to sink or swim on it's own. MS needs to focus on what they make money on. Windows, Office, Enterprise. Everything else is just throwing money down a Yes, MS should sell its growing divisions that are expected to be key in the future and focus on its declining divisions. Are you serious? Yes, I am serious! Perhaps I should made my position clearer....Bing, Xbox, etc. should not have any significant amounts of money poured into them. Maybe they can make it, maybe not. How can anyone say that Xbox has been a financial success? I remember buying an Xbox maybe 10 years ago to play the original Halo game. Great game! Once I finished it, I sold the Xbox. Now the 4th generation Xbox is coming out...still not really making money, but it is breaking even? How much has been lost in this division? Bing? Who uses that? I know I did...when it first came out, there was a promotion where if you used it to search & buy something, you would get up to $300 back. So that is exactly what I did. I bought a Macbook Air with it. There have been stories that Bing used Google for their searches. I've also seen plenty of Bing commercials on TV. I don't know ANYONE who uses Bing. It is all Google, Yahoo! or specialized search engines... So MS should be paying attention to the future. They SHOULD be opening new divisions... The new divisions should be PROFITABLE, or very nearly so. I think it is sign of weak management to say: "This is the wave of the future! We need to do x,y,z and we'll have losses until it gets ramped up". How much more money would MS have if they didn't have Xbox, Bing, Mobile, and a bunch of other money losing divisions? In addition to losing money, it is also draining time & attention from management... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 So plowing money into money-losing businesses versus "milking" the cash cow for all its worth will increase intrinsic value how? I'm confused. You did just pass Level 3 of the CFA, correct? Yes, that's correct. The only way to build a brand new business is to invest cash at the outset. Surely you realize that? Or do you think that businesses just fall into your lap magically? The "bulls" don't complain about the lack of innovation, they complain about the lack of shareholder-friendly capital allocation and a rational, coherent vision from management. Purchasing Skype and now Nokia without communicating to shareholders one single f$cking metric on why the deals would benefit per share intrinsic value over a simple buyback or special dividend is just flat-out appalling. Perhaps you are advising them on their capital allocation? No, you're flatly wrong, a lot of MS bears do complain about the lack of innovation, not the "bulls". The same "bears" complain about MS not venturing outside of its staples, and when MS does, they still find another reason to complain. Furthermore, Microsoft has had a great buyback and dividend plan for the past few years and have consistently been returning cash to shareholders. Only an fool would invest in Microsoft because they want "intelligent capital allocation", MS is a software, devices and services firm, whose goal is to make good software and hardware products and grow marketshare,and shareholder value creation follows from successfully implementing such a plan. Milking legacy businesses is not something they will ever do, nor should they seriously consider it. Secondly, what you need to grasp is that MS has the right to spend that cash (offshore) if it feels it strengthens their strategic interests. This is just another example of the nauseating arrogance displayed by mother f$cking Ballmer who can't even drag his fat ass onto a conference call but can appear side-by-side, hand-in-hand on the front page of the FT with the CEO of a terminally ill hardware company. Atrocious. Where the f$ck is Gates in all of this. Given that Gates handpicked Ballmer, and knew about this acquisition, I'd say he supports it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Perhaps I should made my position clearer....Bing, Xbox, etc. should not have any significant amounts of money poured into them. Maybe they can make it, maybe not. How can anyone say that Xbox has been a financial success? I remember buying an Xbox maybe 10 years ago to play the original Halo game. Great game! Once I finished it, I sold the Xbox. Now the 4th generation Xbox is coming out...still not really making money, but it is breaking even? How much has been lost in this division? Bing? Who uses that? I know I did...when it first came out, there was a promotion where if you used it to search & buy something, you would get up to $300 back. So that is exactly what I did. I bought a Macbook Air with it. There have been stories that Bing used Google for their searches. I've also seen plenty of Bing commercials on TV. I don't know ANYONE who uses Bing. It is all Google, Yahoo! or specialized search engines... So MS should be paying attention to the future. They SHOULD be opening new divisions... The new divisions should be PROFITABLE, or very nearly so. I think it is sign of weak management to say: "This is the wave of the future! We need to do x,y,z and we'll have losses until it gets ramped up". How much more money would MS have if they didn't have Xbox, Bing, Mobile, and a bunch of other money losing divisions? In addition to losing money, it is also draining time & attention from management... You need to keep in mind that these are not separate businesses anymore, they are merely products that fit into a broader software and services vision. Nobody said these are financial successes, but they are a crucial part of MS's strategy for the future. There is a huge growth opportunity for both of these businesses. The question is execution, and patience on the part of the investor. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petec Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Bing? Who uses that? I know I did...when it first came out, there was a promotion where if you used it to search & buy something, you would get up to $300 back. So that is exactly what I did. I bought a Macbook Air with it. There have been stories that Bing used Google for their searches. I've also seen plenty of Bing commercials on TV. I don't know ANYONE who uses Bing. Ha ha - the MacBook Air is brilliant :) Well done! However just fyi I use Bing and like it (and I use W8 and like it, and WP8 and like it). Bing has been slowly gaining share, as have the phones. Their future may not be all that bad, standalone. And my personal, non-expert, opinion is that they are probably all needed to help protect the legacy business, so I don't necessarily think their economics should be judged standalone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DTEJD1997 Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How does Xbox fit into anything MS does? MS thinks they need a gaming platform? After Halo 2, none of them were released for the PC....that seems kind of contradictory... What synergies does MS get from Xbox? Xbox is a growth area? Xbox has been out for at least 10 years, maybe longer....when is it going to grow? When is it going to profit? If Xbox were losing $100MM a year, not a huge deal...When it has cumulatively lost BILLIONS & BILLIONS, that is a big deal. At least in my book. I guess I'm just a goofy investor looking for companies that reasonably allocate capital and get a return for shareholders. This is something that has eluded MS for the past decade. Thus, I'm not an investor in them. As to new ventures having losses....what about the Iphone? The Ipad? If I am not mistaken, those were wildly profitable from the beginning...Itunes? That had losses in it's early years, but they were not huge losses. Itunes was also a crucial support to the Ipod, which was profitable. Now, 10+ years later, Itunes is SOLIDLY profitable, and is also a crucial support tool for a variety of Apple products. Perhaps Apple is a poor comparison to MS, but I am sure there are other examples of businesses starting a new product or division that is profitable, or very nearly so, right from the beginning. We will see what happens with Nokia, but I'm going to guess that it will not be good for MS shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Yes, that's correct. The only way to build a brand new business is to invest cash at the outset. Surely you realize that? Or do you think that businesses just fall into your lap magically? So Coke should begin siphoning off its core FCF in order to create the next new fun exciting burger joint? I mean a burger joint is related to cola, just like phones, online search, tablets and gaming devices are related to computer software and the cloud.... Only an fool would invest in Microsoft because they want "intelligent capital allocation", MS is a software, devices and services firm, whose goal is to make good software and hardware products and grow marketshare,and shareholder value creation follows from successfully implementing such a plan. Milking legacy businesses is not something they will ever do, nor should they seriously consider it. Secondly, what you need to grasp is that MS has the right to spend that cash (offshore) if it feels it strengthens their strategic interests. The first sentence is shocking I must admit. So b/c MS is essentially a tech company, "intelligent capital allocation" should be thrown out the window in order to make good products and grow market share? If said plan is related to "shareholder value creation", how is that not intertwined with "intelligent capital allocation"? Do you now guzzle the ValueInv Koolaid of solely focusing on "product developement" as he does with Apple and now Yahoo!? Secondly, what you need to grasp is that MS has the right to spend that cash (offshore) if it feels it strengthens their strategic interests What you need to grasp - again, apparently the CFA program did not serve you well - is that offshore cash belongs to the shareholders and NOT Microsoft. See as a publicly-held company, every single asset on the balance sheet belongs to the shareholders. If Microsoft would like to become its own private entity, run by capital allocation buffoons such as Ballmer and yourself, then it should go private and use its assets as it sees fit. they still find another reason to complain. Furthermore, Microsoft has had a great buyback and dividend plan for the past few years and have consistently been returning cash to shareholders Buyback history since 2000: 2000: $4.9B at an average P/NTM EPS of 41.2X 2001: $6.1B at 33.5X 2002: $6.1B at 28.8X 2003: $6.5 at 24.6X 2004: $3.4B at 21.7X 2005: $8.1B at 18.7 2006: $19.2B at 18.4X 2007: $27.6B at 18X 2008: $12.5B at 13X 2009: $9.4B at 12.8X 2010: $11.3B at 12.2X 2011: $11.6B at 9.6X 2012: $5B at 10.1X That's Buffett-like capital allocation right there. Gotta love it. Was MSFT actually run by someone with a brain, they would have been ISSUING stock hand over fist from 2000 through 2004 and paying giant special dividends from 2005 through the financial crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 How does Xbox fit into anything MS does? MS thinks they need a gaming platform? After Halo 2, none of them were released for the PC....that seems kind of contradictory... What synergies does MS get from Xbox? Xbox is a growth area? Xbox has been out for at least 10 years, maybe longer....when is it going to grow? When is it going to profit? They seem to see Xbox as another computing platform, much like Windows. Personally I was disappointed in the physical form factor. That thing is ugly! Like an 80s VCR! I guess I'm just a goofy investor looking for companies that reasonably allocate capital and get a return for shareholders. This is something that has eluded MS for the past decade. Thus, I'm not an investor in them. Nor should you be an investor in them. I didn't buy MS because of their capital allocation, that's for sure, I just bought them because they were cheap, and I feel they have a bright future ahead of them, all things considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rpadebet Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Current MSFT valuation seems to suggest the market is assuming 5B+ in pissing money every year for ever. I am not surprised that's the case given their history, but can Ballmer please remind the market again that he is gone in a year :) On second thoughts, maybe Elop will be the second coming of Ballmer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 So Coke should begin siphoning off its core FCF in order to create the next new fun exciting burger joint? I mean a burger joint is related to cola, just like phones, online search, tablets and gaming devices are related to computer software and the cloud.... Is Coke a declining business in an extremely competitive industry full of constant technological change that's facing a rapidly shrinking market share? Let me know if that is the case. The first sentence is shocking I must admit. So b/c MS is essentially a tech company, "intelligent capital allocation" should be thrown out the window in order to make good products and grow market share? If said plan is related to "shareholder value creation", how is that not intertwined with "intelligent capital allocation"? Do you now guzzle the ValueInv Koolaid of solely focusing on "product developement" as he does with Apple and now Yahoo!? Poor capital allocation is part of the industry, if that was crucial to my investment thesis, I'd never invest in it. What you need to grasp - again, apparently the CFA program did not serve you well - is that offshore cash belongs to the shareholders and NOT Microsoft. See as a publicly-held company, every single asset on the balance sheet belongs to the shareholders. If Microsoft would like to become its own private entity, run by capital allocation buffoons such as Ballmer and yourself, then it should go private and use its assets as it sees fit. No, you're wrong. The offshore cash belongs to Microsoft, not the shareholders who are a separate entity from the firm. The shareholders are a "principal", the management is an "agent", who are hired to run the firm, which is legally a separate person. The CFA program prepared me just fine. Buyback history since 2000: .... That's Buffett-like capital allocation right there. Gotta love it. Was MSFT actually run by someone with a brain, they would have been ISSUING stock hand over fist from 2000 through 2004 and paying giant special dividends from 2005 through the financial crisis. As I said, nobody would invest in MS for "Buffett-like" capital allocation, and yet they're not terrible either, and when you count dividends, they're returning about 5% of their market cap year after year. Anyways, since you seem to be into personal attacks, what makes you so bright that you don't think Steve Ballmer has a brain? By all accounts who have known him, worked for him, hired him, or tried to hire him (Mitt Romney), Steve Ballmer is brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Well, this is very interesting. Given what just occurred, I think it's likely that Ballmer did not get fired. Instead, he appears to have bitten the bullet by resigning earlier than he wanted and giving ValueAct board seats in order to lessen any ammunition they might use (or gather) to torpedo the NOK deal. Good for Ballmer -- he has always tried to do what's good for MSFT, and has been made a scapegoat by the media and by activist investors like Einhorn. Yeah, right. What happened to your theory that they were going to by RIM? Maybe they'll buy QNX for billions ::) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Only an fool would invest in Microsoft because they want "intelligent capital allocation", MS is a software, devices and services firm, whose goal is to make good software and hardware products and grow marketshare,and shareholder value creation follows from successfully implementing such a plan. Milking legacy businesses is not something they will ever do, nor should they seriously consider it. Secondly, what you need to grasp is that MS has the right to spend that cash (offshore) if it feels it strengthens their strategic interests. i'd have to agree. one might be considered a fool to invest in msft given their record of capital allocation. market votes thumbs down on this one. it won't add to earnings for three years. and even that is a pipe dream given how fast mobile changes. the decline today is yet another example of how investors think of SB's big decisions. the market is saying this deal destroys msft shareholder value. the market is saying this deal increases nokia shareholder value. market is happy that nok got rid of it and sad that msft took it on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 No, you're wrong. The offshore cash belongs to Microsoft, not the shareholders who are a separate entity from the firm. The shareholders are a "principal", the management is an "agent", who are hired to run the firm, which is legally a separate person. The CFA program prepared me just fine. So if MSFT were to be liquidated, all assets sold and liabilities paid off, the remaining net assets would simply sit there as Microsoft's own possession? It wouldn't go anywhere? Shareholders would just be wiped out because they do not "own" the cash? I am legitimately confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If MSFT were to be liquidated, then it would no longer exist, and then it would be distributed to the shareholders pro rata. As long as MS exists as a going concern, then your point is moot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If MSFT were to be liquidated, then it would no longer exist, and then it would be distributed to the shareholders pro rata. As long as MS exists as a going concern, then your point is moot. disagree. the shareholders own the cash. they hire management to take care of it and invest it. if it turns out that management is not doing a good job, shareholders can get rid of management, and find CEO who allocates the cash better. you might say that this is why SB is headed out. managers believe the cash is theirs. but they are ignorant of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Well, this is very interesting. Given what just occurred, I think it's likely that Ballmer did not get fired. Instead, he appears to have bitten the bullet by resigning earlier than he wanted and giving ValueAct board seats in order to lessen any ammunition they might use (or gather) to torpedo the NOK deal. Good for Ballmer -- he has always tried to do what's good for MSFT, and has been made a scapegoat by the media and by activist investors like Einhorn. Yeah, right. What happened to your theory that they were going to by RIM? Maybe they'll buy QNX for billions ::) You're mistaken. I never had a theory that MSFT would buy BBRY. Here's what I said verbatim: MSFT -- A lot of people have suggested MSFT in the past. I don't believe this makes much sense, though. MSFT is committed to Windows and its other solutions (included its own embedded systems option), and I don't think it's possible at all to fold in BBRY's core OS technology into Windows. Having said that, there could be some incentive for MSFT to do a deal in order to take advantage of the security advantages that BBRY has over the competition. It's too bad you always try to misrepresent what people say, ValueInv. Sometimes you have some interesting observations, but the noise to value ratio is high with your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Well, this is very interesting. Given what just occurred, I think it's likely that Ballmer did not get fired. Instead, he appears to have bitten the bullet by resigning earlier than he wanted and giving ValueAct board seats in order to lessen any ammunition they might use (or gather) to torpedo the NOK deal. Good for Ballmer -- he has always tried to do what's good for MSFT, and has been made a scapegoat by the media and by activist investors like Einhorn. Yeah, right. What happened to your theory that they were going to by RIM? Maybe they'll buy QNX for billions ::) You're mistaken. I never had a theory that MSFT would buy BBRY. Here's what I said verbatim: MSFT -- A lot of people have suggested MSFT in the past. I don't believe this makes much sense, though. MSFT is committed to Windows and its other solutions (included its own embedded systems option), and I don't think it's possible at all to fold in BBRY's core OS technology into Windows. Having said that, there could be some incentive for MSFT to do a deal in order to take advantage of the security advantages that BBRY has over the competition. It's too bad you always try to misrepresent what people say, ValueInv. Sometimes you have some interesting observations, but the noise to value ratio is high with your posts. Go back some months in your posts. BTW, I am still waiting for any signal in your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 If MSFT were to be liquidated, then it would no longer exist, and then it would be distributed to the shareholders pro rata. As long as MS exists as a going concern, then your point is moot. Under that "logic", MSFT shareholders do not have a right to their respective % ownership in any of the assets unless it is liquidated....thus when MSFT distributes a dividend payment, it is simply out of the kindness of its own heart that it chooses to distribute the dividend to its rightful owners according to the % ownership? Couldn't MSFT then simply refuse to pay a certain ValueAct Capital its fair share of quarterly dividends since ValueAct doesn't rightfully "own" a certain % of that dividend payment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Remember the time when people were arguing that the Surface tablets were just a reference design? That they didn't plan to go up against their hardware partners? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palantir Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 Under that "logic", MSFT shareholders do not have a right to their respective % ownership in any of the assets unless it is liquidated....thus when MSFT distributes a dividend payment, it is simply out of the kindness of its own heart that it chooses to distribute the dividend to its rightful owners according to the % ownership? Couldn't MSFT then simply refuse to pay a certain ValueAct Capital its fair share of quarterly dividends since ValueAct doesn't rightfully "own" a certain % of that dividend payment? They don't have a right to ownership of the assets, but rather ownership of the firm. When MS pays a dividend, it's separated from the "firm", and given that shareholders are proportional owners of the firm....it should logically flow to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmichaud Posted September 3, 2013 Share Posted September 3, 2013 You said this earlier.... No, you're wrong. The offshore cash belongs to Microsoft, not the shareholders who are a separate entity from the firm. ....thus implying the cash belongs to the "firm" Microsoft. But now you just said.... They don't have a right to ownership of the assets, but rather ownership of the firm. .....thus implying.... A) if shareholders have a right to ownership of the firm, i.e. MSFT, and B) the firm, i.e. MSFT, "owns" the cash, then logically, C) shareholders have a right to ownership of the cash via its rightful ownership of the firm, i.e. MSFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now