Accusing me of insulting you? When you claim I can't read with comprehension? I described your posts accurately.
No, you did not. And yes, you did - by implying that i didn't understand the meaning of the word 'easier'. Anything else?
You have contradicted yourself so many times (let alone me), I simply don't know what to say, anymore. For your reference, both the OP and I pointed out that a good cash situation is what is beneficial, rather than the assumption of actually spending the cash like at McDonalds. Yet, you continue to tell me "no", and then restate my points as if your own. If that is not a definition of obtuse, please explain it to me.
I have? Please point out the contradictions. Once again, i think your problem is that you don't read properly. I back-tracked my posts, and i see no apparent contradiction. My point is clear: what matters is not the size of the cash chest; what matters is the ability to make big deals.
And, what you and the OP seem to not get, is that Apples 80bn in cash actually means very little. First, Apple is not making orders anywhere near the size in which 80bn in cash mean a jack. Second, companies with far less cash (e.g. Nokia) make substantial unit orders without the slightest of a problem. You see, in the real world people really don't care that much about how much cash a company currently holds. What they care about is their ability to pay. And, furthermore, where risk is involved, that is discounted in the price, so once again, not that big of an issue.
While acknowledging more than once that holding cash is beneficial, what you don't seem to get is that it is intact not a major variable in ordering. In essence, what matters is your credit worth. A company that has an outstanding credit worth could easily get an order 10x its cash holdings. Why? Because the contractor knows they will get paid. 80bn of cash equivalents mean very little, and Apples ability to make huge orders would hardly be affected at all even if they paid out 70 out of those billions in dividends. Why? Because Apple is good for the money. If they order 10bn worth of technology, they can pay for it. Simple as that.
Yes, having lots of cash is certainly not negative. But its not a requisite to make big deals. Hence, Apple having 80bn is not what allows them to make the deals they make. Apples credit worthiness is.
Also, the quote from you that I originally commented about was, "Buying power != CASH on hand. Apples power stems from its order sizes, not money in the bank." That is what I corrected, which you have now repeated my correction twice after telling me I was wrong.
And that statement is correct, as pointed out above. Apple could have 10% of current cash holdings, and yet get the same orders they get today. Granted, if they pay cash upfront, that will have an affect on price, since risk of payment is always discounted, but that too comes at an alternative cost, so no, looking at the big picture, cash holdings is not what matters. What matters is, like i pointed out, buying power. And buying power is not a function of cash holdings. Granted, cash is one variable, but yet, it is but one out of many.
Once more, assume Apple paid out 90%, or even 100% of its cash holdings in dividends tomorrow. Two days later they ring up Samsung, asking for a 10 bn order. Would Samsung deny them? Of course not. They know Apple is good for the money, and that they will get paid. Heck, if Samsung would turn them down, plenty others would step in and provide the cash. So, again, cash != buying power.
Get it now?
Cash
does not
equal
Buying power.
Or:
One can have great buying power without a cent in cash holdings.
Or:
Company A has less cash than Company B.
Company A can still have higher buying power than Company B.
Hence, cash does not equal buying power.
To paraphrase Chandler Bing, could i be anymore clear on this?
Addendum:
And to make myself absolutely clear. No, having cash is not a negative. On the contrary, it is beneficial - all else equal. Apple holding 80bn is not, however, what makes them able to make big deals. Apple would be able to make equally big deals just holding 8bn, if even that. Why? They're good for it.
(Okay, there comes a point where cash will add to overall payability (all else equal). But then were reaching hypothetical orders in the magnitude of hundreds of billions. If that is the straw you want to hold on to, feel free. I'll gladly give you that).
