The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  
 

  *  

  How Should Microsoft Spend $50 Billion?
Time: 03:08 EST/08:08 GMT | News Source: Business 2.0 | Posted By: Alex Harris

Microsoft ( (MSFT): up $3.22 to $46.23), despite its ailing stock price, ended its fiscal year in June with $38 billion in cold hard cash, plus another $14 billion in equity holdings. That's more than the value of all of AOL Time Warner, which, with a market cap of $47 billion, is the 28th largest company in the S&P 500 (and parent company of this Web site). This is a perennial problem for Microsoft -- one that its top managers are certain to be grilled about Thursday at the company's annual analyst day at its headquarters. Even with the billions Microsoft has washed down the drain in failed investments (think: AT&T ( (T): up $0.26 to $9.06), its cash figure went up by $6 billion in the past year.

The problem is what to do with the cash. Some investors would love Microsoft to return the money to them in the form of a dividend. But as Michael Mauboussin, an analyst with Credit Suisse First Boston, argued in an excellent report this week, two shareholders who'd hate to see a dividend are Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer. Because dividends are taxed as ordinary income, Gates and Ballmer would have to pay taxes at a rate of 38.6 percent, compared with 20 percent for long-term capital gains. In Mauboussin's plan, Microsoft -- and other companies with huge cash positions -- should announce regular, planned, predictable and generous buybacks. This would act like a dividend because it would be returning money to shareholders by removing shares from the market and improving the value of each share.

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 174
Last | Next
  The time now is 9:29:35 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 1124 (165.170.128.65) at 7/26/2002 8:44:11 AM
Buy AOL and Apple :)

#2 By 1295 (216.84.210.100) at 7/26/2002 10:56:43 AM
If I were them I'd put it in an intrest bearing savings account and take my 2.5Billion a year in interest :)

#3 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 7/26/2002 11:38:09 AM
- Buy a few more mid-sized game developers, and build an ElectronicArts clone. Match them game for game.

- Take an equity position in several more Sony-wanna-be companies, and divide the consumer electronics world into Microsoft-affiliated and Sony-affiliated. Microsoft works best when they have a target.

- Buy Moxi from old friend Paul Allen, and get a boost in their iTV efforts

- Take a small equity position in Mattel or Hasbro. Make sure there are plenty of cool Microsoft-branded toys on the market each Christmas.

- Pay for some cool product placement in a few movies. Why should Apple have all that fun by themselves?

#4 By 20 (143.166.84.51) at 7/26/2002 11:39:51 AM
lol, I love how morons blame the current economy on Bush. This started way before Bush even took office. He has done exactly what he should've done to help the economy get back on its feet: Nothing.

All signs point to a growing and increasingly healthy economy. It's taken a beating with the recent investor confidence rattled by the scanadals (all of which occured during the Clinton Character-Doesn't-Matter Era), but the fundamental metrics are all sound. Companies are starting to hire again, consumers are buying durable goods (houses and cars) like never before, and many companies are starting to get back to posting quarterly profits rather than losses. If anything, Bush has fixed the economy.

#5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 12:19:01 PM
lol, I love how morons try to defend Bush on the economy.

The economy went into the freefall of lack of confidence on behalf of the recession rumors started by the Bush administration in 2000 intended to sell a tax cut based on faulty premises. The scandals resulting from the "The End Justifies The Means" attitude of the Republican party throughout the 1990s, highlighted by the Coup in '98 and the election theft in 2000. But really it's the lack of confidence in the boardroom-insider President who is unwilling to turn his back on his buddies and do what's right for the nation that is preventing the markets from stabilizing.

This post was edited by sodablue on Friday, July 26, 2002 at 12:25.

#6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 12:21:29 PM
As for Microsoft's $50 billion in the bank...

http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=full&mode=basics&symbol=SUNW

$12 billion market cap baby! Still leaving money in the bank! :-)

#7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/26/2002 1:05:33 PM
Daz, John, if you don't want to blame Bush, can we at least point a little bit in the direction of half the executive branch who were former executives at Enron, Harvey Pitt who was the maverick lawyer who accomplished what Newt couldn't do on his own (Tort Reform), Cheney for creating this Corporate Governance in Government is good policy bullsh!t, Lindsey--who sure seems to know how to manipulate regulations but then tries to make us beleive capitalism is an unregualted, unfettered system, Newt Gingrich, and all the bastards in Congress (whether Dem or Rep, but mostly Rep) that thwarted the SEC, FASB, and the NASD from actually implementing any reforms over the last 15 years.

And Bush too, for saying it'll all be okay, for bringing these corporate behaviors to Washington, for hiring all his cronies, for being his father's son, for doing nothing but raising penalties for fraud which is impossible to prove since it requries intent--when these CEOs can simply claim to be complete morons, which apparently they are.

Screw Osama--I want a pledge from Bush himself that someone will be indicted and prosecuted from Enron... Everyone seems to forget that they're getting of scott free. Are we supposed to believe it was only AA that did anythign wrong?

#8 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 7/26/2002 1:17:19 PM
Sure, let's blame everyone but the criminals themselves.

Bush can't fix the problem, he can't convict them out of hand. They won't indict the people until they have sufficient evidence.

If they arrest them, they better be ready to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the people involved were involved and had a hand in the illegalities. That's no small task for any prosecutor.

But, as with all liberals, it's all Newt's fault and, since Bush has such high approval ratings and the Democrats keep throwing lies at him to see if anything sticks, it's all Bush's fault.

#9 By 4209 (163.192.21.3) at 7/26/2002 1:36:35 PM
For one thing you have to realize the economy is like a big ship. It can not turn very quickly, in fact it takes years to change the economy. We are now seeing what Clinton did in the economy still, we will soon start seeing what Bush has done to it. It takes on average about 2-4 years for the effects of taxes and whatever else the Government has done for it to truly show up in the countries overall economic status.

#10 By 61 (65.32.170.1) at 7/26/2002 2:10:50 PM
Ok, so let me get this straight, it's Bush's fault because of the .com bust (which started the whole downturn), which happened during the Clinton administration?

It's niether Clinton nor Bush's fault, it's the fault of those stupid American's who think that they can run a company with no profit. Heck, I once heard NPR talking about how they think that Amazon.com would be the next Microsoft.... has Amazon even turned a proffit yet?

The fact is, we had a bloated economy, it was full of air and little substance, full of companies that turned no sort of proffit and the only financial backing were investors.

Why do you think things such as Microsoft's software subscription plan came about? Because they realised that sooner or later, people will stop buying products, so rather than paying a one time price, you pay a smaller amount yearly to get upgrades and such. Transforming from a product company to a services company.

Companies thought they could make it by having banner ads on their page, or whatever, but that just does not work, hence the reason why we are seeing stuff that was once free now costing a monthly or yearly rate.

#11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 2:39:10 PM
Lot's of misconceptions here, although not surprising as they seem to formulate around this Republican strategy of taking credit for good things and blaming someone else for bad things.

We have two issues right now. The first problem is corporate governance that's gone wrong. That's going to take time to indict and convict the fraud. I note with amazement that the right-wing is still trying to defend these executives. Worldcom declared bankruptcy which put a hault to the severance packages for the employees laid off, but the executives responsible for the problem still get their massive golden parachutes(Ebbers will get $1.5 million for life according to one report I read).

How does that make you feel? Is that right, is that justified? In an honorable society the Captain goes down with the ship. But what we have here is the Captain opening the vault, grabbing all the gold and taking the only life boat, while letting the crew sink to the bottom. That's something the villian does in the James Bond movies.

You don't need legal action to stop that, you just need the President to proclaim "This will not stand."

Which goes into the other big issue is investor confidence, and that the President can do something about. Confidence is an emotion, it is something that can be changed on a whim by speech and actions. But here we have a President who claims corporations should be open and honest, and yet continues to stonewall and hide from Congress and the Press answers to questions. Hiding from the questions only make it look like you've got something to hide.

#12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/26/2002 2:45:39 PM
CPU, the economic situation has less to do with the specific nature of internet businesses and much more to do with creative accounting, virtually nonexistent accounting because M&As, made on inflated stock values, completely obscure the P/L, CEO incentives to perform on the market not in business, lessening of corporate liability through tort reform, etc, etc...

Yes, Clinton was a pro-business centrist and much of this was established throughout the nineties. But this economic trend towards artificial growth and CEO wealth was actually started when Reagan and Bush I were in power, and the bulk of congressional activities were fostered by Newt and the Republicans. To say otherwise is to ignore history.

And since Bush brings to government the people who created this situation over the last ten years (Pitt, Cheney, Evans, O'Neal, Lindsey, Rove) and says that we should run our government the way we run our businesses, yes, I have no problem associating our current economic problems with Bush and his administration. I don't see how that statement is inherently liberal, conspiracy-oriented, paranoid, or irrational.

#13 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 2:48:52 PM
CPUGuy - The tech market bubble burst in 2000 and 2001. If you check many of the dot-bomb tech stocks like AMZN, YHOO, CSCO, RHAT they are actually up from their low points in summer of 2001. The current market problems are the result of a totally different problem... At least the dot-bombs were honestly reporting they were losing money hand over fist, and people irrationally believed that was good. This problem is with companies who were reporting profits, but were really losing money, oftentimes because the executives were siphoning cash off into their own private accounts.

#14 By 2 (12.226.195.102) at 7/26/2002 2:49:30 PM
I just don't like Bush. I'm not blaming him for anything, I just don't like him.

#15 By 4379 (66.54.164.122) at 7/26/2002 3:10:41 PM
Blame it on CEO's wanting to keep stock prices up and not caring about the company making money. Microsoft is doing it right; They are making money!!!

#16 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 3:13:57 PM
sodajerk - I'm going to have to agree with you on this one.

The GOP has been pushing this idea that companies should regulate themselves, and that the free market would respond when companies step out of line.

Well the downturn in the market this year is how that works. The free market is responding to these companies cooking their books, and looting the coffers. The question is, is this type of uncertainty really what we want? Or do we instead accept a small amount of overhead to hire regulators to monitor and make sure everything is above board.

The part that never seems to get factored into the GOP equations is how much it costs to bail the country out when the free market corrects itself. The SEC budget is less than $500 million.

http://www.sec.gov/foia/docs/budgetact.htm

How much are these scandals going to cost the country, and how much less would they have cost if the problems had been identified sooner?

It's time we started having serious debate on these issues. With the right-wing still caught up in there "let's blame liberals for everything" crap it's obvious they no longer want to be part of any serious debates.

#17 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 7/26/2002 3:46:47 PM
#21 sodablue:

The fact is, the economy is reacting to these people. Companies are now more alert than ever about crooks in their upper echelons. Consumers are bailing out of WorldCom/MCI like never before.

The fact is, liberals can't wait the time it takes for the world to regulate itself. Everything must be done by the government tomorrow otherwise the world will end.

Well, thanks to that now we have welfare and social security, law suits about everything, and a give-me-mine entitlement culture.

When the country ran itself before the liberals convinced everyone the government needed to rule their lives, things worked very well. There was a public aire of ethics and morality that prevented crooks like Ken Lay from robbing investors.

But now, we have presidents getting hummers IN THE OVAL OFFICE and saying that past counts of sexual harrassment, rape, real estate fraud and everything else doesn't matter -- character doesn't matter.

I'm not a religious right nut, I'm not saying everyone should worship Jesus, but I'm also not a flaming liberal that believes all morals are relative. I believe that we have weakend the moral and honest fabric of the country and now it's just a everyone-out-for-themselves take-all culture we have where no one cares about anyone else. That's the problem. Bush may be a part of that, but he's a product of it, not the cause.

#18 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/26/2002 3:58:06 PM
daz, now you are getting further off base--"Well, thanks to that now we have welfare and social security..."--denying the last 100+ years of American history as the corruption of the liberals: do you really think T. Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, and Johnson killed America by actually building government structures that do something for the people? If you want, I'll take your social secuirty for you... and when you need healthcare, we'll just toss you on the street, okay?

"The fact is, the economy is reacting to these people. Companies are now more alert than ever about crooks in their upper echelons. Consumers are bailing out of WorldCom/MCI like never before." Like never before? Hadn't it already crashed from the 80s to less than a couple of dollars before anyone knew? Didn't analysts still have buy ratings? Weren't institutional investors still in these stocks? We're hip to it now? Really? So who's next? Do you know if AOLTW has been cooking anything? Isn't the FCC about to approve Qwest for long distance when they should be put down now? How 'bout silicon valley; do we know if the Ciscos, HPs, Suns, Oracles, or Apples have done any of this stuff? Enron seems to be walking away from this just fine. Each day, I hear another tech company say that they have no intention of accounting for stock options... Companies aren't more alert--they are waiting to react to what their competitors, the government, or stockholders do.

And you do realize that the main motivation for the WCOM bankruptcy was to shut down the shareholder lawsuits, right? Not to reestablish themselves but to shield themselves from liability. So, now, even though these cases are still pending, if found liable, WCOM doesn't have to pay a penny. I haven't seen a single news article that looked at the bankruptcy in this light: the shareholders, institutional investors, and employees don't get their money even if WCOM and its executives are found guilty of fraud and other charges. Don't see how that's a self-correcting market effect.

"When the country ran itself before the liberals convinced everyone the government needed to rule their lives?" When was this? When Andrew Jackson was still fighting with Grant over Greenbacks? Come'on.

"There was a public aire of ethics and morality that prevented crooks like Ken Lay from robbing investors." There has been a major financial scandel at least every ten years, occassionally more frequently, in this government's history... in recent history I'll just point to the 80's M&As and junk bond scandels with names like ivan boesky and michael milken, the S&L scandal, Long Term Capital, tha Asian and Russian crisis and bailout, etc... Don't see what the morality (or lack there of) of the disco-ers, cokeheads, punks, new wavers, yuppies of the 80s or the slackers and dotcommers of the 90s did to stop any of these financial rip-offs.

Economics and the business world have never been affected by the moral state of the gov't or the people. It is its own engine of ethics and morality and will always lead towards corruption and greed if left unchecked. Yes, the dems are schizophrenic re: the economy and don't really know the answers, but unfortunately, on the republican side it has been a long, long time since there was a conservative, righteous, and formidable stance on economics rather than just advocating self-regulation, free markets, etc... even though these cycles are apparent. If anything, the morality of the financial world has a greater affect on politics and the people rather than the other way around--I think that's been Alan's point for the last ten years--how to preserve rationality (within the gov't and public) when the markets behave irrationally.

This post was edited by sodajerk on Friday, July 26, 2002 at 17:52.

#19 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/26/2002 5:06:04 PM
daz - Sigh.

"The fact is, the economy is reacting to these people."

That's what I said. The free market is reacting to the crooks. That's how it works. Now if we had regulators watching things, or even honest crooks, these issues would have been identified earlier before they had a chance to implode the companies.

"The fact is, liberals can't wait the time it takes for the world to regulate itself."

As I said, the right-wing does not want to be involved in serious debate.

"But now, we have presidents getting hummers IN THE OVAL OFFICE and saying that past counts of sexual harrassment, rape, real estate fraud and everything else doesn't matter -- character doesn't matter."

I hope you aren't seriously trying to get into a character debate.

First of all, guess what? People have sex! *GASP* *SHOCKING* oh my god! Yes, that's right, it happens all the time. Been going on for thousands of years now. Maybe you don't get any, but it's no reason to be jealous of others.

Now, as for the "past counts of sexual harassment, rape and real estate fraud"... We know now after years of Whitewater investigations, Paula Jones case being dismissed, and especially recent revelations from David Brock and others that those accusations were fabricated.

If you want to get into a Character debate, you've already lost because you've chosen to take the moral low ground by trying to slander your opponents with lies.

"I'm not a religious right nut, I'm not saying everyone should worship Jesus, but I'm also not a flaming liberal that believes all morals are relative."

Sure you are. You're saying morality doesn't matter if you are a Republican and "The End Justifies the Means." That's the very definition of moral relativity.

"I believe that we have weakend the moral and honest fabric of the country and now it's just a everyone-out-for-themselves take-all culture we have where no one cares about anyone else. "

Yep, and the GOP has pretty much led that charge, and you continue to promote it by furthering their lies as part of the "The End Justifies The Means" agenda. That was Newt Gingrich's brainchild, although it had pretty much existed to a lesser degree through the Reagan years. Although it was the very essense of Watergate, which is quite sad as Nixon was otherwise a quite capable leader. Paranoia can drive great men to evil deeds sometimes.

"That's the problem. Bush may be a part of that, but he's a product of it, not the cause. "

Yeah, yeah... we know... the liberals are the cause.

Whatever.

#20 By 931 (63.169.175.28) at 7/26/2002 6:23:51 PM
soda is smoking the crack pipe again.

The truth here is the niether Clinton nor Bush is directly responsible for the current state of the economy. Alone they can do nearly nothing, even with congress there impact while felt is overall minimal. The 1993 tax hike has minimal involvement with todays economy, just the same the measly part of the 2001 tax reduction has had minimal positive effects as the real chunk of it does not take effect till 2004, though an argument could be made that the small reduction for 2001\2002 has helped stabilize the economy from entering a real recession. (2-3 quarters of negative growth..which we have not seen, infact we have seen no contraction.) If you want to blame anyone you need to blame congress, alan greenspan, corporate america, the american consumer, the stupid american investor, and various other entities including the dumb ass terrorists to some degree.. all equally had there hand in this slide..
Compare the markets with there 1992 numbers and you will notice the dow\nasdaq\s&p are all at least double what they were in 1992... so while things may seem bad, there really not. The current economy is the result of actions and policys of the prior 36-48 months as already stated and changes made this year will not even begin to be seen for 12-18 months.

The current economy is not all that bad at all, in fact the fundimentals are quite sound at the molment, however it's the consumer and business confidence levels at this point that are causeing the majority of the stagnation. There is little the government can or should do about all the mess out there... we all knew it out there we just chose to ignor it, and for all the fools that invested all there money in one company.. well there just dumb. Like some others have said what you have seen the last few weeks is the markets reaction and self correction to the corporate misdoings.. which if we've heard the worst then you will see everything stabilize over the next 2-4 weeks.

You guys can piss and moan back and forth about the elephants and the donkeys... hell normally I'd even join you in the debate but not on this issue. Just remember they're both animals...


Now back on topic:

a) spend a few billion and buy back some stock, hell it's in the 40's right now which is a 52week low area.. now would be the time.

b) spend a billion or two indirectly and lower the cost of the XP line of products.

c) Save the remaining 30billion in cash in case you need to "take someone out" or decide to move the whole organization to another country.... on second though.. why not just buyout some small country!



This post was edited by KnightHawk on Friday, July 26, 2002 at 18:27.

#21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/26/2002 6:36:21 PM
Knighthawk, I find much wrong with some of your comments (There is little the government can or should do about all the mess out there" --Baloney), but I'll try to stay on topic. This is becoming more and more a burning issue... Ultimately, this lingering question will become a liability. Even if they had a stock buyback of a few billion, or made an acquisition of comparable value, or invested it in R&D, or lost some of this through the EU antitrust case, or all of these--there is still an insanely large cash hoard. This article exposes how this hoard is in the interest of long term investors only. Ultimately MS has got to do something bigger with this--either create a Capital Lending group like GE and others or start issuing dividends. Any other way, and this cash will start to create problems. I know that might sound irrational to some, but we'll see.

#22 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 7/26/2002 7:38:19 PM
Can we please get back on topic? Daz, I'm with you... but you are using the wrong tool against sodablue. On political/social issues, your best bet is anything BUT logic. sodablue has a great knack for ignoring logic and sound reasoning on these issues, instead viewing the world through his liberal-red-tinted glasses. The world is not red, sodablue, take those glasses off and see things fresh.

Anyway, as much as sodablue's political views are wrong, there's no denying that his tech views are always dead on.

I'm reposting my last comment, as I was hoping the crew would respond with other ideas...

- Buy a few more mid-sized game developers, and build an ElectronicArts clone. Match them game for game.

- Take an equity position in several more Sony-wanna-be companies, and divide the consumer electronics world into Microsoft-affiliated and Sony-affiliated. Microsoft works best when they have a target.

- Buy Moxi from old friend Paul Allen, and get a boost in their iTV efforts

- Take a small equity position in Mattel or Hasbro. Make sure there are plenty of cool Microsoft-branded toys on the market each Christmas.

- Pay for some cool product placement in a few movies. Why should Apple have all that fun by themselves?

#23 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/27/2002 12:26:40 AM
Knighthawk - "soda is smoking the crack pipe again. "

IT's interesting. I read what you wrote and amazingly you agree with me on many points. If you mean to refer to sodajerk you should more properly call him "jerk", not "soda".

mooresa56 - The problem with your argument is I'm not a liberal. Once you get passed that little immature reaction thing maybe you can engage yourself in intelligent discussion. Otherwise you are just like daz, trying to formulate a debate about character from a lesser moral position.

#24 By 3653 (160.129.82.247) at 7/27/2002 8:53:05 PM
Blue, you are not a liberal? surely you jest. I have faint memories of your liberal leanings in past postings. However, I'll live and let live. Hopefully, you'll grow out of it. :-)

#25 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 7/28/2002 3:48:16 AM
mooresa56 - I don't think you honestly know what liberal means.

Actually I hope you grow out of your right-wing sheep mentality and start learning to think for yourself rather than let yourself be manipulated by special interest groups who do not have your best interests in mind.

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 174
Last | Next
  The time now is 9:29:35 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:

 

  *  
  *   *