[DannyBee]

It's not semantics to call it "not cash". If i own a million shares of apple stock, I don't own cash or a cash equivalent, i own a marketable security. They are valued quite differently.

The long term/short term is the maturity, and as you point out, some billions are probably treasuries, which are easy to trade (They don't break it down that I saw, Google does break it down into treasury bonds, etc).

However, some of it could be (and certainly is) instruments that they could transform into cash (hence marketable), but would take a significant loss on if they needed to do so quickly (< 90 days).

Calling that cash is simply false. Let's stick with the simple fact: If they needed to transform that 92 billion in long term marketable securities into cash tomorrow, the percent chance they will get 92 billion for it is quite low.

If they need to transform it into 92 billion in cash in the next 6 months, the percent chance they will get 92 billion for it is quite high.

[tatsuke95]

>"It's not semantics to call it "not cash""

Yes, it is.

I take offense to stating that people who use the term "cash" don't know what they're talking about. They, in fact, do know that "cash" doesn't imply Apple has a Scrooge-McDuck-type vault loaded with hundred dollar bills.

>"If i own a million shares of apple stock, I don't own cash or a cash equivalent"

Commercial paper, short-term debt, preferred stock, T-bills, option contracts are all cash equivalents. This is where Apple is putting its money (they aren't buying tens of billions worth of common stock). It's "cash".

[DannyBee]

I completely and totally understand what cash and cash equivalents mean. Nobody believes Apple has a scrooge-mcduck like vault, and I have never claimed otherwise.

I have very simply claimed that Apple's cash and cash equivalents are not 100 billion, and that long term marketable securities are not cash.

You vehemently disagree, seemingly because they are liquid enough you may be able to get some money for them.

Let's start simple: Can you explain why if you think they are 'cash' or 'cash equivalents', they're explicitly not listed in the 10-k as "cash equivalents"?

I mean, you keep claiming up and down they are the same as cash, or "cash equivalent", and yet apple doesn't believe so. Nor does Google on their 10-q.

Given the companies don't believe they are cash or cash equivalents, or at least their auditors don't, can you explain why you do?

I'll also point out while it's theoretically at the discretion of the auditor whether the marketable securities can be included in "net cash", a lot don't, simply because the risk is not 0, where the risk on cash is ~0.

The risk on long term marketable securities is not 0 either, and in fact, can be quite high.

[tatsuke95]

>"You vehemently disagree, seemingly because they are liquid enough you may be able to get some money for them."

No, I disagree because I know what a substantial portion of Apple's investments are (this information is public), and they are, by definition, cash or cash equivalents.

>"Let's start simple: Can you explain why if you think they are 'cash' or 'cash equivalents', they're explicitly not listed in the 10-k as "cash equivalents"?"

Because they don't have to list them as such? There's a lot of deception in SEC filings; that's half the game. It's only me speculating, but I believe Apple is utilizing many tricks to help them retain all those earnings, rather than paying taxes on all those profits. Would that surprise you?

>"Given the companies don't believe they are cash or cash equivalents, or at least their auditors don't, can you explain why you do?"

Taxes.

I mean, this side-discussion started because you made the claim:

"In short: Apple doesn't really have some amazing amount of cash."

Which is only true in the strictest definition of "cash". When "cash" is used how most investors understand it --those people you accused of being "seriously confused"-- Apple has a bunch. You don't have to take my word for it, it's out there.