Einhorn has a point: what the hell is Apple doing sitting on that money?

Apple hoards cash, apparently, "like a person who has gone through a trauma".

Apple has had to fend off an attack from one of its share holders who is demanding it fork out more of its $137bn cash pile to investors.

David Einhorn has sued iPhone maker Apple accusing the most valuable company in the world of having a “depression era” mentality.

But for a company with a reputation like Apple, which no amount of third world worker scandals seems able to damage, this should be seen as nothing more than an advertisement, splashing the fact that Apple is sitting on more ready cash than a fair amount of small countries on to headlines around the world.

The billionaire activist, who heads up hedge fund Greenlight Capital, told US TV news channel CNBC that Apple hoards cash like a person who has gone through a trauma, referring to Apples near bankruptcy in the early ‘90s before Steve Jobs turned the firms fortunes around with the introduction of the iPod.

Apple shares have tumbled 35 per cent from their peak in September 2012 as its growth has slowed, despite the successful, if not phenomenal, launch of the iPad mini and iPhone 5.

Einhorn’s opinion may be justified; Apple is planning to eliminate its “preferred” stock, which pays out a fixed dividend over time, at its shareholder meeting later this month. These shares are better than ordinary shares when it comes to paying out a company's assets.

Einhorn, it should be noted, has a history of corporate meddling. In May 2011, Einhorn called for Steve Ballmer, (who is still) CEO of Microsoft, to step down after Microsoft was passed by both IBM and Apple in market value.

While Einhorn may not be the most trustworthy of activists, his point may well stand: What the hell is Apple doing with all that money? 

Apple has never explained its reasons for holding onto the cash other than to say its preserving its options but it certainly isn’t using it to develop new products. Apple's tally for research and development in 2012 was 2 per cent of its annual spend, dwarfed by its tech rivals. IBM’s for example is 6 per cent.

While Einhorn’s motives for demanding Apple make use of their cash maybe entirely about increasing his own fortune, Apple is in danger of stagnation if it doesn’t use its vast hoard wisely. 

Maybe the reason it has yet to spend its money is that, without the guiding light of Jobs at the helm, it doesn’t know what to spend it on.

Photograph: Getty Images

Billy Bambrough writes for Retail Banker International at VRL financial news.
 

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496