Why Companies Are Blowing Their Cash Reserves
发布时间 2023-05-12 19:00:05 来源
Companies have been blowing their cash reserves. Metas reserves have declined from $64 billion to $37 billion, a decrease of 42%. Google's reserves have declined from $142 billion down to $115 billion, a decrease of 19%. Microsoft's reserves have declined from $136 billion down to $104 billion, a decrease of 52%. This isn't some sort of a random fluctuation either. For the past decade, all of these companies have been vigorously increasing their cash reserves up until the past 12 to 24 months.
公司一直在耗尽其现金储备。Meta的储备从640亿美元降至370亿美元，下降了42%。Google的储备从1420亿美元下降至1150亿美元，下降了19%。微软的储备从1360亿美元下降至1040亿美元，下降了52%。这不是某种偶然波动。在过去的十年里，这些公司一直在大力增加其现金储备，直到最近的12至24个月。
With such massive decreases in cash reserves, you would think that these companies have been furiously paying off their debt, but that's not the case either. Apple, for example, has maintained their long-term debt at right around $100 billion. Google and Meta, on the other hand, have even gone as far as increasing their debt. Google has increased their long-term debt by over 200% from $4 billion to $14 billion. Meta, on the other hand, is holding debt for virtually the first time in the company's history. This makes no sense at all.
随着现金储备的巨大减少，人们可能认为这些公司已经疯狂还清债务，但实际情况并非如此。例如，苹果公司保持长期债务约为1000亿美元。而谷歌和Meta则甚至增加了它们的债务。谷歌将长期债务从40亿美元增加到了140亿美元，增幅超过200％。而Meta则是首次持有债务，这一切毫无道理可言。
These companies were hoarding cash in the tens of billions if not hundreds of billions when interest rates were low. So with high interest rates, you would think that they would just double down on their cash reserves and pay off their debt as quickly as possible, but they've actually been doing the exact opposite. So here's why companies are blowing their cash reserves and where all this money is going instead.
这些公司在利率低时会储备数十亿甚至数百亿的现金。因此，在利率高的情况下，你可能认为它们会加倍储备现金并尽快偿还债务，但实际上它们正在做相反的事情。那么这些公司为什么要消耗它们的现金储备，而这些钱又去了哪里？
Starting off with the most obvious reason we have high inflation. During times of high inflation, idling cash is rapidly losing its value, so it makes sense to decrease your cash reserves, but it's not actually that simple. If you look closer at these companies' balance sheets, you'll see that many of them were starting to slash their cash reserves well before inflation got out of hand. Inflation didn't even cross 3% until the second quarter of 2021. But by this point, Apple had already decreased their cash reserves from 107 billion down to 61 billion.
首先，让我们从最明显的原因开始解释为什么我们会遭受高通货膨胀。在高通胀时期，闲置现金的价值会迅速贬值，因此减少现金储备是有道理的，但实际情况并不那么简单。如果你更仔细地查看这些公司的资产负债表，你会发现其中许多公司在通货膨胀还没有严重到无法控制的时候就已经开始减少现金储备了。直到2021年第二季度，通货膨胀率甚至还没有达到3%。但到了这个时候，苹果公司已经将其现金储备从1070亿美元减少到610亿美元。
This trend is even more evident at Microsoft, who has refused to increase their cash reserves since 2016 at this point. During this same time period, their net income is rocketed from 25 billion per year to 70 billion per year. So the choice to cap off their cash reserves is very much an active one, but why? Well a lot of it can be explained by Dr. Michael Jensen's research paper that was published way back in 1986.
这种趋势在微软公司更为明显，自2016年以来他们拒绝增加现金储备。与此同时，他们的净收入从每年250亿美元飙升至每年700亿美元。因此，他们选择限制现金储备是非常积极的决策，但是为什么呢？这可以在迈克尔·詹森博士于1986年发表的研究论文中得到解释。
The paper basically argues that holding cash is a terrible sin for corporations, and Jensen supports this idea with 5 reasons. We'll take a look at the 3 most notable reasons. The first reason is that there is an inverse correlation between cash reserves and organizational efficiency. This makes sense, and you can probably relate to this yourself. When times are good, you're more likely to eat out more often, buy a phone you don't need, or keep subscriptions that you don't even use.
这篇论文基本上主张对于企业而言，留有大量现金储备是一个严重的过错，Jensen列举了5个理由来支持这个观点。我们将重点关注其中的3个理由。第一个理由是，现金储备和组织效率之间存在反相关关系。这一点很有道理，你可能也能够体会到这种情况。当经济状况好的时候，你更有可能经常外出用餐、买一部你不需要的手机、或者继续使用你甚至不需要的订阅服务。
The same idea applies to companies. The more cash they have, the more likely it is that they over hire employees, fund low ROI projects and pay bloated salaries. Wait a minute, isn't that the metaver anyway? Jensen actually takes this idea to the next level. He not only argues that higher cash reserves lead to lower efficiency, but higher debt levels increase efficiency. In other words, modest cash reserves and debt are optimal for maintaining corporate efficiency.
同样的观点也适用于公司。他们拥有的现金越多，就越有可能雇佣太多员工、资助低回报率项目并支付过高的工资。等一下，这不是Metaverse的本质吗？詹森实际上将这个想法推到了更高一个层次。他不仅认为高额现金储备会导致低效率，而且高水平的债务增加了效率。换句话说，适度的现金储备和债务对于维持企业效率是最优的。
Moving on to reason number 2, this is more of an observation than an argument. Jensen observed that leverage increasing transactions correlate with significant positive increases in stock price, while leverage decreasing transactions correlate with significant decreases in stock price. The obvious reasoning for this would be that companies taking on debt are likely funding some sort of expansionary effort, while companies that are reducing debt are likely taking risk off the table.
转到第二个原因，更多的是观察而非争论。詹森观察到，杠杆增加的交易与股价显著正向增长相关，而杠杆减少的交易与股价显著减少相关。显而易见的理由是，承担债务的公司很可能在资金上支持某种扩张努力，而减少债务的公司很可能在降低风险。
Moving on to number 3, this is likely Jensen's most contentious argument. He basically argues that larger cash reserves lead to more diversification, which is apparently bad. The idea is that companies are far more likely to succeed when they invest in areas that they're already dominant in, as opposed to a new area. As cash reserves grow however, the temptation to diversify into new businesses becomes larger, which often leads to more losses than profits. These conjectures have simply been strengthened over the years with the newer research.
继续说第三点，这很可能是詹森最有争议的论点。他基本上认为，更大的现金储备会导致更多的多元化，这显然是不好的。这个想法是，当公司投资于它们已经占据主导地位的领域时，成功的可能性更大，而不是进入一个新的领域。然而，随着现金储备的增长，进入新业务的诱惑变得更大，这通常会导致更多的亏损而不是利润。这些猜测在后来的研究中得到了进一步的支持。
One study for example analyzed corporate earnings growth between 1871 and 2001. The study found that earnings grew the fastest when corporate dividend payout ratios were the highest. In other words, when companies were paying out most of their profits, conversely, stock performance was poor when companies horted cash. None of this is to say that cash reserves themselves are leading to poor performance, but rather that bloated cash reserves are generally a sign of a fundamental shift at a company, a shift that's usually not for the best.
举个例子，一项研究分析了1871年至2001年公司盈利增长情况。研究发现，在公司派发股息比率最高时，盈利增长最快。换句话说，当公司支付大部分利润时，股票表现最差，相反，当公司囤积现金时，股票表现也不佳。这并不是说现金储备本身导致了差劲的表现，而是说过多的现金储备通常是公司基本转变的一个迹象，这种变化通常不是最好的。
Alright, so you don't want to be holding on to too much cash as a corporation, but then where do you put all this money? It's hard enough to safely invest a few hundred thousand dollars, so how in the world do you invest a few hundred billion dollars? Well the answer usually breaks down into three main categories, starting with short term securities. This primarily consists of government bills that mature within the next 12 months. One year government bills are currently yielding 4.7%, so it's a pretty solid bet for corporations.
好的，所以作为一家公司，您不想持有太多现金，那么这些钱该放在哪里呢？安全投资几十万美元已经很困难了，那么如何投资几百亿美元呢？通常回答可以分成三大类，首先是短期证券。这主要包括在未来12个月内到期的政府票据。目前一年期政府债券的收益率为4.7％，因此对于公司而言是一个相当可靠的投资。
Not only are bills producing great returns, but they're also considered risk-free as they're backed by the US government. In fact, they're so safe that bills are generally just counted as cash. Remember how we talked about Apple having 50 billion dollars in cash reserves? Well, only 20 billion of that is actually cash cash. The other 30 billion is a marketable securities or government bills. If we look even closer, we'll see that even the cash cash portion is not fully cash.
国债不仅产生了巨大的回报，而且因其由美国政府支持，被认为是无风险的。实际上，它们非常安全，通常被视为现金。还记得我们谈过苹果有500亿美元的现金储备吗？实际上，其中只有200亿美元是真正的现金。另外的300亿是可市场化证券或政府债券。如果我们更仔细地观察，我们会发现即使现金部分也不完全是现金。
The official title for this entry is cash and cash equivalents. This basically means super short term government bills that are mature in the next month and or money market funds. So that's where companies store the money that they need within the next 12 months or so. As for longer term reserves, companies primarily turn to government bonds once again. But this time, the maturity is far longer, something like 10 to 15 years. Ten-year government bonds or technically notes are currently yielding 3.3%, which is much less than one year bills. But the benefit is obviously that you get to lock in this rate for a full 10 years.
这个条目的正式名称是现金及现金等价物。这基本上意味着在接下来的一个月内到期的超级短期政府公债或货币市场基金。所以公司就将他们在接下来的12个月内需要的钱存储在这里。至于更长期的储备，公司主要再次转向政府债券。但是这次，到期时间要长得多，大约是10到15年。10年期的政府债券或技术上的票据目前的收益率为3.3％，比一年期的公债低得多。但显然的好处是您可以固定这个利率长达10年。
This is usually where companies store the bulk of their cash. So that's where the infamous stock buybacks come into play. 這是April's own project. This book has spent 100 billion within the past 5 years. Microsoft has spent 170 billion within the past 10 years. And corporations as a whole have spent 5.3 trillion dollars on stock buybacks within the past 10 years. So investing cash into government securities and stock buybacks has very much been the go-to strategy for corporations historically.
通常，這是公司儲存大部分現金的地方。所以這就是那些臭名昭著的股票回購進入遊戲的地方。這是April的個人項目。這本書在過去5年中已經花了1000億美元。微軟在過去10年中已經花了1700億美元。而企業整體在過去10年中已經花費了5.3萬億美元用於股票回購。因此將現金投資於政府證券和股票回購對公司而言，往往是一個歷史上的首選策略。
But this has started to change in recent times. As you can see, large cash reserves are usually a dark sign for corporations. So they try to make sure that cash reserves don't get too out of hand by investing in government securities and stock buybacks. But that's the old school method. The new school method is to trade cash for something much more valuable. The reality is that the value of cash is declining and I don't mean because of inflation.
但是最近这种情况开始有所改变。正如你所看到的，大量的现金储备通常是公司的不好的迹象。因此，它们会尽力确保现金储备不会太过火，通过投资于政府证券和股票回购。但这是过时的方法。新的方式是将现金交换成更有价值的东西。现实是，现金的价值正在下降，我指的不是通货膨胀。
I mean that the fundamental value of cash as a currency itself is declining. This isn't a new trend by any means either. Cash has been a suboptimal currency for over 100 years at this point, basically since the Fed was created way back in 1913. Since then, it's been ingrained in our minds that currencies lose value over time because that's all we've ever seen with cash. But this isn't not true.
我的意思是，现金作为一种货币本身的基本价值正在下降。这并不是一个新趋势。实际上，自从1913年联邦储备银行创立以来，现金就已经成为不太理想的货币形式了。此后，我们一直被灌输着货币会随着时间流逝而贬值的概念，因为这是我们对现金的看法。但这并不完全正确。
Good currencies increase in value and for a very long time, cash was actually a great currency. In fact, between 1800 and 1900, the value of cash actually increased. One dollar in 1800 was only worth 67 cents in 1900. Think about that. Money in 1900 was worth more than it was 100 years before that. Of course, this changed with the Fed. But that's not to say that all currencies became inflationary.
好的货币会增值，而很长一段时间里，现金一直是一种很好的货币。事实上，在1800年到1900年期间，现金的价值实际上有所增加。1800年的一美元在1900年只值67美分。想一想，1900年的钱实际上比100年前更值钱。当然，这一点随着美联储的出现而改变了。但这并不意味着所有的货币都变得通货膨胀。
The new currency to hold was gold, at least until FDR banned it in 1933. Following the ban, the new currency to hold was oil. All of the richest people in the world between the 1930s and 1970s were those who controlled oil. With the 1980s and the economics, however, the optimal currency switched to being stock. And that's how it's been since then. Billionaires like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates aren't holding oil, gold or cash. They're holding stock.
新的储存货币是黄金，至少在1933年之前是这样的，直到FDR宣布禁止。禁令之后，石油成为了新的储存货币。20世纪30年代到70年代期间世界上最富有的人都是那些控制石油的人。然而，随着20世纪80年代的经济变化，最优货币转成了股票。从那之后就一直是这样的。像杰夫·贝索斯、埃隆·马斯克和比尔· 盖茨这样的亿万富翁没有持有石油、黄金或现金，他们持有股票。
But this is once again changing. The new currency is attention and the biggest companies in the world know this more than anyone. This is why they're more than happy to pay ridiculous sums of money to buy attention.
但现在又再次发生了变化。新的货币是注意力，世界上最大的公司比任何人都更了解这一点。这就是为什么他们很乐意支付荒谬的金额来购买注意力的原因。
Luckily, the best example of this is WhatsApp. When they were acquired, they were completely worthless from a traditional business perspective. Despite having 450 million users, the app was only bringing in 10.2 million dollars revenue and was losing 138 million dollars. Another way to look at this is that each user was bringing in a glorious 2.3 cents per year and losing the company 30 cents. Obviously, a terrible situation from a financial perspective.
幸运的是，最好的例子就是WhatsApp。当它们被收购时，从传统的商业角度来看，它们是毫无价值的。尽管有4.5亿用户，该应用程序只带来了1020万美元收入，并亏损1.38亿美元。另一种看待这个问题的方式是，每个用户每年只能带来2.3美分的收入，却让公司亏损30美分。显然，从财务角度来看，这是一个可怕的局面。
Facebook could have easily gone out and replicated the app for no more than 10 million dollars, and even that's being generous. But what Facebook could not replicate was the interest that WhatsApp had, and that's why they paid a ludicrous 19 billion dollars for the company or 42 dollars per user.
Facebook本来可以不费吹灰之力就能复制WhatsApp应用，开支也不过1千万美元，甚至这1千万美元都算是慷慨的。但是，Facebook无法复制WhatsApp所拥有的用户兴趣点，就是这个原因，他们不惜以荒谬的190亿美元或每用户42美元的代价收购了WhatsApp。
This is the same reason that Microsoft bought Skype for 8.5 billion. Why Apple bought Beats for 3 billion? Why Microsoft bought GitHub for 7.5 billion? Why Microsoft bought LinkedIn for 26 billion? Why Salesforce bought Slack for 27 billion? And why Elon bought Twitter for 44 billion dollars? None of these companies created something truly revolutionary.
这也是微软以85亿美元收购Skype的原因，为什么苹果以30亿美元收购Beats，微软以75亿美元收购GitHub，以260亿美元收购LinkedIn，Salesforce以270亿美元收购Slack，以及为什么埃隆以440亿美元收购Twitter？这些公司都没有创造出真正革命性的东西。
Sometimes than not, their products could be replicated for a few hundred thousand dollars or a few million dollars max. But what's nearly impossible to replicate is their user base. And that's why tech giants are blowing all their cash acquiring these startups. Essentially, they're trading their cash and or stock for attention, as that's the far more valuable currency.
通常情况下，他们的产品可以用几十万美元或最多几百万美元进行复制。但是，几乎不可能复制的是他们的用户群。这就是为什么科技巨头们正在耗费所有的资金并收购这些初创公司的原因。从根本上讲，他们正在交换现金和/或股票以获取关注，因为那是更有价值的货币。
For most people, being financially rich is defined by having a bunch of cash, but for most companies, this is a nightmare. Growing cash reserves indicate that you're running out of places to invest and to grow the company, which is a big no-no for investors. Traditionally, companies would trade their cash for bonds and stock, as these were the superior currencies, and these are still very popular options today.
对于大多数人来说，财富被定义为拥有一大笔现金，但对于大多数公司来说，这是一场噩梦。不断增长的现金储备表明你已经没有投资和扩大公司的地方了，这对投资者来说是个大忌。传统上，公司会将现金交换成债券和股票，因为它们是高级货币，这些选项仍然非常受欢迎。
And more and more were starting to see companies trade cash for attention. They're not looking for cash flow or solid business fundamentals or unique business or any of that. What they're looking for is how to maximize the attention that they can get for their cash, as this is the real currency of the 21st century.
越来越多的人开始看到公司用注意力来交易现金。他们不是寻找现金流、坚实的商业基础、独特的业务或任何这些方面。他们所寻找的是如何最大化他们用现金能够得到的注意力，因为这是21世纪真正的货币。
Currently, there's still a bunch of companies in the Fortune 500 that aren't doing this. And give it 20-30-40 years, and the only way to be in the Fortune 500 will be to control attention. And that's why this smartest companies are blowing their cash reserves and return for attention.
目前，仍有许多财富500强公司没有做到这一点。而再过20-30-40年，进入财富500强的唯一途径将是控制注意力。因此，智慧的公司正将现金储备和投资回报用于获取注意力。
Would you rather have cash or attention? Comment that down below. Also, drop a like if you'd like to see more economical analyses just like this one. And of course, consider checking out our Discord community, search it for the video ideas and consider subscribing to see more questions logically answered. I'm Harry, and I'll see you guys on the next one.
你更想要现金还是关注度？请在下面评论。如果你想看到更多像这样的经济分析，请点个赞。当然，考虑加入我们的Discord社区，搜索视频想法并考虑订阅以查看更多逻辑回答的问题。我是Harry，我们下一个视频再见。