[amimabremiBit]

In this context, "cash in the bank" doesn't literally mean cash-money.

I know that - that's what I said.

It means liquid financial assets that bear interest. This would include cash and equivalents, short term investments and long term investments. ...and that too!

Even if they're not cash-equivalent, they are interest bearing securities that are marketable and are delivering returns well below those of Apple's operations. Well that depends on what they're investing in. But even if it's true, aside from it actually hedging against unforeseen events, and the fact that it does actually add to Apple's overall valuation, it cannot be used to scale Apple's operations. So the choice isn't interest ROE Vs operations ROE it's interest ROE Vs giving the money back to shareholders, which results in zero ROE, but a higher share price.

They don't make Apple more competitive and they don't offer investors much in the way of returns. It's very important for companies to have cash on hand to fund new initiatives and research, fend off competitive advances, etc. Apple has so much "aggregate money" on hand that it can do all of this and more, and it cannot invest the difference effectively. This is the problem I am talking about and it's real. I don't agree - I think that banking the cash actually makes Apple more efficient and valuable, than exponentially growing and becoming less efficient along with it, ultimately lowering returns and becoming less valuable. This already happened to IBM, MS, Sony and even Google along with many others.