企业的现金属于谁?

There is, however, a big difference between a bank with an equity base of 5 per cent of its assets and Apple, which is awash with cash. Even David Einhorn, the hedge fund investor who wants Apple to issue new preference shares with a 4 per cent yield, say it should keep $20bn under the mattress.
然而，一家股本基数占资产5%的银行与现金充裕的苹果之间存在巨大差异。就连对冲基金投资者艾因霍恩也表示，苹果应保持200亿美元现金储备。他希望该公司发行收益率为4%的新的优先股。

High margins and a global market have brought the elite technology groups more cash than they have any use for. Moody’s estimates that the technology sector in the US holds $556bn in cash – 38 per cent of total corporate cash reserves. Apple will have $170bn by the year-end unless, as Tim Cook, its chief executive, promises, it gives some to shareholders.
高利润率以及全球市场给顶尖科技公司带来了大量现金，超出他们的利用能力。穆迪估计，美国科技行业持有5560亿美元现金，占企业现金总储备的38%。除非苹果按照首席执行官蒂姆??库克(Tim Cook)所承诺的，把部分现金返还给股东，否则到今年底，苹果的现金储备将达到1700亿美元。

It is hardly a corporate governance outrage for Mr Einhorn to suggest a way for Apple to do so. Warren Buffett, the eminent investor, advised Mr Cook to “ignore Einhorn” and focus on business, but Mr Buffett is no stranger to extracting money from companies by using high-yield preference shares, as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and General Electric know.
艾因霍恩向苹果提出一种将现金返还给股东的方法，很难算得上公司治理方面的一种离谱行为。知名投资人沃伦??巴菲特(Warren Buffett)建议库克“不要理会艾因霍恩”，应关注企业，但巴菲特对于利用高收益率优先股从公司抽走现金的做法并不陌生，正如高盛(Goldman Sachs)、美国银行(Bank of America)和通用电气(GE)所知道的那样。

It would be strange for investors always to wait meekly for a handout, like Maundy Money from the Queen, when a company has lots of it. Lynn Stout, a law professor, notes that “as a matter of law, shareholders??.??.??.??are entitled to receive nothing from the firm unless and until the board of directors decides they should receive it”. They might as well ask.
如果一家公司拥有大量现金，投资者却总是要乖乖地等待着公司的派发，就像英国女王发放救济金(Maundy Money)一样，那才是奇怪的。法学教授林恩??斯托特(Lynn Stout)指出，“从法律的角度来看，除非及直到董事会决定股东应得到现金，否则股东……无权从公司得到任何返还”。他们还不如公开要求。

Indeed, balance sheet structure is an issue on which fund managers have useful opinions. They are less to be trusted on corporate strategy, which is not their speciality. As Mr Einhorn said about Apple, “we aren’t here to offer strategic thoughts on how they operate their business – they are the experts”.
的确，在资产负债表结构这个问题上，基金经理可以提出有用的意见。公司战略并非他们的专长，在这个问题上不是那么可以信任他们。正如艾因霍恩谈到苹果时所言：“我们来到这里不是为了就他们如何经营业务提供战略思路——他们是行家。”

It may give Mr Lipton apoplexy, but there is no harm in investors challenging executives and a board of directors if they are hoarding cash from caution or laziness. This does not mean that investors are always right – the money could turn out to be useful in future – but it is a fair debate to hold publicly.
这可能会让利普顿发疯，但如果高管和董事会出于谨慎或懒惰囤积现金，投资者向他们发起挑战没有任何害处。这并不意味着投资者永远正确——现金可能在未来证明是有用的——但这是一场可以公开进行的公平辩论。

The bigger question, to which Mr Lipton alludes, is not whether the managers or the shareholders should decide. It is whether short-term investors that pressure companies for dividends or share buybacks are behaving against the interests of the long-term shareholders. That is the trap into which banks fell before the 2008 financial crisis.
更大的问题（利普顿也曾提到）不是应该由管理者还是股东做出决定，而是短线投资者向企业施压、要求派发股息或进行股票回购的行为，是否有损长期股东的利益。那正是2008年金融危机爆发之前银行所坠入的那个陷阱。

Executives have to be alert to this, and to repudiate cash handouts that sound nice but would make it harder to build a profitable and sustainable enterprise. They need not follow the caricature version of “shareholder value” that sees the job of managers as to maximise the current share price at all costs.
企业高管必须关注这个问题，而且必须反驳那些听上去不错、但不利于打造盈利且可持续的企业的现金返还。他们不需要遵循漫画版的“股东价值”，认为管理者的工作就是不惜一切代价将当前股价提升至最高。

But US technology companies, several of which could bail out small eurozone countries without breaking a sweat, are not victims of corporate raiders. They are simply being asked to make use of their wealth.
可话说回来，美国科技公司并非敌意收购的靶子（有几家企业无需费力就能为欧元区小国纾困）。人们只不过是要求它们好好利用手中的财富。