That doesn&#x27;t change anything. Cash on hand, even outside of the US lowers cost of capital, potentially almost to zero.<p>Paying the money to shareholders would imply double or triple taxation before the money is with the shareholders. (once, returning the money (corporate tax), once capital gains tax, then income tax or corporate tax again in the case of corporate shareholder). Just so we&#x27;re clear, that means 35% and then another 35% or 50% tax, or 57% up to 67% tax.<p>So I think the original argument stands. The company has a choice. Either spend 3x the money on something that will make the stock price go up (like creating an offshore entity buying your own stock if you want to do this rather directly), or give 60% to the US government, 40% to the shareholders. That&#x27;s why buybacks, which have been proven inefficient to say the least, still happen. They&#x27;d have to be 3x as inefficient to break even.<p>And from the perspective of the management itself : that&#x27;s either a trillion dollars under their direct control (not quite property, but ...) or 400 billion payout to shareholders, none of it under their control. As long as they can get away with it, they&#x27;ll keep it. Just look at what Amazon does to it&#x27;s shareholders.