You have already seen the Hewlett-Packard (NYSE: HPQ) buyout of 3Com Corporation (NASDAQ: COMS). But this week before that deal was announced we covered how mergers in the technology sector have been very slow to develop over the scale in which we and others think is possible for the sector. After the Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) settlement with Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD), the tally of cash that is now estimated would be an implied $265 billion that is available for the tech giants in our 24/7 Wall St. Real-Time 500 to make acquisitions.
The giant cash balances are held by Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT), Cisco Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: CSCO), Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL), Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), and Oracle Corp. (NASDAQ: ORCL), assuming nothing happens with Sun Microsystems Inc. (NASDAQ: JAVA). But players like QUALCOMM Inc. (NASDAQ: QCOM), EMC Corporation (NYSE: EMC), International Business Machines (NYSE: IBM), Dell Inc. (NASDAQ: DELL), Yahoo! Inc. (NASDAQ: YHOO), Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ: AMZN), and eBay Inc. (NASDAQ: EBAY) are either all sitting with large amounts of cash or will be very soon.
We have broken out these technology, IT, software, and Internet companies by the cash amount they hold or what they have in a soon-to-be cash balance. Of course only a fraction of this cash will be used for mergers. But there is also a ton of room here for dividends and of course the share buybacks.
RSS Updates
Email Updates

















On CNBC’s Stop Trading segment today, Jim Cramer said that he ran the worst case scenario on all of the DJIA components, and the worst level he can come up is 5,320. He said he did a bottom-up approach on each individual component and attached a reasonable worst case scenario for each.
There is a fear in America today, and it is a real one. It is part of the reason you keep seeing destruction of value in the stock market every day. That growing fear is the new “N” word. That word is nationalization. If you bank with any of the large money center banks, there is a chance that your bank will essentially be none other Uncle Sam. But let’s forget about the scary predictions for a moment. There is one very annoying and very pressing issue at hand. No one seems to know what nationalization really is, at least not in practice. We have been in discussions with more contacts than we’d like to count over this notion. Our conclusion is rather simple: nationalization means something very different from person to person. And nationalization may be very different from institution to institution, case by case.
