????當(dāng)然,，災(zāi)難有可能發(fā)生，也的確會(huì)發(fā)生,。眾所周知,，網(wǎng)絡(luò)視頻租賃公司Netflix在公司股價(jià)居高不下之時(shí)，投了10多億美元用于股票回購(gòu),，令公司在去年秋季陷入窘境,，現(xiàn)金幾近用罄的Netflix不得不施行了每股70美元的攤薄性融資。即便情況沒(méi)那么糟糕,，也不能確保在市場(chǎng)大幅震蕩之時(shí)股票回購(gòu)仍能支撐股價(jià),。高盛指出，股票回購(gòu)的長(zhǎng)期效應(yīng)至多也只是好壞不一,。

????股息,。雖然高盛的研究沒(méi)有指出，股息將有類似的大幅增長(zhǎng),，但高盛分析師們確實(shí)預(yù)計(jì)返還給股東的現(xiàn)金水平將穩(wěn)步增長(zhǎng)——2011年有約14%的資本用于派息——與2002-2010年間的均值持平,，高于2006-2008年間12%的水平。當(dāng)時(shí)公司仍認(rèn)為相比把現(xiàn)金返還給股東,，他們能有更好的用途,。問(wèn)題是：如今固定收益投資的收益率仍低得可憐——10年期美國(guó)國(guó)債為2.04%，1年期只有區(qū)區(qū)0.11%,。為自己找一只高派息股,，就能占據(jù)先機(jī)。高盛列出了很多股息收益率具有吸引力且股息歷史增長(zhǎng)率較高的公司,，包括輝瑞（再次出現(xiàn)?。⑼ㄓ秒姎猓℅eneral Electric）,、可口可樂(lè)（Coca-Cola）和波音公司（Boeing）,。有些股息收益率更高的股票可能風(fēng)險(xiǎn)略高一些,，包括Och-Ziff Capital Management資產(chǎn)管理公司（股息收益率10.7%！）,、通信公司威力眾（Verizon,，5.2%）和杜科能源（Duke Energy）（4.7%）。

????并購(gòu),。現(xiàn)金收購(gòu)的步伐似乎也在加快,。市場(chǎng)研究機(jī)構(gòu)Capital IQ的數(shù)據(jù)顯示，過(guò)去12個(gè)月有很多美國(guó)大公司都打開(kāi)了錢袋,，進(jìn)行大宗并購(gòu),，包括米高梅集團(tuán)（MGM Resorts，支付現(xiàn)金4.07億美元）,、Liberty Interactive傳媒公司（1.85億美元）,、Allscripts Healthcare保健公司（1.215億美元）和福特汽車（Ford Motor Company）（9,400萬(wàn)美元）。不是每個(gè)首席執(zhí)行官都愿意承擔(dān)這樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),，換言之,，還是有很多錢沒(méi)花出去。

????那么,，實(shí)體投資呢,？如今這有更時(shí)髦的政治辭令“創(chuàng)造就業(yè)”。近期接受《財(cái)富》雜志（Fortune）采訪的公司高管中只有不到一半的人表示,，2012年預(yù)計(jì)將擴(kuò)大員工招聘,。2011年企業(yè)有38%的現(xiàn)金用于資本支出，仍低于39%的長(zhǎng)期均值,，甚至也低于2009年的42%,。麥肯錫公司（McKinsey & Company）2011年9月的一項(xiàng)研究指出，雖然很多高管感覺(jué)公司對(duì)業(yè)務(wù)投資不足,，但各行各業(yè)都在越來(lái)越多地回避可能的損失——在他們眼里,，潛在損失比潛在收益更重。換言之,，他們就是沒(méi)有膽量做出大膽的決定,。因此，他們可能會(huì)開(kāi)始把現(xiàn)金返還給股東,。

????因此，消息面是積極的,，雖然利好也許有限,。看來(lái)漫長(zhǎng)的現(xiàn)金儲(chǔ)藏期終于有望結(jié)束,。如果公司想不出怎么投資或并購(gòu),，他們就會(huì)把錢返還給股東?，F(xiàn)在，需要有什么人讓蘋果公司的人知道在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上（雖然這種情況很少見(jiàn)）,，他們并不比其他公司好多少,，和其他公司也并沒(méi)有什么不同。這些錢不是他們的,，是股東們的,。如果這些錢他們沒(méi)有用，就該還給股東,。

????Of course, disasters can—and do—happen. Netflix (NFLX) famously spent over $1 billion on share repurchases when its stock was flying high, leaving the company in a jam last fall that necessitated a dilutive financing at $70 a share because it had nearly run out of cash. Even in more benign circumstances, there's no guarantee that a buyback will offer any share price support in a volatile market. To its credit, Goldman points out that the long-term effect of buybacks on stock prices is mixed at best.

????Dividends. While Goldman's research doesn't point to a similar surge in dividends, its analysts do see a steady level of cash being returned to shareholders by such a route—some 14% of capital allocations in 2011—equal to the average from 2002 to 2010, and above the 12% levels of 2006 to 2008, when companies still thought they had better uses for their cash than just giving it back to shareholders. And here's the thing: fixed income investments remain at pathetic yields these days -- 2.04% for 10-year Treasuries or a paltry 0.11% for one-year notes. Find yourself a nice dividend-paying stock, and you're ahead of the game already. Goldman identifies a number of companies with both attractive yields plus historical dividend growth. They include Pfizer (again!), General Electric, Coca-Cola, and Boeing. Some higher-yielding stocks that might be a bit riskier include Och-Ziff Capital Management (a 10.7% yield!), Verizon (5.2%), and Duke Energy (4.7%).

????Mergers and acquisitions. The pace of cash acquisitions seems to be picking up as well. According to Capital IQ, a number of major U.S. companies opened their wallets for major M&A moves over the last 12 months, including MGM Resorts ($407 million in cash spent), Liberty Interactive ($185 million), Allscripts Healthcare ($121.5 million) and Ford Motor Company ($94 million). Not every CEO is trigger-shy, in other words, and there is big money out there waiting to be put to use.

????And what of actual corporate investment—now known by its trendy political moniker, "job creation?" Fewer than half of executives polled recently by Fortune said they expect to increase their headcount in 2012. Companies allocated 38% of their cash use on capital expenditures in 2011, which is still below the long-term average of 39% and even below 2009 levels of 42%. A September 2011 study by McKinsey & Company pointed out that while large numbers of executives felt their companies were underinvesting in their business, a rise in loss aversion—weighing potential losses significantly more than equivalent gains—has taken hold across all manner of industries. In other words, they're suffering from an inability to make bold decisions. So they might as well start giving it back to shareholders.

????So the news is positive, if only on the margins. And it seems as if the long night of cash hoarding might finally be coming to a close. If companies can't figure out how to invest their money or spend it on M&A, they're going to give it back to their shareholders. Now someone just needs to let the people at Apple know that in this one rare instance, they are not better or different than everyone around them. It's not their money—it's their shareholders'. If they've got no use for it, give it back.