Lists Mid‑importance | |||||||
|
I just made big update. My suggestions for that list for future: Keep adding quaterly lists, due rising article size 2007 first quarter list can be cutted off (full size will be still on List of corporations by market capitalization on 30th March 2007, maybe it will be expanded more), adding more than top10 companies can be considered, some graphs may be added. --Jklamo (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Google's Market Cap is 171 Billion. It should be below toyota. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
According to your source, Cnooc Ltd. 3.66T BCH Banco de Chile 2.08T and EC ECOPETROL SA have really big market caps. How come they are not in your list?
B of A is showing $1.2T for the most recent published quarter. As close as I can tell this list is almost nothing but errors and omissions with a possible goal of lauding Apple.73.185.194.135 (talk) 15:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Market Value be in Billions instead of Millions?
I understand that as a marketing firm, the Fleming Organization has many employees talented in a wide and varied field of skills, but obviously reading and comprehension is not among them. As the title of this article says, this is a page that contains a list of the worlds largest companies, based off the Financial Times data. Downloading their latest report (Sep 08), I discovered that not only was the Fleming Organization not the largest company by market cap, but it failed to feature on the list at all. Further investigation revealed that had merely replaced Exxon Mobil with themselves. If you must vandalize pages with advertising for your company, at least try to be original. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veloxsilentium (talk • contribs) 08:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page should have a legend for the table, not everyone immediately knows what the symbols mean, especially the blue line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.44.83 (talk) 00:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with that. I keep on seeing these green and red arrows on this page, and on the page of the company's but I still don't have any idea what they mean. A legend would be very helpful. (Maxynator123 (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Heres a link off Google finance
Grupo Televisa SA (TV) ADRs
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ATV
market cap 1.20 Trillion!should be the world's biggest, if that is correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.70.94 (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vodafone is showing on Google finance as a 9 Billion dollar market cap company, but it should be high above 100 Billion. I've seen more bugs on Google finance that were eventually solved. Grupo Televisa SA and Vodafone will eventually get fixed.
I've got another source for market caps, which is http://corporateinformation.com/Top-100.aspx?topcase=b . It also bugs sometimes, but it get's fixed on the next update. Also, they only update the table once a week.
Berkshire shares BRK.A have a market cap above GE (http://www.forbes.com/sites/dividendchannel/2012/11/21/berkshire-hathaway-moves-up-in-market-cap-rank-passing-general-electric/). Why aren't they on the list? Edmund Blackadder (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're getting the information about PetroChina's market cap. None of my usual sources show it above 200 Billion right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTachyon (talk • contribs) 21:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Apple overtook PetroChina in market capitalization today. Can someone change this? I don't want to break anything. Here's the source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100923/bs_afp/uschinaitcompanystockstechnologyapplepetrochina --98.111.132.42 (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To put current market capitalizations into perspective, one should mention that PetroChina was the first public company to reach a trillion dollar market cap.[1]
Quiname (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Financial Times Non-Public 150, Saudi Aramco was estimated at 0.781 trillion US$ in December 2006. This seems like a rather conservative estimate. Saudi Aramco is the only company besides Petrochina whose estimated value exceeded US$ 1.0 trillion at some point. While I was not able to find official data for dates before or after 2006, there is speculation that Saudi Aramco's true value is actually in the range US$2.2 trillion to US$7 trillion. Why? It is producing 4 billion barrels per year, equivalent to US$300 billion. A large profit margin yields US$110 - US$180 billion in annual profits, which would translate into a reasonable market cap of US$2.2 trillion - US$3.6 trillion, according to Sheridan Titman who refers to a Financial Times estimate of US$7 trillion: http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/titman/2010/03/01/more-thoughts-on-the-value-of-saudi-aramco/ . Obviously Saudi Aramco has dwarfed all Western companies for decades; it just did not show up in the Forbes rankings limited to public companies. Since all of this is relevant for the historic parts of the article I'd greatly appreciate if someone could provide unambiguous data. Quiname (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
searching "Largest Companies" redirects to this page, but searching "Largest Corporations" doesn't even list this page in the first page of results. I don't know how to fix this, but it seems like both should redirect here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.11.73 (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with RDS hq (and other "mulithq" companies, like BHP Billiton or Rio Tinto) is disputable and it is out of the scope of this list. Thus best option is to keep up with source FT data. Same for Hong Kong vs China issue. --Jklamo (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Ycharts for 2012 and updated again using FT. FT is better because the figures are archived (there is no archive at Ycharts, that is just snapshot) and principally FT has much better coverage of stock excahnges (including Russia, Brazil, Japan, South Korea..). I do not see any advantage if using Ycharts against FT, as this is not day-to-day updated list and its aim is more to show historic trends than to show most recent numbers. Jklamo (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone make a better graph? The colors are confusing since there are too many lines, giving similar colors to different companies, the axes are hard to read, and it's clearly done in Excel with clearly very little effort into making it look pretty.
Furthermore, I'm honestly not convinced the style is even the best way to portray it. What's it trying to show, the volatility of the top corporations? I'm unsure why that would be the lead image, then. And if it's not trying to show that, is it just trying to show who is currently the top company? Because I think there would be better ways to do that too. Stever Augustus (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google is currently at a market cap of over $290B, and should be added to several items. 25 September 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.81.40 (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the FT data has some pretty different numbers from other sites I'm looking at. For example, they list the market capitalization for GOOG at $237B on September 30th, 2013. Other sites like Wolfram Alpha give a figure closer to $292B on the date: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=GOOG+market+cap+on+september+30th+2013. Does anybody know why there's such a substantial difference between these sources? Working backward from (the number of outstanding shares * the share price on that date) gives the same figure as Wolfram Alpha. --50.79.35.242 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A "list of public corporations by market capitalization" needn't include EVERY corporation. The S&P 500 might be a logical subset.
But to use this for a page restricted to a tiny number of only the LARGEST corporations is absurd -- though, unfortunately, increasingly typical of Wikipedia.
Kindly change the name to"List of largest public corporations by market capitalization "
Jamesdowallen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.42.87.233 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems out of date. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that section should be deleted as it is not relevant to the article "list of public corporations by market capitalisation" - by definition those companies are not public, and do not have a market capitalisation. Market cap ≠ enterprise value. In addition, data from 2006 is completely outdated. 94.119.64.0 (talk) 16:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the section - happy to discuss with anyone with an opposing opinion 94.119.64.0 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in edit summary, I disagree with using Wolfram Alpha as source for these reasons:
--Jklamo (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "Click to reveal information for 2000–2010 " does not appear to be clickable. At least for me nothing happens when I click it in chrome or edge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.162.30 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the collapsing areas for 1996-9 and 2000-4 based on format of the content. Javascript has to be enabled to support this.
This is pedantic but is there any consensus on how or whether to include the corporate suffix, i.e. Inc. or Corporation? I notice this is only really applied to Apple, Facebook, and Amazon. However, it would equally apply to other companies so maybe we should drop them and keep things consistent? Also, Amazon is Amazon.com, Inc. not Amazon Inc. Qzd (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Should companies be added that have had amazingly high market caps in the past?
Date | Company | Record value | Inflation Adjusted value (USD) | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
1637 | Dutch East India Company | 78 Million Dutch Guilders | 7.4 Trillion | [1] |
1720 | Mississippi Company | 200 million British Pounds | 4 Trillion | [2] [3] |
1720 | South Sea Company | 300 million British pounds | 6 Trillion | [4] |
Here is the latest FT 500 report: http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/DataArchiveFetchReport?Category=&Type=GMKTIn this report the Alphabet (GOOG) market cap is quoted as 234634.31M which corresponds to 296,087,212 outstanding Class A shares per Q4 2016 SEC filing https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/viewer?action=view&cik=1652044&accession_number=0001652044-16-000038&xbrl_type=v multiplied by a December 2016 closing price of 792.45. Why is FT 500 only counting Class A shares? Every other source cites the sum of Class A, Class B, and Class C putting Alphabet market cap at >530B? Even Morningstar, the source FT cites, uses the sum of Class A, Class B, and Class C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.109.86.218 (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So we can try to identify affected large market cap companies (feel free to update the list):
--Jklamo (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alibaba had a market cap of ~$360B on the last quarterly update, but is not listed, while smaller companies are listed. It may be missing for other quarters as well (haven't checked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:540:C402:16E0:21CE:EEE4:BF7C:C5F (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=618.90&year1=199912&year2=201801 The Microsoft value inflation adjusted should be 911, instead of 868. Anyone know why it's not updating?Pablogelo (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GOOG is class C stock, and GOOGL is class A.Currently GOOG is used in this article, which gives a market cap of 717.40, but using GOOGL would give a different market cap of 721.12.Which of the two should be used? --Mauricio360 (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1996-2010 links in index fail when they are hidden, that is when"Click on [show] right to reveal information for..." has NOT been clicked.Hidden seems to be the default. A workaround is to click on "2.8 2011"and scroll down and click on show, then back.A note to this effect on the index would be kind of tacky but would help.Alternately make "shown" the default but then what's the point. A little system gotcha. Fholson 14:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fholson (talk • contribs)
The data for 2005 is missing. Anyone with an FT subscription who has access to the data? The old eclippings are now behind a paywall. (Should probably archive all of them somewhere for future reference.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.59.176 (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Visa should be in the top 10 for Q1, Q2, Q3 of 2019. See link:https://ycharts.com/companies/V/market_cap — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farful (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either the title of the page should be changed, or the contents should be amended to match the title.
The title should be "Short list of largest public corporations by market capitalization."
There are 500 companies on the S&P 500 alone! No, I don't think the list need include all the several thousands of publicly traded corporations in the world; some smaller number -- several hundred -- would be fine. Compromise and make the list just have 150 names or thereabouts if you wish. Ten instead of 150? ::whack:: No, that ain't it.Septimus.stevens (talk) 06:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The beginning of the article states that only companies with a free float of at least 15% are included. However, Aramco tops the 2019 Q4 list despite having a free float of only 1.5%. I might just be misunderstanding something here but I believe Aramco shouldn't be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:D081:A600:2098:6886:CA09:F850 (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
I have to agree with him, Aramco still doesn't have free floating of 15%, this may happen in 2020, but until there remove Aramco from the list or include other companies with less than 15% free float and remove such a role or lower the bar to 1% --Pablogelo (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to rekindle old edit wars, is there any reason why Amazon is not included in the list of trillion dollar companies? 93.117.220.196 (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking through the tables on the page and saw that there were old names of companies being displayed (e.g "BHP Billiton" is now only called "BHP" ; "Wal-Mart" is now "Walmart")should I change the names to the updated names or leave it as is for reference?
ScratchyGamer314 (talk) 01:19, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title promises a list of public corporations, ordered by market value. That seems simple enough.
However the article contains loads of lists, none of which really fits the title. First there is some record keeping about which companies first reached certain thresholds. Second, we have very short historical top 10 lists from the last 25 years; none of which is really up to date. Lastly, there is a list of non-public companies.
I propose:
St.nerol (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are reasonable points. However, the mismatch remains between the contents of the page and the promise of the title. Even the first sentence explains "The following is a list of publicly traded companies having the greatest market capitalization." Well, is it? St.nerol (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What happened to Gazprom? After 2008 it simply disappeared from the list. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.0.62.126 (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
since the 1.5% IPO means it's publicly traded. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook Appfacebook App 176.29.211.235 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]