Talk:List of public corporations by market capitalization

message: 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)
thread_title:  Big Fix 

message: Google's Market Cap is 171 Billion. It should be below toyota. (Bjorn Tipling (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As written in lead of article, list is up to date as of March 31, 2008. Check source  - google makret cap was 104 bil in that time. --Jklamo (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Financial Times source is wrong 

message: Should the Market Value be in Billions instead of Millions?
*Agree I think it should be too Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Billions in stead of millions 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Fleming Organization, Inc.? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Legend

message: 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)
thread_title:  What about Grupo Televisa SA? Allegedly worth 1.2Trillion? 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is not live daily-updated list, but quaterly updated list. BRK was 11th as of 31 December 2012, so it is not listed in 2012 table. BRK was in top 10 for some quaters in 2010 and for those it is already listed in article (see 1Q, 2Q and 3Q 2010). --Jklamo (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about Berkshire Hathaway? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Obviously I'm getting it from the quoted FT Global 500 list, as it has always been in this article. The last one (March 2010) doesn't work well, but if you save it as a PDF file, you'll be able to read it as the other ones. We'll see what happens in June. :) --MaeseLeon (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  PetroChina sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: This list is not made on daily capitalizations, but on the quarter totals provided by Financial Times. Otherwise it would be impossible to maintain at a reasonable pace. --MaeseLeon (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple tops PetroChina in market capitalization 

message: To put current market capitalizations into perspective, one should mention that PetroChina was the first public company to reach a trillion dollar market cap.
Quiname (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  PetroChina first public trillion dollar company 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Saudi Aramco between 2.2 trillion and 7 trillion? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing redirect 

message: 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)
replies: text: But RDS is foremost a Dutch company (headquartered in The Hague) with a second registered office in London. Why is it 'disputable' and 'out of scope'? It seems illogical to repeatedly remove the Dutch flagicon in favor of a Great British one. Please provide sources as to why these icons shouldn't be displayed both, and why only the British (and not the Dutch flag) - what is the reasoning behind that. 62.21.180.82 (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As explained below, RDS is marked with hq in UK in source Financial Times table. It is out of scope of the article as this list of corporations by market capitalization, not list of corporations by its hq. --Jklamo (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so Wikipedia is now merely a place for information to be shown verbatim, whether or not such information is correct. Got it. --46.208.231.30 (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, as said before, these cases are disputable, so there is not one correct and one incorrect option, but sipmly two (or three) disputable options. --Jklamo (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Shell crearly states its headquarters are located in the Netherlands. http://www.shell.com/home/content/footer/about_this_site/contact_us/ . Therefore, Shell should be marked as a Dutch company. --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Bus Shell same crealy states that "The parent company of the Shell group is Royal Dutch Shell plc, which is incorporated in England and Wales."  and the shares traded on stock exchanges are issued by RDS plc. So it is not clear and it is disputable. As this discussion is out of the scope of this list (this is list of corporations by market cap, not the list of corporations by hq or the list of countries by its companies market cap), it is simply better to not discuss here and stick to FT source. --Jklamo (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the problem with leaving both flags up there - as the company has been represented as such in the previous years.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.94.45 (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Dutch Shell, Hong Kong 

message: 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)
replies: text: The YCharts had been added again replacing the FT list.  I restored the FT list, keeping the Ycharts version as well.  The FT list should stay on this page as the source is archived.  If somebody cares enough to keep the Ychart list up to date, I won't stop them.  But as it is a snapshot, the source is not verifiable, so it probably should be removed 209.91.107.153 (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed Ycharts again per reasons above. --Jklamo (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ycharts 

message: 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)
replies: text: The list is not (and there is no intentnion to be) daily updated. Date of information is clearly stated. --Jklamo (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  That seems like a lame excuse to not update this list since Google's market share isn't going to change that often give it's basically the third largest company in the world. What other reasoning do you have to offer as to why Google isn't on this list?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pchov (talk • contribs) 19:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Google is missing

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page has incorrect names 

message: It seems out of date. Iady391 | Talk to me here 19:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that state-owned section should be kept for comparsion. Name of article is not relevant, as it was changed multiple times. --Jklamo (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree as state-owned companies are not public, have no market capitalisation, the data is nearly 10 years out of date (look at how much the value of Apple has changed over 10 years), and therefore cannot serve as a reliable comparison. While I would still object to the top 10 private companies, state-owned is even worse as it excludes privately owned non-state companies. I really do think it should be deleted 131.111.5.161 (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-public list does not exclude private owned non-state companies, just in top 10 there are only state-owned. Good point, i will correct the description. The list is old, if you have any newer, feel free to update it.--Jklamo (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still argue this section is irrelevant and out-of-date (with no compelling updated information to replace it). Saudi's potential IPO for Saudi Aramco would value the company at $2tn for example (and IPO shares tend to trade at a discount...). I think the very fact that the FT hasn't attempted a chart like this for the last 10 years is telling 131.111.184.8 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  State own companies out of date 

message: As I mentioned in edit summary, I disagree with using Wolfram Alpha as source for these reasons:
* exact source is missing - in conflict with Wikipedia:Verifiability
* WA is listing just US listed corporations, corporations from China or Europe are missing, thus data are incomplete and incomparable.
--Jklamo (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: unless you know where to go and get the FT source from it simply isn't on the website. If you click the link it gives you the entry for Q2. As far as i'm aware there are no other websites (not even Forbes) that can give a top-10 summary by quarter. Please, if you know of somewhere where you can find this information please go and get it. If not WA forms the next best source. Agreed, that it may only chart US companies, but we're in a fortuitous situation where there are no non-US companies in the top-10 at the moment, ergo, the WA information is valid and accurate as we can best get hold of. WA can be checked alongside resources such as Google Finance for accuracy too. If you have any alternatives please air them... XyZAn (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  is completely correct and those figures are completely inaccurate. Up-to-date source is here: http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/DataArchiveFetchReport?Category=&Type=GMKT&Date=03/31/2016 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited the article - market caps should now be correct as of 31st March 2016. Wolfram Alpha and Google Finance are not reliable sources of market cap data. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just noticed that the same issue applies to Q3 and Q4 2015, I will add in that data too when I have the time 131.111.184.8 (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolfram Alpha 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Click to reveal information for 2000–2010 " not clickable 

message: 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)
replies: text: , WP:NCCORP would suggest that the legal suffix is not usually included an article title, I don't therefore see why you'd need to include it in the link.XyZAn (talk) 12:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks  I've changed Facebook and Amazon to reflect their respective article titles, sans suffix. Apple is still titled Apple Inc. so that can remain as-is. Qzd (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

text: In my opinion it is useful to have corporate suffix in a cases, where wiki article cover two concepts (company and brand or site), to indicate that market capitalization is connected with clearly company. But no strong opinion, current state after Qdz edit is acceptable for me.--Jklamo (talk) 15:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporate suffixes 

message: 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                  	
1720	Mississippi Company     	200 million British Pounds	4 Trillion                    	"Most Valuable Companies in History, Adjusted for Inflation." Yahoo! Finance, n.d. Web. 30 Dec. 2016.
1720	South Sea Company       	300 million British pounds	6 Trillion                    	"Most Valuable Companies in History, Adjusted for Inflation." Yahoo! Finance, n.d. Web. 30 Dec. 2016.
: I don't think so. It is just random selection and long term inflation calculations are bit dubious. But maybe a "non-table" mention in Record market capitalization is possible.--Jklamo (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides which, I don't think those values can be right. For example, dividing 7.4 trillion by 78 million dutch guilders would mean that a single 1637 guilder would have had equivalent worth to modern 94872 dollars. I doubt the guilder was so powerful a coin that you could have bought a domicile for it, so those values fail a basic sanity check. The International Institute of Social History website has an inflation calculator that says 1 guilder in 1637 would be the equivalent of 11.51 euro in 2016. That would mean that the Dutch East India Company's 78 million guilder valuation was the equivalent of about 898 million euro -- big, but hardly trillions.  Samy Merchi (Talk) 06:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Record Market Capitalizations 

message: Here is the latest FT 500 report: http://markets.ft.com/Research/Markets/DataArchiveFetchReport?Category=&Type=GMKT
In 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)
replies: text: Good point, I already noticed it. I agree that we need to identify companies with multiple classes, that are listed, and try to found better source for them (and make corrections). But that is a bit challenging, as other sources are mostly only current snapshots without possibility of historic view. 
So we can try to identify affected large market cap companies (feel free to update the list):
* Alphabet
* Bank of China
* Berkshire Hathaway
* BHP Billiton - only one class is listed 
* China Construction Bank
* Facebook - only one class is listed 
* Industrial and Commercial Bank of China
* Petrochina 
* Roche 
* Royal Dutch Shell
* Samsung Electronics
* Sinopec
* Toyota - only one class is listed 
--Jklamo (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alphabet+Berkshire Hathaway fixed using ycharts.Jklamo (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT 500 mis-reports Alphabet, Facebook, Berkshire Hathaway by only counting class-A shares 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for noticing, strange that it is not included in FT report (despite is single class stock). I added it to last quarter and checked previous.--Jklamo (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alibaba missing 

message: 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)
replies: text: it appears the markup is using the inflation parameter 'US-GDP', if you change to jut 'US' it calculates Microsoft to $909 billion, so I guess its a question of which is the correct one to use in this instance. XyZAn (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation adjustment  

message: 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)
replies: text: What sources do you use?--Jklamo (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I used ycharts, the same as the article, on the date of March 31st. --Mauricio360 (talk) 08:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GOOG vs GOOGL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1996-2010 links in index fail when... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2005 Data? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You are right, thanks for note. I have updated the list.Jklamo (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa (V) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is NOT a "List of public corporations by market capitalization" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Aramco Free Float 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Amazon 

message: 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)
replies: text: I would that though as they were, as its a historical record? You wouldn't go and delete companies that merged or were acquired into larger groups? XyZAn (talk) 10:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

text: No need to "update", it is better to keep the names as they were.Jklamo (talk) 12:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the old company names on the lists be renamed to their current name? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gazprom 

message: since the 1.5% IPO means it's publicly traded. 81.181.130.106 (talk) 08:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check out criteria in lead (15 % free float). Jklamo (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Aramco

message: Facebook App
facebook App 176.29.211.235 (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: App 176.29.211.235 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facebook App