Talk:List of companies by revenue/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about List of companies by revenue. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
For a September 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of worlds largest companies
Nintendo?
Where's Wendy's Corporation?
Wendy's has a revenue in the 20 billions, they should be listed. Burrito813 12:42 15 Dec 2006 {UTC}
Use the Forbes list instead?
Why not use Forbes ranking instead? "Forbes 2000 rank" uses a composite of Sales, Profits, Assets and Market value. That gives a better estimate of which companies are the biggest. It is easy to also mark in bold which company lead in each category. Like this very good and stylish list in the Swedish Wikipedia section. A way to make it even better would be to enable the users to click on a category and that way sort by either Sales, Profits, Assets, Market Value and the compososite ranking. Keep number of employes also and make the list a lot shorter as 20 is enough for the category "List of the World's largest companies". What do you think? Forbes.com has the latest original list, but easy to just translate the Swedish list above.
Row numbers
I removed the row numbering since it'll cause problems when the list is updated. - Jerryseinfeld 06:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Current or ongoing event?
Not really, this is not data from the last 365 days, it's from the last reported fiscal year. Which in most cases are January to December 2003. - Jerryseinfeld 07:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Why not report net interest income
Doesn't make sense net interest income is pure GAAP.
Why this list?
There are maybe 2,000 enterprises of this sort that brings in more than one billion dollar a year, why not have them in a list? For a list of just American companies, see Fortune 500. - Jerryseinfeld 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Contribute?
If you know of a large ($1bn+) company where you live, anywhere in the world, please feel free to include it in the list. - Jerryseinfeld 07:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Accuracy disputed
There is no info from where this data is taken.
- "Number of employees: 205,288". Oh, really?
- Revenue, CEO: what about year 1998, 2011?
While all these data are of interest, they must be in the corresponing articles in the first place, where they can be verified by those who read/write about this particular company. Mikkalai 08:16, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- C'mon, Mikkalai: "Oh, really?" is no accuracy dispute!!
- Companies have to publish annual statements, that's required by law. There are strict rules as to how these statements are compiled, in the US these rules are called US GAAP (those are the rules applied to the numbers in our article here). It takes the accounting departments of big companies months to calculate these numbers and then the statements are checked and verified by certified public accountants. Anything else but to take the data from these annual reports (consisting of report, balance sheet and income statement) would be absurd.
- Now I took a sample from the table in the article and checked it: Exxon Mobil. The number of employees and revenue is correct. To see this go to [1]. Click on 'financial summary'. This will lead you to a pdf, on the first page you will find the number of employees. You will also find the number 'revenue and other income =246,7 you have to deduct excise tax from that, which is given in a footnote=23,9 that is 222,8. You still have to deduct 'other income' to get revenue. you will find the other income in the companies income statement, which is in the same pdf, equalling 9,6, deduct and get 213,2 - the number in our document. I see no reason not to trust the accuracy of these data.--Fenice 14:06, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- The point is all what you did is related to a particular moment in time. Even at the moment of compilation of this report, the actual number could be, say 205,287 due to some janitor fired for coming drunk. If such numbers are not rounded to, say, nearest 100, they look silly anywhere but the timestamped bookkeeping reports.
- Further, seeing "Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream" among world largest companies and not seeing some three thousand other companies larger than it make me think twice before I believe this list.
- Still further, even you manage to put all these 3,000+ companies here, it still will not be veritable, simply because it there is no reason to believe the authors it is correct in every line: the amount of data i overwhelming, and I see no incentive it ever be here in full and be checked several times. As it is now it is a joke. Even microsoft is not here. I begin to suspect that the author is somehow affifiated with, say, Lenovo Group, and invented an elaborate marketing trick to put it right beside Exxon, Toyota and the likes. 68.126.185.201 02:46, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you on the kind of (more current than 2003) numbers you want. How often would you want to update it? How can you be sure the number the company gives you is correct? Who would do all the updating all the time, and who cares about these numbers? The only credible way to do this is to take the numbers from annual statements.
- As to the missing companies: the author is obviously still working on it.--Fenice 10:17, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- This article is inherently unmaintainable. Despite the best intentions and hard work of all the people editing and creating this page, all readers should view it with skepticism and use it cautiously. My major concerns are listed below. Rossami 21:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- It is not true that "all these companies have to publish annual reports". In the US, only publicly traded companies are required to file reports of revenue. Privately-held companies may choose to (or be required to as the result of a bond covenant) but that's no guarantee for our purposes. In the UK, I believe that essentially all companies are required to report. In Russia and Japan, essentially none do (unless they choose to be traded on a US stock market). Information for non-publicly reported companies may be incomplete and difficult to verify and will affect the ordinal rankings of the list.
- Despite all the good intentions of GAAP, there is no single definition even for as simple a measure as revenue. GAAP stands for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not Absolute Accounting Principles. Management has and always will have a great deal of latitude in what and how they choose to report.
- CPAs and external auditors do not certify the accuracy of the numbers reported in the annual report. Auditors certify that financial controls are in place and that the decisions made are reasonably compliant with GAAP.
- Even if you successfully standardize the revenue calculation, the answers will be significantly skewed by differences in:
- fiscal year reporting (a company which reports annual revenues Jan-Dec can not easily be compared to a company which reports Mar-Feb if the general market conditions have changed either up or down during that period)
- currency fluctuations (there is no standard currency conversion rule. common options include: convert at time of sale, convert at end of year, convert at end of year based on average rates, etc.)
- reporting geography (US GAAP has significant differences from UK GAAP and both are significantly different from the GAAP commonly used in South America.)
- The data typically used by professional ranking agencies (such as Fortune Magazine) never comes solely from annual reports. Fortune Magazine keeps dedicated staff who do nothing but this analysis all year and they still must rely on the active cooperation of the companies being evaluated.
- It seems that the article survives. Therefore IMO you have to present all these cautiuos remarks in the article itself. Mikkalai 03:03, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I would agree that the accuracy of this article is flawed. For example, 3M isn't listed even though it pulled in about 20 billion according to article on 3M. --Michael.j.sykora 18:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Where's Microsoft?
Just wondered. Perhaps there should be a series of articles. World's largest companies by revenue (2003) World's largest companies by numebr of employees (2003) World's largest companies by loss (2003) (or a better title) World's most profitable companies (2003)
etc. Then
World's largest companies by revenue (1996-2000) World's least profitabe companies by loss (1996-2000) World's most profitable companies (1996-2000)
- I agree. You have to be kidding me that Microsoft isn't here. They make 32 billion a year, after all. 24.222.142.190 02:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
etc. etc. You'd realy need a database. Luck. Rich Farmbrough 23:49, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Bad phrase
Something wrong with the following phrase:
- Do not net interest income for banks and financial institutions, but net transactions for trading companies like the Japanese and Korean ones.
Please fix. Mikkalai 05:36, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG
Bank Austria's revenue figures are quoted in euros, not US dollars. Could someone rectify that?
Numbering
Im really interested in working on this, i've already added all Irish companies with over a billion dollers of revenue a year, but before I go any furture i'd really like to know why the list is'nt numbered. You might argue that it would be inaccurate because of missing companies - but by numbering them it gives an incentive to improve the list. CGorman 11:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
- BTW I know Jerry mentioned this above, but im wondering is there any way to use auto numbers? CGorman 15:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
To do list
To organise this in a more methodical way, im proposing we work on a geographical basis. As each area/company is covered, strike it out.
Completed so far
- Ireland - public fully done, private fully done
In Progress
- France - public not started yet, private not started yet
- Germany - public not started yet, private not started yet
- United Kingdom - public FTSE 100 started, private not started yet
France
Germany
United Kingdom
Members of the FTSE 100
3i- less than $1bnAlliance & Leicester- addedAlliance Unichem- addedAllied Domecq- addedAmvescap- addedAnglo American plc- addedAntofagasta- addedAssociated British Foods- addedAstraZeneca plc- addedAviva- addedBAA plc- addedBAE Systems- addedBarclays Bank- added- BG Group
- BHP Billiton
- The BOC Group
- Boots Group
- BP
- British Airways
- British American Tobacco
- British Land Company
- British Sky Broadcasting
- BT Group
- Bunzl
- Cable & Wireless
- Cadbury Schweppes
- Capita Group
- Carnival
- Centrica
- Compass Group
- Corus
- Daily Mail & General Trust
- Diageo
- Dixons Group
- Emap
- Enterprise Inns
- Exel
- Friends Provident
- Gallaher Group
- GlaxoSmithKline
- GUS
- Hanson
- Hays
- HBOS
- Hilton Group
- HSBC Holdings
- Imperial Chemical Industries
- Imperial Tobacco Group
- InterContinental Hotels Group
- International Power
- ITV
- J Sainsbury
- Johnson Matthey
- Kingfisher
- Land Securities Group
- Legal & General
- Liberty International
- Lloyds TSB Bank
- Man Group
- Marks and Spencer
- Wm Morrison Supermarkets
- National Grid Transco
- Next
- Northern Rock
- O2
- Old Mutual
- Pearson
- Prudential
- Reckitt Benckiser
- Reed Elsevier
- Rentokil Initial
- Reuters Group
- Rexam
- Rio Tinto Group
- Rolls-Royce Group
- Royal Bank of Scotland Group
- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance
- SABMiller
- Sage Group
- Schroders
- Scottish & Newcastle
- Scottish & Southern Energy
- Scottish Power
- Severn Trent
- Shell Transport & Trading Co
- Shire Pharmaceuticals Group
- Smith & Nephew
- Smiths Group
- Standard Chartered
- Tesco
- Tate & Lyle
- Unilever
- United Utilities
- Vodafone Group
- Whitbread
- William Hill
- Wolseley
- WPP Group
- Xstrata
- Yell Group
Cut off at $10 billion
This isn't getting very far. I suggest the cut off should be raised to $10 billion to give it a more realistic chance of being complete some day. Most $1 billion companies are of little interest outside their region and/or industry, and Forbes and Fortune don't extend their lists that low. There is really no way anyone not working on this subject full time (probably with a team of assistants) can keep track of all companies over $1 billion, or tell how complete it might be at that end (well obviously no where near at the moment, but imagine if there were hundreds of companies). Every year the $1 billion level will get less impressive and the number of companies that reach it will increase a lot - perhaps by hundreds. If anyone wants to rank companies at the $1 billion level, it would be better done at a local level. There really isn't any point in ranking a minor German car parts maker (unknown outside the industry and the towns where it has factories) against a small supermarket chain in Alabama. And anyway, it's pretty unlikely anyone will do it. If the completion of this article is made more feasible, it is far more likely to happen. Merchbow 23:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've implemented the change now. Merchbow 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Define 'this list is incomplete'
So basically the claim is that there are 3000 companies which fit the bill of 'revenue over $1B USD' but only 180 are on this list? At the least, could anyone qualify why the ones on this list are here? Is the idea for users to add companies as needed based solely on the criteria of a verifiable >1B revenue mark? I ask this because after browsing the list, companies like JP Morgan Chase and Cardinal Health have a very substantial revenue but are not on the list. I would tend to agree with the suggestions that this method of recordkeeping be abandoned in favor of reporting based on official national and international publications dedicated to this process, like Forbes' Fortune 500.
can somebody add a list of *US* companies
Something by location, revenue, and number of employees? I was trying to get one started myself, but can't seem to work it right.
Ideally I'd like to get a map that displays the largest US companies by revenue, and by # of employees. Mashups anyone?
pfzeizer?
the larges pharm corp ever must have a pretty good revenue
Saint-Gobain?
Where is Saint Gobain? I think they had a revenue of close to about 35Bn Euro.
US Postal Service
Does the USPS belong here? It's a publicly owned corporation according to its wikipedia article. It is part of the U.S. government.
I don't think it does belong as its part of the US Goverment, not publically or privately held. Atechi 15:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Needed Updation
The list is so old, i think we need to update this, so we can find many companies going in and out of this. We can also see many companies from China and India coming into this list. It would be nice if we includ the industry which these companies belongs. (Nubin_wiki 05:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)).
Stock symbols
Unitedstasian and I have been discussing whether to keep the information about where the companies are traded in and their stock symbols:
- Hey IF, I noticed you reverted my revert of your deletion of the stock symbols: as I said in my edit notes, I was hoping we could take the matter to a talk page to get more input. Are you against a broader discussion of this issue? Unitedstasian
- Sorry for having reverted your revert of that edition of mine where I had deleted the stock symbols. While I do not think that keeping them is really useful (since most of the largest companies of the world are traded worldwide), the main reason why I changed the article back to my edition is that there was some new information provided by myself (headquarters) which was going to be lost. Anyway, I am copying what you and I have discussed so far into a talk page, as requested ;) Ignis Fatuus
Ignis Fatuus 15:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I am readding the stock listing column, (and hopefully not removing any of the headquarters info in the process), but I am making it the primary listing so it stays shorter (and more useful, and will add the links to the exchanges other than NYSE Euronext. If there is huge opposition, we can undo. It will be a work in progress like the HQ info. for a while. UnitedStatesian 13:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comparsion with List of corporations by market capitalization
By comparing with List of corporations by market capitalization revenue column these +20bil may missing:
- Abbott Laboratories
- ABN AMRO
Arcelor Mittal- (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria)
- Bank of America
- BNP Paribas
- Canon
- Cisco Systems
- Comcast
Électricité de FranceGazprom- Grupo Santander
- HBOS
China Mobile- (Industrial and Commercial Bank of China)
- (Intesa Sanpaolo)
Johnson & Johnson- LUKoil
News Corporation- Novartis
- NTT DoCoMo
- Pfizer
Procter & Gamble- Rio Tinto
- Rosneft
- SABIC
- Société Générale
- Time Warner
- UBS AG
- UniCredit
- Unilever
- United Parcel Service
- UnitedHealth Group
- Vodafone
- Wachovia
- Wells Fargo
--Jklamo 05:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
No Indian company in the list?!
What happened to Indian Oil Corporation, Reliance Industries, Aditya Birla Group and Tata Group? Their revenues easily crosses 20 billion. --Jai Dixit (talk) 05:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Add them, source figures. List is very far from to be complete. Tens of missing companies are just on that talk page. --Jklamo (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
PEMEX, Mexico's largerst oil company had a revenue of 98 billion USD in 2006? Why is it not included in the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.241.124.150 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Sortable "List of largest companies"?
With the sortable table feature, should there be 1 article with revenue, capitalization, base country, employees, profits merged? The initial ranking (no numbers tho) can be per revenue or capitalization. Historical info can then be moved off to things like List of companies by employees (2006). -- Jeandré, 2007-12-22t05:39z
- That may be good idea, BUT big problem is that initial ranking. For example, if you choose market capitalization as criterion, for example Ford will not be in; if you choose revenue as criterion, Google will not be in. --Jklamo (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think there is also a size problem. We had to cut from USD10B to USD20B for size reasons, and the more fields we add to sort on, the more we will have to cut. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, Sorting does not work properly. For instance, Market Capitalization sorts as text, not numerical value.
- Sorting market cap works ok for first and fourth click. --Jklamo (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
new cut off
I propose new cut off at US$30 billions, because of article length, size and incompleteness of 20-30 part. I think it will be better to focus to the completeness more than length. --Jklamo (talk) 20:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Bold face?
Why are some company names listed in bold face, and some not? Does this indicate some characteristic of the company or its ranking, or is it just inconsistency among editors? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Bolded companies (with some few error expections) are shown with full name, including types of business entity. So yes, it is more likely for editors than for viewers. I am not insist on it, so you can change it. --Jklamo (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)