Apple Is Bigger Than Almost Any Stock Market In the World (cnbc.com) 79
"My friend Ben Carlson pointed out that Apple's current market capitalization of about $2.7 trillion this week exceeds the entire market capitalization of the United Kingdom, the third biggest stock market in the world," writes CNBC's Bob Pisani. From the report: Dimensional's Matrix Book is an annual review of global returns that highlight the power of compound investing. It's a fascinating document: you can look up the compounded growth rate of the S&P 500 for every year going back to 1926. Buried on page 74 is a chapter on "World Equity Market Capitalization," listing the market capitalization of most of the world, country by country. No surprise, the U.S. is the global leader in stock market value. The $40 trillion in stock market wealth in the U.S. is almost 60% of the value of all the equities in the world.
Here's where it gets fun. [...] Not only is Apple bigger than all 595 companies that list in the United Kingdom, it's bigger than all the companies in France (235 companies), and India (1,242 companies). Apple is twice the size of Germany's entire stock market, with 255 companies.
Here's where it gets fun. [...] Not only is Apple bigger than all 595 companies that list in the United Kingdom, it's bigger than all the companies in France (235 companies), and India (1,242 companies). Apple is twice the size of Germany's entire stock market, with 255 companies.
Re: (Score:2)
But not producing 60% of the co2.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
China made a decision. If they want to decarbonize, they can and should. Nothing forces them to be the world's largest polluter.
Re: (Score:1)
50 cent army strikes with the troll mod! Lol, god forbid any of you losers would ever actually reply with words to defend your Pooh Bear overlord. How does it feel to live under the oppressive murderous thumb of a child's story character?
Re:The US is 60 percent of all value generated (Score:5, Insightful)
you mistake valuation for value.
European capital gains tax (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how much is actually being *produced*, in terms of actual physical products, here? And how much is fairy dust "financial products" that are nothing more than Ponzi schemes writ large?
Re: (Score:2)
The US only produces about 10% of worldwide GDP. According to Credit Suisse, the US has 34% of the world's wealth. While impressive considering we only have 5% of the world's population, neither of those are anywhere near the 60% number you gave.
This is market malfunction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Why would people stop buying luxuries?
There is more wealth in both absolute and pure capital terms now by orders of magnitude than all previous human history combined. Short of a global catastrophe that bring civilization back to the Stone Age there will always be a huge desire for luxuries.
As far as Apple is concerned, the smart phone, tablet, etc, are not luxuries in our high tech world.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrington Event #2: "Hold my beer ..."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather be a poor person today in the United States than the king of England (or anywhere else) in 1500.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
> Apple is a very valuable company, its products are a luxury.
They're only regarded as a luxury by people who don't use them.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh..... I'm a fairly screwed on apple user. I work on a macbook and own an iPhone. (Though I also play games on a windows machine and own an XBOX. And my servers are all linux, all of which I'm comfortable are best tools in class for purpose).
Its a luxury of sorts. I *enjoy* using a macbook, and appreciate its build quality and ergonomics. But if my macbook got stolen, in a pinch I could move to a linux machine and might even grow to prefer it if my stay with it was extended enough to get used to it.
Its a l
Re: (Score:2)
if my macbook got stolen, in a pinch I could move to a linux machine and might even grow to prefer it if my stay with it was extended enough to get used to it.
Oh, you would, because it would actually work right. That's why OSX isn't a luxury. It's not that great. Also, you need it to run OSX programs, that's not luxury, it's a requirement. Having a desktop or laptop at all, that's a luxury for most people, who could get by with their phone.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why OSX isn't a luxury. It's not that great. Also, you need it to run OSX programs, that's not luxury, it's a requirement.
OS X is deprecated and has been since 2020. macOS is now on version 13.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, thanks for the update, but they haven't really changed enough to justify one major version bump, let alone three. Not to say that Microsoft has, though there it's important to have version numbers for each of their changes anyway so that you know what specific kind of hell you're about to enter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is market malfunction (Score:4, Insightful)
Meh, Zimbabwe is even bigger than Apple, I have a stack of their $100 trillion dollar notes somewhere.
When you're dealing with made-up numbers you can easily make everything louder than everything else.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You should find that stack and either put it somewhere protected or sell them. The $100 trillion notes were only printed for a short time and have become collectible as a result. They routinely sell for over $100 per note at the moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, just checked and they're only ten trillion, not 100 trillion. That is, it's ten, ten trillion dollar notes, so a total of 100 trillion, not each note in that denomination.
I've also given a couple away to friends as thank-you's for favours. Never let it be said I'm cheap.
30 percent (Score:3, Informative)
But they absolutely *must* charge 30% per transaction or they just couldn't survive another agonizing day.
Re: (Score:1)
No one said they have to. They can. So they do. If 30% was too high then developers would abandon the platform.
Precisely.
And for 99% of Developers, it is 15%; but the Haters always conveniently forget that...
Wonder why?
Re:30 percent (Score:4, Insightful)
Precisely.
And for 99% of Developers, it is 15%; but the Haters always conveniently forget that...
Wonder why?
Because they only lowered it after various governments began serious antitrust scrutiny?
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely.
And for 99% of Developers, it is 15%; but the Haters always conveniently forget that...
Wonder why?
Because they only lowered it after various governments began serious antitrust scrutiny?
So what?
It has been lower for something like three years; yet not one Hater ever quotes a figure for the "Apple Tax" (a/k/a Listing Fee) at one cent less than 30%.
Why?
BTW, back when dead-tree Catalogs were a thing, it was nearly universal for the businesses with those Catalogs to charge the Manufacturers who listed there a "Listing Fee" to appear in said Catalog. The typical amount was around $10,000 per edition (sometimes multiple times per year), regardless if they actually had any sales or not! And there
Re: (Score:2)
And for 99% of Developers, it is 15%;
Since when?
Re: (Score:1)
For all developers making under $1m in annual revenue, since November 2020. https://www.apple.com/newsroom... [apple.com]
And (as of the same time) that accounted for 96.7% of developers. https://sensortower.com/blog/a... [sensortower.com]
I was curious, too.
Re: (Score:2)
And for 99% of Developers, it is 15%;
Since when?
Since several years. Like at least 3 of them.
Or are you trying to say that 99% of App Store Apps generate more than $1 million dollars in sales, which is the criteria for switching between 15% and 30%? Plus, all Subscriptions longer than 1 year are charged at 15%, rather than 30%, regardless of total App or Subscription Sales.
If so, prove it, or STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
It needs to be broken up. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but this isn't a good illustration of why Apple needs to be broken up. There probably are good examples, but just being successful and wealthy isn't it. (I don't pay enough attention to Apple to be able to name good examples, but I assume that exist as almost all large companies provide good examples. Abuse of power being the main thrust of most of them.)
Note that just having power is not a good argument for breaking up a company. It's an indication that it should be broken up, because it CAN abu
Re:It needs to be broken up. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
- Apple colluding for ebook prices [justice.gov], though that was 10 years ago
*which also lags behind other browsers in terms of Progressive Web App support which would mean developers in some cases could just make a PWA instead of paying Apple to develop an App, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Or are you saying that because Apple does what you want, then it doesn't matter what any other Apple user would want?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how old you are, but lot of us are old enough to have experienced the browser wars and having to live through the misery created by Internet Explorer and the plethora of security nightmares it provided. Let me tell you that it is not the same.
Microsoft lost that one since everyone agreed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the PC market with Windows. No other operating system was anywhere close to competing with Windows. In some sectors there are literally NO realistic alternatives. If you need to run
Re: (Score:2)
The original question I responded to was if Apple has ever abused its power, not if it is or isn't a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
Your whole response basically summarizes as "Apple isn't a monopoly, they are a plucky underdog at 2.7 Trillion in value, surely they wouldn't be capable of abusing power".
If that is your takeaway, then you should brush up on your reading comprehension.
I replied to your "Forcing every iPhone and iPad user to use their Safari WebKit rendering engine*. A move even more drastic than when Microsoft only bundled their browser is Windows." (emphasis mine). It was not more drastic than when Microsoft "only" bundled their browser (that is revisionsism). They tried to make other browsers unusable by only opening links in IE and then claimed that IE was an integral part of Windows (whi
Re: (Score:2)
This is a f***ing boatload of hypocrisy...
How about if I rephrase it as "it doesn't matter if people benefit from an illegal* action, it's still illegal."
*whether this particular situation is illegal or not is a whole other thing, I'm just saying "but users like it!"
Re: (Score:2)
So Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer, making links open by default in Internet Explorer, and claiming it is part of Windows is worse than Apple bundling Safari, making links open by default in Safari, claiming it is part of iOS, and forcing all other browsers to use Webkit. Got it.
FFS! Yes, Apple is bundling a browser and e-mail client with iOS. Any operating system today shipping without web/e-mail capabilities would be torn to shreds immediately by everyone. Can you imagine someone trying to ship such an OS to the general public?
But you can choose another browser and e-mail client to be your default application for web/e-mail. I am using both Chrome and Firefox on my iPhone since I use them for work and private respectively and they sync my sessions for me. You can even remove Mobi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when you run out of made up stuff and hypocricy, you accuse others of ranting? Well played, good sir. [slow clap]
You truly have won the Internet today.
I hope you come back in the future and enlighten us with your profound insigths so we, the meek and uninformed, can bask in all your glorious.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks anyway, though.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying that just being wealthy and powerful isn't proof that you abuse your power. Pick real examples. I'm sure they exist.
Re: (Score:1)
If this is not a fantastic illustration of why this company needs to be broken up into pieces, I do not know what is.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Even if someone took the time to use small words to explain it to you, it would be a colossal waste of their time. Your job as a paid apple shill is to take facts and turn them into lies to enable the apple propaganda machine.
You have a problem; you know that, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
If this is not a fantastic illustration of why this company needs to be broken up into pieces, I do not know what is.
They're not a monopoly though.
They could vanish tomorrow and the world would continue just fine without them.
Re: (Score:2)
UK market worth 4.63 trillion dollars (Score:5, Informative)
According to https://www.statista.com/stati... [statista.com] the total market capitalization of all companies trading on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) is about 3.7 billion pounds(approx 4.63 trillion dollars).
I would not be surprised if the values mentioned in the article for other stock markets are wrong as well.
It took me less than 1 minute to find this, does nobody do even basic checks before writing stories like this?
Ah, above number not as simple as I thought. (Score:2)
Flaw in above is that the LSE does not just list UK companies. Also many UK companies list on multiple exchanges worldwide. Not sure how to work this out.
Re: (Score:2)
oops, sorry typed billion where I meant trillion.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they used British billion vs American trillion, which are equal - the US billion is called thousand million in the UK.
Re: (Score:3)
the US billion is called thousand million in the UK
50 years ago it might have been. The UK Treasury officially adopted the US definition of "billion" back in 1974. I challenge you to find any usage of the "British billion" in UK media this century, I have certainly never seen it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I'm 58. I've lived in the UK all my life, which includes the process of decimalisation. I have never seen or heard anyone use the term "billion" to mean "a million million" except to say that an American and British billion used to be different. Not a single person or article or book I've read in my life has actually used the supposed "British billion" and everyone here knows/expects that a billion is a thousand million.
What? (Score:2)
Ben Carlson and Bob Pisani seem to be pretty confused. The United Kingdom isn't a traded company so it doesn't have a market cap. Maybe he means the total market cap of all the companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, which is about 4 trillion pounds... so um, no. Also, do either of them somehow imagine that there are only 600 comp
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I thought the UK number was a bit low and found the value of the LSE to be about 3.7 trillion pounds but later realised that the LSE lists stocks from many countries not just the UK. Also UK companies are listed on other stock markets around the world(including US markets) which makes the whole exercise a great deal more complicated. It is not clear how the numbers in the article were calculated but I think they are somewhat dubious.
I suppose Apple's $2.7T market cap is the one number given that is not
Re: (Score:2)
Scary thought (Score:2)
Even at that valuation, Apple would just scrape into the top five wealthiest companies of all time. I doubt anything will ever topple the OGs of capitalism like the Dutch East India Company.
$2.7T is 6.75% of $40T (Score:2)
Does anyone truly believe that Apple is worth nearly 7% of the US market cap? And, by extension, if the US is 60% of the global market capitalization, that Apple makes up 4% of it?
Bubble anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
iThings are magic (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fallacy of statistics (Score:2)
Postulate that Apple decides to move off the Nasdaq exchange and on to the Nikkei. The above story means what now?
Numbers are fun but understanding numbers can be hard.
Dang it! (Score:2)
And thank you so much for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it?
(sold off Apple Stock when it finally broke $19, doubling my investment in the '90s)
How the turntables (Score:2)
I’m old enough to remember when Microsoft saved Apple from bancarrota just to keep a competitor alive so MS weren’t going to be a monopoly.
Yet, not ForEx! (Score:1)
durability of competitive advantage (Score:2)
95% investors SUCCUMB to advertisements/herd mentality;
They'll not ESTIMATE the intrinsic value/durability of competitive advantage/margin of safety;
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Invest in Individual STOCK only if it can beat the INDEX in your analysis https://twitter.com/Irrational... [twitter.com]