Help
Book creator (disable)

Talk:List of companies by revenue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Companies (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Companies portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
Portal icon Business and economics portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archives
1, 2

Contents

[edit] Possilby missing companies

[edit] State owned

[edit] Others

*Nippon Life Insurance Company

*Glencore International AG

[edit] Company Mentioned Twice

I see Legal & General on here twice. You've got one saying insurance near the bottom and you have one near the top saying financial services (Aren't they the same thing? Or are they separate entities?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.16.9 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of it, and the article is in the middle of updating, so it will look messy. There are several others that need to be deleted, and several that need to be added. Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reliance Group

I see no mention of Reliance Industries (Mukesh Ambani) as well as Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (Anil Ambani).

Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I will look into it. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Reliance Industries is included, along with Vitol, China Mobile, and Trafigura. Will soon include PepsiCo and Gunvor. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly and Probably Missing Companies

Bold denotes the companies did make the list.

[edit] Companies to Keep an Eye on:

Some that were on the list last year and off this year but may come back next year:

Some companies to keep an eye on (2009 stats unless noted otherwise):

Jonathansuh (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

See also older commented (then deleted) part including under 40 companies in 2007 (some of them may be over 40 now). --Jklamo (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Exchange rates

Nice to see that list is extensively updated by somebody else than me. I noticed, that you change most of exachange rates. Your rate is not sourced (mine also wasn´t). I suggest to use rates from FED statistics (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/Hist/), it is trustworthy source and it has good coverage (from rates needed in article only few are missing). --Jklamo (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I used x-rates.com, which copies directly from the IMF, European Central Bank among others (as quoted here [1]). I've also got a question. Some financial institutions, like ING Group, Zurich Financial Services, Commerzbank, BNP Paribas, and Groupe BPCE don't list revenue on their respective annual/financial reports. So I usually go with "Interest and similar income", but some don't even have that on their reports. I don't know why this happens, or how to find the revenue. Any help? Jonathansuh (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
x-rates.com is just secondary source, that is not preffered if primary sources are available. IMF is good source, so if you found rates directly on its pages, i have no problem with that. Otherwise i will use FED rates.
Revenue for financial institutions is sometime tricky to found or calculate, income from income statement is a good way (count up all types of income (interest, fees, other income), if net income only is listed). Other option is to use some secondary source (Forbes, FT). --Jklamo (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Annual Update

Massive update coming up as the companies release their annual reports (maybe mid-February?). Jonathansuh (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. 10-ks for major companies were released through March 1st. Annual reports probably coming mid-March. However Berkshire Hathaway already released its annual report and is therefore updated. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Samsung Group and Tata Group

I've been thinking this for a while and now I'm pretty sure that the two "companies" listed in the title aren't really companies. They are just a group of loosely connected businesses. So I am thinking of deleting them. I want some opinions. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Samsung Group is one conglomerate each of whose area of expertise is catered to by each of its direct subsidiaries, which have just grown so large that they are as big as individual companies elsewhere. If you haven't noticed, all Samsung companies are headquartered in Samsung Town in Seoul, which is also the headquarter of Samsung Group itself. You have no citation to provide that Samsung companies are just loosely connected businesses who don't respond to one common master of the Samsung hierarchy who has full control of the company's operation.Desagwan (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Main problem with Samsung Group is that some of its subsidiaries are listed separately and in some of them Group holds only a minority stake. As result there is no consolidated financial statement. Thus i already replaced Group with largest "subsidiary" - Samsung Electronics. Other subsidiaries did not met the cut-off line of this list (40 M). --Jklamo (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Does this consolidated financial statement from Samsung Group hold no importance to you?

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corporateprofile/ourperformance/samsungprofile.html

Also, part of the revenues of many other companies listed in the list also come as a result of their own minority stakes in different companies. You may need to scrutinize them all and apply your judgment unilaterally on all the companies present in the list, not just the Samsung Group and Tata Group whose solidarities have been challenged here. Desagwan (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Compensation remove

I removed compensations from CEO column, as only few of them were filled. --Jklamo (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] LG

I have reverted LG corp back to LG Electronics. The reason is the structure of the holding (see http://www.lgcorp.com/investor/pdf/05_2010_LGAR_eng_holding_structure.pdf). As you can see, LG corp has only minority stakes in most important "subsidiaries" like LG Electronics (35 %) or LG Chem (33,5 %), thus cannot be considered as single entity. Of its "subsidiaries" only LG Electronics is above 40 bil. --Jklamo (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Have the same issues been raised with other major companies too? Let us take a look at the shareholding structure of Volkswagen Group as an example.[2] What prevents Volkswagen Group from also being disqualified as a single business entity which has some of its subsidiaries (and their activities, assets, and revenues) outside its realm of dominant influence? Desagwan (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

See Volkswagen Group Annaal report for its subsidiaries. VW has 99-100% stake in most of them, thus are included in consolidated figures. --Jklamo (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Is it irrelevant that Volkswagen Group does not appear to have an indigenous shareholder? A bunch of foreign companies are owning the entire group. Desagwan (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Toyota seems to be another good example of all its assets not owned by a single unified, sovereign entity.[3] The thing is that most conglomerates with their huge operational scope and scale can hardly exist today without extending their administrative authority to multiple significant shareholders, and among the paticularly big ones there isn't many single shareholder who really has an undisputed dominant say in the conglomerate's operation (Volkwagen Group itself doesn't even appear to have an indigenous shareholder, while LG Corporation has its own 'LG Corporation' share). I believe it holds some merit to determine the state of solidarity of a company by the sheer existence or inexistence of a consolidated financial statement, so that we may not have to over-complicate our analysis by examining the shareholding structure of every single company being registered here beyond normal effort. A consolidated financial statement exists because the subsidiaries whose financial information are included in it accepted that the master conglomerate who released it has the authoritative right to include the subsidiaries' performance as one of 'their' collective performance. Desagwan (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Again see Toyta Annual report fot its subsidiaries. There is no need to examine structure of subsidiares every single company on the list, but if there are reasonable doubts, it is examined. It is not only case of LG, already Tata Group or Samsung Group were revised same way. --Jklamo (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Many of Toyota's major subsidiaries, Toyota Industries Corporation (40.6%; revenue),[4] Toyota Tsusho Corporation (21.6%),[5] and Denso Corporation (24.74%)[6] do not owe the majority of their shares to the indigenous Toyota Motors shareholder. The combined revenue of the subsidiaries in which Toyota Motors does not have a majority share account for more than half of Toyota Motors' consolidated revenue (Toyota Industries Corporation is $19 billion, Toyota Tsusho Corporation is $75 billion, and Denso Corporation is $32 billion). Like LG and Samsung their shareholding structure is more of the subsidiaries themselves owning each other with the parent company owning the largest of the lot, which is often not the majority ownership (though still the single most influencial shareholder). Desagwan (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
See Toyota AR again, for income purpose fully consolidated are only subsidiaries with majority stake. 20% - 50 % subsidiaries are included just eqity based, thus its share on total TM revenue is smaller than you are stating. Under 20 % subsidiaries are not included entirely. --Jklamo (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
How do you suggest that the same measure hasn't been applied to the consolidated financial statements of LG or Samsung? That they too don't include the entire revenue of their subsidiaries in which they don't have a dominant majority stake? Desagwan (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Once again, I must ask for a response to my question as to how LG and Samsung are not proven to include 20 - 50% subsidiaries into their consolidated financial statements in equity basis only, nor that under-20% subsidiaries are excluded entirely as is the case with Toyota Motors. Desagwan (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Another Problem We face

I understand for simplicity revenue for banks has been declared as gross income. What about Zurich Financial Services? It actually does state its revenue in its annual report. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

More likely for comparability than simplicity. Yes, there is problem that US financial institutions are publishing gross income and EU one net income. There are three options how to deal with that:
  • use the number, what are reported (net for some and gross for some) - as result loss of comparability
  • use gross income, if is not reported (fon non-US), it will be calculated from financial statements
  • use net income, if is not reported (for non-US), it will be calculated from financial statements
I prefer second option, as for example Fortune (in Global 500) is using gross income. Also second option is possible, but i oppose the first option, because of loss of comparability. --Jklamo (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Another cutoff

It is December now and list is still not updated completly. I think it is still too long to be periodically updated. Thus i suggest another cutoff - to $50 bn. I think it is better to have updated (but a bit shorter) list, than long unupdated list. --Jklamo (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_companies_by_revenue&oldid=466369122"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export