Profit might be mentioned, and other information on the companies might be available, but you can see easily that the Fortune 500 ranking order is based entirely on revenue.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Retains #3 Spot in Annual Fortune 500 Rankings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Profit might be mentioned, and other information on the companies might be available, but you can see easily that the Fortune 500 ranking order is based entirely on revenue.
Having high revenue, while good for the business investors, may not always be the best in the long run. For example, if I am running a health care insurance like #6 United on that list, I can increase my revenues by just denying care to everyone, which is probably what is happening, sadlyIf United has to pay for all of those peoples worsened conditions in the years to come that could have been treated more cheaply if caught earlier, then longer term revenue will fall unless they figure out a way to jettison the sick, which is again likely what will happen
As a more concrete example, Verizon today disclosed a settlement where they have to repair many thousands of dangerous telephone poles, that they previously did not want to repair to increase their short term revenue.
That is part of the reason why pure revenue growth looked at in isolation is not a good prognostic indicator of the company's future success. For example, Apple could raise the cost of the next iPhone to start at $1000 and go up to $2000. They would invariably increase their revenue, but likely their user base would diminish, and downstream effects from that contraction could potentially be more damaging than any short term gain in revenue.
Denying care to everyone wouldn't increase United Health's revenues. If anything that would decrease its revenues.
United Health's ranking in the Fortune 500 has climbed (into the top 10) in recent years because it's doing more business, not because it's reducing its medical care costs. Its medical care ratio has been fairly consistent for a while - around 81 or 82%. Even its profits had been fairly flat until this past year when they rose to around $7 billion. For several years its net margins had been falling while its revenues were growing, resulting in only modest net earnings growth - about 6% total from 2012 to 2015.
These rankings are based only on revenues. United Health's profits are considerably lower as its net margins are around 4%.
[doublepost=1496856390][/doublepost]
For (their respective fiscal years) 2016, yeah, Apple's net earnings would be greater than #1, #2, and #4 combined - just barely though. That's in part because Exxon Mobil, for obvious reasons, had a pretty bad year.
In the video accompanying the list, Fortune explains that 62 companies on the list operated at a loss last year for a combined total loss of $63B, and also points out the huge disparities between ranking and profitability. In fact if you watch this short video all the way through, you will at least begin to wonder why Fortune even bothers compiling this list every year.
Would any of the 500 companies qualify?
[doublepost=1496859284][/doublepost]
Well, you're a Canadian. If you want to understand where I'm coming from I would suggest you get into your Tesla and drive south through Appalachia. I doubt you will need to drive even half way before the light goes on for you.
This is nice and all but Steve didn’t care about this stuff, he did to an extent but not nearly as much as Tim. He cared far more about creating amazing products with the user experience to match for us which should always come first. Unlike today which ranges from frustration to “meh” to just OK.
Apple is still doomed because it is known as the "iPhone company" which all the Wall Street critics consider a dying one-trick pony. On Wall Street nowadays, things like revenue, profits, and reserve cash mean absolutely nothing for a company. What always matters most is potential future growth. This is especially true for a company with a $800B market cap. Suppose Apple can only grow their revenue 5% a year? For greedy big investors, that's simply not enough. It's better to own Netflix which might be able to grow revenue 20% every year or own Tesla as big investors believe electric cars are the future of the U.S. It's that long-term payday that big investors want.
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't offer those type of promises, so greedy big investors yawn when they see Apple. 2% a year revenue growth is as good as death. So, come the cries of dump Apple and buy Amazon and Alphabet. That's how rich American investors think. Two birds in a bush are worth far more than a bird in hand. Apple appears to have a very bleak future with only $250B cash (minus debt) in the bank. So, Amazon and Alphabet aren't on that top ten revenue list but greedy big investors are heavily betting both those companies will blow by Apple in no time at all. The nails are all prepared for Apple's coffin.
/s
Unfortunately, Apple doesn't offer those type of promises, so greedy big investors yawn when they see Apple. 2% a year revenue growth is as good as death. So, come the cries of dump Apple and buy Amazon and Alphabet. That's how rich American investors think. Two birds in a bush are worth far more than a bird in hand. Apple appears to have a very bleak future with only $250B cash (minus debt) in the bank. So, Amazon and Alphabet aren't on that top ten revenue list but greedy big investors are heavily betting both those companies will blow by Apple in no time at all. The nails are all prepared for Apple's coffin.
/s
I hate to break it to you, but not all of Ford and GMs vehicles are built in Mexico. 64% of Fords and around 70% of GMs North America production is in the USA. The remaining 36% for Ford and 30% for GM is split between Canada and Mexico.
If your going to make wild claims do some research first.
I think you're confusing revenue with profit. How much you spend doesn't affect your revenue. It affects your profit.Having high revenue, while good for the business investors, may not always be the best in the long run. For example, if I am running a health care insurance like #6 United on that list, I can increase my revenues by just denying care to everyone, which is probably what is happening, sadly
As a more concrete example, Verizon today disclosed a settlement where they have to repair many thousands of dangerous telephone poles, that they previously did not want to repair to increase their short term revenue.
That is part of the reason why pure revenue growth looked at in isolation is not a good prognostic indicator of the company's future success. For example, Apple could raise the cost of the next iPhone to start at $1000 and go up to $2000. They would invariably increase their revenue, but likely their user base would diminish, and downstream effects from that contraction could potentially be more damaging than any short term gain in revenue.