The Market cap, revenue & profit correlations of top technology companies

Fortune has a post on the “market cap” problem for Steve Ballmer. During the period from Jan 7th 2000 to Aug 23rd 2013 here is the change in market capitalization of the top technology companies.

1. Apple – 1836.30%

2. Amazon – 222.22%

3. Google – 703.44%

4. IBM – 70.7%

Those are the winners. Now for the ones that lost in market cap.

1. Cisco – (54.13%)

2. Intel – (46%)

3. ORCL (70.21%) and

Microsoft itself is (40.46%).

That only tells you half the story.

Lets look at revenues:

1. Apple – 1861.3% increase

2. Amazon – 12118% increase

3. Google – 55389% increase

4. IBM – 18.2% increase

5. Cisco – 143.3% increase

6. Intel – 58.1% increase

7. Oracle – 266.4% increase

8. Microsoft – 222.9% increase

Here is the table.

 Profit Growth % 2000 – 2013 2000 Revenue 20013 Revenue Revenue Growth % Stock price %
Apple  3046% 7.98 B 156.51 B 1861.3 1836.30%
Google  736000% 19 m 55.39 B 55389.0 703.44%
Amazon  2948% 573.89 m 61.09 B 12118.0 222.22%
IBM  46% 88.4 B 104.5 B 18.2 70.70%
Microsoft  (45%) 22.9 73.73 B 221.9 -40.46%
Intel  284% 33.73 B 53.34 B 58.1 -46%
Cisco  73% 18.93 B 46.06 B 143.3 -54.14%
Oracle  (4%) 10.13 B 37.12 B 266.4 -70.21%

What’s the story? The revenue increase for Apple has been excellently rewarded, Google and Amazon have also been well rewarded but they have done better and been rewarded less. No clue on why IBM stock has done well despite the lower growth in revenues compared to everyone else.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The Market cap, revenue & profit correlations of top technology companies”

  1. Interesting analysis. IBMs earlier revenue figure included the Personal Computing Hardware revenue which it subsequently divested. Haven’t looked it up and am therefore hazarding a guess, but the net margins could have improved. The rest of the story also seems to be – those companies that had a part in successfully writing the WEB 2.0 script have been rewarded by markets. Others, while they may have taken some strides in technology, haven’t.

  2. One word: Margins. Another word: PEG. Between those it explains the table.

    Comparing stock price in 2000 vs 2013 is fallacious. Compare 2003-2013 perhaps?

Comments are closed.