Posted on 09/13/2010 5:16:04 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) will become the most valuable company in the world. Bet on it. In fact, go out and sell all your personal belongings, liquidate your 401(k), and buy Apple stock with every last dollar you own.
OK … on second thought, I wouldn't advise that -- it's a bit rash. But there are ample reasons to believe that the company's rise is just starting and that Apple will continue blowing past expectations.
Big Oil, meet Big Phone
You've heard the standard "bullish" reasons before: Apple has $45 billion in cash and trades at only 12 times forward earnings when netting out cash.
Yet investors are rightfully nervous about the stock. It went from the brink of irrelevance to the top of the tech world in less than a decade. It built its $236 billion market cap by selling to consumers, a notoriously fickle crowd. Investors have been burned in this area before; they watched Motorola (NYSE: MOT) rise to prominence only to be cut down to size as its designs lost favor. People are afraid to hear that "it's different this time." For many, avoiding Apple is the safer play.
This changes everything … again
Well, it truly is different this time. I'll give you four reasons that the iPhone, and smartphones in general, are a whole new ballgame.
1. Software is the new kingmaker
Apple went into one of the most hypercompetitive markets in the world and created a product that was technologically years ahead of all its competitors. It entered a market that everyone knew would have vast potential -- hence the reason telecoms such as Verizon (NYSE: VZ) and AT&T (NYSE: T) built out massive data networks to support smartphones -- and Apple still managed to destroy a powerful group of competitors.
How? By virtue of a sea change within the mobile industry. The only difference between older "feature phones" -- you know, like that old flip phone sitting in your closet -- was hardware. The mobile companies loaded their own software onto the phones and pretty much controlled the software experience.
In spite of the iPhone's phenomenal hardware designs, software created the difference and the lasting competitive advantage. The user experience, the apps, and the iTunes integration were the factors that created Apple's long-term success. Other handset makers can easily replicate the touchscreens and the slim design, but the App Store, the clean operating system, and the iTunes integration? Well, everyone else is still catching up on those fronts.
2. iOS scales
Apple's mobile operating system, known as iOS, is optimized for a mobile experience. However, it scales extremely well for other high-growth markets and creates both a uniform experience and an app market for users. Although many were hesitant about the iPad's potential (me included), Apple is now reportedly cranking out 2 million of the iOS-based tablets a month to meet demand. Furthermore, even though the current Apple TV is underwhelming, it manages to keep Apple involved in the battle for the lucrative home-entertainment market, and future models of Apple TV could easily incorporate iOS to provide better media, gaming, and other apps right into consumers' televisions. The point is that even though iOS started on smartphones, it's now a dominant platform on tablets, and it could make further inroads into the home.
3. Consumer behavior on its side
Smartphones are growing by leaps and bounds, but few take the time to examine the dynamics. How many people would pay the full, non-subsidized $600 average selling price Apple receives from AT&T and other carriers? Obviously, the number of users would be far lower. Smartphones take advantage of consumer behavioral traits; as consumers, we're far more willing to pay a low upfront cost if future payments are obscured. In many markets (the U.S. included), carriers subsidize the cost of smartphones, and doing so artificially boosts sales figures.
Not only that, but smartphones also encourage people to do things like collect a series of apps that work on only one system. And since people like keeping what they've already collected, most who have a proprietary system will stick with the same proprietary system for their next upgrade. Thus, 89% of iPhone users want their next phone to be another iPhone. That figure falls to a mere 42% for users of Research In Motion's (Nasdaq: RIMM) smartphones.
4. Underrated smartphone growth
While consumer-electronics sales are expected to be flat this year, smartphone sales are expected to boom. Last quarter, the smartphone market grew by nearly 50% over the previous year. Researcher Gartner believes that over the next four years, smartphones will see 28% annual revenue growth.
Smartphones clearly present an enormous opportunity, yet there's plenty of evidence that the opportunity is actually underrated. Companies that can profit immensely from the spread of smartphones -- Cirrus Logic, Marvell, and even Qualcomm (Nasdaq: QCOM), to name three -- still trade at pretty low valuations for a field with such tremendous growth rates.
What's more, Apple has growth opportunities in mature markets where it already succeeds. The company sells through just one carrier in such major markets as the United States, Japan, and Germany, but it's expected to pursue a multi-carrier strategy in the coming years. That strategy should assure that Apple secures an even larger slice of the pie in growing markets.
Some figures to toss around
In the following table, I've created a set of iPhone growth assumptions, all of which point to a company with significant upside. In the past 12 months, Apple has generated nearly $21 billion in revenue from iPhone sales and products related to the iPhone. If the company can merely match anticipated industry growth rates, its iPhone line should generate more than $56 billion in revenue by 2014. In the past 12 months, Apple's revenue as an entire company was $57 billion.
So let's make some assumptions about the future profitability of the iPhone. Gross margins are estimated using industry estimates, and I'll shrink them in part to reflect a declining average selling price. Operating costs and the effective tax rate come from companywide figures.
Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's, and company filings. Gross-margin estimates from researcher iSuppli and industry analysts. R&D=research and development. SG&A=selling, general, and administrative expenses. If Apple matches industry growth rates, the iPhone alone would produce $23.8 billion in pre-tax profit by 2014. On a post-tax basis, that's still more than $15 billion in profits. However, that's still not all! The phone also drives a "virtuous cycle" for Apple. As more users buy iPhones, they upgrade to Apple's other products. Even though Apple controls up to 90% of the market for computers costing more than $1,000, the company keeps growing Mac sales at industry-thumping rates. What does that mean? It means Apple is creating a new class of users willing to spend more on its computers. The more iPhones it sells, the more crossover sales it gets to other products. For investors, the ka-ching of cash registers at Apple Stores is music to their ears. Bottom line For instance, it's almost impossible to do an Apple write-up without mentioning Google (Nasdaq: GOOG). If we see a reduction in the relevance and use of apps over the next few years, Apple could get burned while Google's model of free distribution continues growing like wildfire. In addition, as smartphones gain increasing penetration rates in developed countries, much of the continued growth will come from emerging markets. Even if the smartphone market grows at the stunning 28% rate I mentioned earlier, Apple might not be able to keep pace as consumers reach for lower-end offerings. The natural beneficiary? Again, Google. Since Android can scale down to extremely inexpensive phones, it should do well in emerging markets. But hey, every investment has its risks. Apple may not be the king forever, but the next few years should just keep getting better for Jobs & Company. |
Once, a year or so ago. That does not a "solid history" make.
Solid history of profitability (they weren't on the ropes in the 90s), and they've expanded in new markets such as consoles.
One solid expansion that they have yet to profit on in the larger picture. A couple years of mild profitability doesn't erase the billions in losses taken on over several years in order to enter (not dominate, just enter) the console market.
From what I can remember, here are the consumer markets Apple has entered since the Jobs return. Remember, at the time Apple was in the business of selling high-cost niche machines, mainly in the publishing industry.
Every company that tries this hard is bound to have failures in trying to get into new markets.
The biggest one: Microsoft's consumer profits are almost exclusively tied to the desktop, while the future is in mobile computing. It's already happening, with notebook sales eclipsing desktops, and now people are realizing phones and tablets can do the job too.
Apple has been concentrating on mobile computing for years, so much that they even delayed OS X Leopard to concentrate on iOS for the iPhone. Apple has a vision on how to make money in the mobile world, and it's working.
Notebooks - Microsoft AGAIN owns that market. And that market is growing at 24% annually. I linked to it earlier.
Apple has been concentrating on mobile computing for years, so much that they even delayed OS X Leopard to concentrate on iOS for the iPhone. Apple has a vision on how to make money in the mobile world, and it's working.
Unless you mean losing marketshare, and having lower profit margins is "the plan"...;)
Most valuable in the world across all industries? None. Most valuable tech company? Plenty.
None of the polymers and plastics to MAKE those iPhones.
iPhones have very little plastic compared to the competition. But I get your point.
I can see Microsoft being close to the same valuation as XOM - they make about the same product, and much of modern life everywhere in the world revolves around a PC and computer systems.
The killer difference is that Microsoft's products are very easily and economically replaced by others of equal or better usefulness. You have to get oil from someone. You don't need what Microsoft makes at all.
Microsoft is old, fat and slow. Microsoft has lost the innovative spark. That signals a death watch in the tech industry, the same death watch Apple was on in the late 90s before Jobs' return. Microsoft is mainly running on momentum. An obese man takes longer to die when deprived of food than a thin one.
there's a reason Nokia sells 260,000 phones a day
Yeah, they're cheap. So cheap in fact that Nokia makes very little profit off of most of them.
they're reliable, they make great calls, they last forever on a charge, and they're durable
True there. My old Nokia phones were great. My Android is slow to make or receive calls, has spotty reception, poor battery life and is already pretty dinged and scratched up.
Look at the pattern towards mobility. It will continue. Desktops to notebooks, notebooks to netbooks, netbooks to tablets, having only a phone to manage your email, schedules, mapping and social networking. A phone today is about as powerful as a netbook of couple years ago.
Netbooks account for most of the notebook growth. Netbooks don't run Windows as much as the other segments, and in fact Chrome will be the OS for the "smartbooks" many companies are working on. The overall notebook market also isn't as dominated by Microsoft as the desktops. Microsoft disappears the more you go mobile.
Unless you mean losing marketshare, and having lower profit margins is "the plan"...;)
Yes, losing marketshare, in a quarter where people were waiting for the iPhone 4 and still on only one carrier in the US. Where Apple only plays in the high-end phone segment. Yeah, zero to 15% in three years, all the profits to one company, is bad. Don't forget this is in competition with several phone manufacturers and a few operating system companies. Even if Android hits 30% (likely at the expense of Nokia, not Apple, since most growth will be in the lower-end segment), that's still a few percent for each low-margin player, with Apple still keeping its high-margin profits on 15% all to itself (as noted, Apple's already taking in almost half the profits). That's looking good.
And where is Microsoft? Crappy Windows Mobile 6.x, disastrous Kin failure (the billion dollar mistake with a six-week market life), oft-delayed Win7 Phone that when released will be admittedly incomplete and not backwards compatible, tablets canceled due to iPad. W7P also has high hardware requirements, meaning it can't compete in the low-end to get volume any time soon. A lot of what you tout Android for, removable SD cards, multitasking, etc., to differentiate it from the iPhone won't even be in W7P. Not looking good.
I see Android growing far better than Microsoft can hope. Android Gingerbread will probably be out before Win7 Phone, and it will be the mature, solid third-generation Android. With an Android/iOS/RIM lock (assuming Nokia stays asleep) on the mobile market, Microsoft will likely remain irrelevant. There is the small possibility that Microsoft could buy its way back into the market by bribing and threatening OEMs and through the expected $400 million ad campaign.
Great! Then we at least agree that this Motley Fool column is bunk - there's no way Apple would be the most valuable company in the world, as they claim. It doesn't make an sense at all.
We can argue tech, perhaps, but as far as across all industries (which is what the Motley Fool stated), it's a flight of fancy.
The killer difference is that Microsoft's products are very easily and economically replaced by others of equal or better usefulness.
And you can say the same about Apple, too. Both rely upon "lock in" from their respective ecosystems. Microsoft from the other software you've bought, and Apple from the hardware accessories you've bought.
And as Apple's offerings in a given market are usually at the high end in terms of price, it's even MORE economical to replace them.
Yeah, they're cheap. So cheap in fact that Nokia makes very little profit off of most of them.
But they dominate the growing markets of Asia and Africa. That's where a LOT of the phone market growth is coming, and Nokia is huge there. As the US market saturates with smartphones, where does Apple go? Do they have sub-$300 offerings that could be sold in those overseas markets?
Apple has always ran on the strength of its domestic sales; overseas, not so much. But the US economy as a whole is slowing down, while Asia (especially SE Asia - China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, etc - the ASEAN countries) is exploding. Yes, they have much lower GDPs, but they also have 3.3 BILLION people! That's a LOT more consumers.
Anyway, tech we can debate - who would be the most valuable. But as far as overall in all industries? The Fool's been smoking the funny weed, and anyone who thinks he's right has probably puffed a bit too much as well (either that or drank too much Kool Aid).
Yep, and look at the software power running on those phones. Modern WinCE has everything - and more - that Win95 had. iOS is more powerful than the older OS9. Windows Phone 7 builds on that expectation, that power of the hardware will continue accelerating, and so build a phone OS that expects that.
Likewise with Android...
Netbooks account for most of the notebook growth. Netbooks don't run Windows as much as the other segments,
Huh? Can you find me a Netbook that doesn't come pre-loaded (at least as an option) with Windows? I think Asus' eeePC is the only one with a factory option for NOT having Windows installed! Windows totally owns the Netbook market.
and in fact Chrome will be the OS for the "smartbooks" many companies are working on.
Potentially, yes. I see smartbooks cannibalizing low-end netbooks and tablets, not so much notebooks and desktop PCs (and the notebook and desktop market is STILL growing at 24% - that's a doubling of market size every 3 years - NOT a 'dead' or static market at all!).
Yes, losing marketshare, in a quarter where people were waiting for the iPhone 4 and still on only one carrier in the US. Where Apple only plays in the high-end phone segment.
Actually, losing marketshare every quarter this year, and I'm sure it will have continued when this quarter ends, too... Worldwide, it's losing out to Android. I know, Apple fans will talk about US dominance - but again, that's a rapidly saturating market. Growth is coming from overseas. Just like in the PC market - growth is driven by Asia, South America, and Africa - NOT the US.
Even if Android hits 30% (likely at the expense of Nokia, not Apple, since most growth will be in the lower-end segment), that's still a few percent for each low-margin player, with Apple still keeping its high-margin profits on 15% all to itself (as noted, Apple's already taking in almost half the profits). That's looking good.
Yet Google makes more profit on its revenue than Apple. Android taking that big of a chunk of the smartphone market makes them just that much more money. They're more profitable, margin wise, than Apple.
Again, Google's smart in their approach - Samsung and Motorola are taking small margins to make hardware, and Google is making huge profits on ad deliveries to that hardware. They get the benefit of lower cost hardware sales without the hit in margin. Smart move, indeed!
W7P also has high hardware requirements, meaning it can't compete in the low-end to get volume any time soon.
Fully agree. MSFT is most likely looking to compete 3 years from now, when 2 GHz dual-core ARMs and 1 GB RAM phones are ubiquitous, and WP7 has matured and added more features. They know they have the time and money and leverage of owning the other platforms that they can come at it over a longer push.
Don't count out Microsoft. Too many companies have done that in the past and ended up getting passed by.
I see Android growing far better than Microsoft can hope
Oh, I agree! My own "Gartner thread" prediction was that Nokia still holds the lead at around 35%, Android at about the same, WP7 around 15%, iOS about 10%, and RIM and everyone else with that last 5%.
I JUST DID, PUG! I would use a much stronger epithet for you, but I am trying hard to be civil to you—you don't deserve it, considering your name calling and insults to me, but this forum does.
READ WHAT I WROTE!
Why do you want people to think you are an idiot, incapable of reading what was written? If I wrote that an exploit NO LONGER WORKS—and admitted that it DID work—don't you think that is an ADMISSION? GOOD GRIEF! Quit MISREPRESENTING WHAT I SAID! Oh, and your little statement about it not being possible to attack OSX this way? Sorry, you're wrong, it's happened in the past. And there are many, many more ACE exploits that will compromise OSX, per Apple's own statements about those holes.
Reporting "vulnerabilities" with a POSSIBLE ACE is not an EXPLOIT... when not one exploit has ever been reported is not "it's happened in the past," Puget, as much as you wish it has happened... or scream and shout that it HAS HAPPENED.
That's like saying that just because you can breakdown the glass door to the bank, you can also then just walk into the closed and locked vault. The theoretical (and that's all that it is) vulnerability merely opens the door for an event TO possibly happen, because one part of the defenses may have been compromised. But the ACE is STOPPED by another line of protection in place designed to prevent this exact scenario. In this event it is stopped by the fact that the malicious file (from your link) MUST be in the data stack for PREVIEW to act on, because it is DATA... and the Data stack is a NON-EXECUTE memory location and the OS prevents anything in the Data stack from executing code. ERGO, the malicious code in the "PDF opened by Preview" cannot execute.
That is a fact... regardless what the standard boiler plate legal phrasing in the CVE report says. Unless you can show me an actual EXPLOIT using this vulnerability in the wild, you cannot claim "it's happened in the past." The CVE itself merely states: "Successful exploitation may allow execution of arbitrary code..." They phrase it that way for a specific reason. They state it that way because the listing agency DOES NOT KNOW THAT IT WILL, and includes that line in all CVEs to cover their legal asses. Again, Pug, words mean things... and in this instance the word "may" is very important... it does not say "WILL!" Tell the truth, and quit claiming a "vulnerability" is an "exploit." The difference is the difference between truth and FUD.
Please call me Puget or PugetSoundSoldier.
And an ACE exploit is just that - it does allow arbitrary code execution to the point of running any code the hacker deigns. It’s now iPhones are cracked.
But thanks for admitting that ACEs exist and they can - and do - allow full root access to the OS.
They already ARE the most valuable tech company in the world, driftdiver... there is no question about that... and your claim they aren't flies in the face of facts. Puget proved nothing except his ignorance of Finance. Facts are facts. Value is perception of the people willing to buy the stock. The Market Cap of Apple is the proof of the pudding.
You can claim whatever you want... but you cannot deny that the value of Apple stock right now is what it is. To deny reality is insanity.
It's also seriously substandard. That's why Microsoft is abandoning it and restarting with WP7.
Windows Phone 7 builds on that expectation, that power of the hardware will continue accelerating, and so build a phone OS that expects that.
It's an incomplete, substandard also-ran in a market already owned by Android and iOS.
Can you find me a Netbook that doesn't come pre-loaded (at least as an option) with Windows? ... I see smartbooks cannibalizing low-end netbooks and tablets, not so much notebooks and desktop PCs
Good point. They are mostly running Windows. Too bad the iPad alone is cannibalizing up to 50% of notebook sales. Imagine when competitive Android tablets hit the market. Whoops.
Yet Google makes more profit on its revenue than Apple. Android taking that big of a chunk of the smartphone market makes them just that much more money.
Exactly how much of Google's revenue is Android-based?
Smart move, indeed!
Unfortunately, not so good for innovation.
MSFT is most likely looking to compete 3 years from now, when 2 GHz dual-core ARMs and 1 GB RAM phones are ubiquitous, and WP7 has matured and added more features.
Ah, the old loss leader approach. How innovative. Incapable of profitably even maintaining a position in a market I see. I know another company that's fully capable of profiting immediately in even a brand-new market. That's the company I'm more impressed with.
Of course by then iOS will be at v.5 at least, and Android should be at version 4, both much more capable than WP7. Well, that depends on how much Microsoft steals from the others I guess. I certainly don't expect innovation.
My own "Gartner thread" prediction was that Nokia still holds the lead at around 35%, Android at about the same, WP7 around 15%, iOS about 10%, and RIM and everyone else with that last 5%.
Windows so high? It's going to hit the market as a FAR INFERIOR product to both iOS and Android, and it won't be able to use Microsoft's classic move of leveraging compatibility with legacy products. You may be right though. Microsoft already strong-armed HTC with patent threats over Android. Maybe that's their plan for dominance. I certainly don't see a plan to dominate through a superior product.
No. Pug, as long as you call me a liar, I will call you what I wish.
OK, so insults can only come from you, no one can sling back at what you start.
Good to know.
Four years ago, the market was owned by Nokia and RIM (and still is, to a large extent). iOS (or whatever it was called back then) was incomplete, lacking, and substandard. And 2 years later, it was a big factor.
Two years ago, The market was well-split between Nokia, RIM and iOS. Android was incomplete, lacking, missing a lot of functionality. Now it's second in the US only to RIM, and third in the world behind Symbian and RIM (having passed iOS).
Two years seems to be the time it takes a "substandard upstart" to make serious move in the phone market. Unless you're claiming the market will stay static?
Good point. They are mostly running Windows. Too bad the iPad alone is cannibalizing up to 50% of notebook sales. Imagine when competitive Android tablets hit the market. Whoops.
Best Buy does not represent the market. And the laptop and desktop - the PC - market is still growing at 24% annually. Even if tablets are taking some of the market, the rest is still growing mightily fast. You seem to forget that...;)
Exactly how much of Google's revenue is Android-based?
Considering about 25% of all ads shown on phones are Google ads, and on the Android platform, that's got to be a decent amount.
Last numbers I remember seeing were about $75 million last year for ad revenue for Google. And it's supposedly doubled now, so that's about $150 million a year and growing. Probably enough to have recouped their investment in Android, and making a profit on it now.
It's not hurting their bottom line, given the higher margins of Google relative to Apple...
Unfortunately, not so good for innovation.
Why? Let the phone hardware experts do the hardware, let the software experts do the software. NO COMPANY is expert at everything.
Additionally, having multiple of each type of expert tends to breed competition and feeds on each other's results, usually stimulating innovation. Closed, locked-in, non-competitive markets are typically stagnant; dynamic, competitive markets are where you get innovation.
Ah, the old loss leader approach. How innovative. Incapable of profitably even maintaining a position in a market I see. I know another company that's fully capable of profiting immediately in even a brand-new market. That's the company I'm more impressed with.
Higher revenue, higher profits, and higher profit margin than Apple. You just don't like hearing those facts, do you...;)
Windows so high? It's going to hit the market as a FAR INFERIOR product to both iOS and Android, and it won't be able to use Microsoft's classic move of leveraging compatibility with legacy products.
Consider the above timeline - 4 years ago, Apple was nothing in the phone market. Two years ago Android was nothing. Amazing what just a few years can do in such a market!
Bottom line: Microsoft and Google know how to keep more of what they bring in. They have higher margins - indisputable. You can say it's because Apple sells lower margin products (hardware), but it doesn't change the fact - Microsoft and Apple are more profitable on a margin basis, and Microsoft is considerably more profitable on an absolute dollar basis as well.
Please show me the posts in this thread where I have called you a "liar." The word has to be used... especially the "repeated posts." I have challenged your "facts" and posted information that proved them wrong... but that does not call YOU a liar. You are welcome to adopt the title if you think it fits, but I did not call you one.
You thought you could get away with it... you got caught. So you revert to your "unicorn" canard... a form of ad hominem implying I am the one believing in myths and untruths... but you are the one spouting them. I post links to my proofs... and can prove what I post. You can't."
"Hey if Sword and Stripe can make up numbers so can I."Truth is the absolute defense to a charge of slander. You admitted you made up the statement. Antirepublicrat also linked to the authoritative proof you were untruthful in a debate with the intent to win the point. Bad form, old boy... which goes to the quality of your character, showing a lack of integrity and dishonesty. Proof of both points. I am truly sorry, you lose. I had hoped for better from you. But cheating to win a debate is not a fair way to win respect and influence people... especially on a conservative forum. I'd expect it on a Liberal forum like Democrat Underground... but not here.
You have been impeached. As a result, all further claims to truth from you are suspect and will be given the weight they deserve... very little.
In a court of law, the judge would instruct the jury to weigh your testimony in light of your impeachment.
This is the exact thing that was being referred to earlier when it was commented about the tone of the discourse being lowered when trying to have a civil conversation with you. Civil people do not make up "facts" to try to win a discussion. They do not cry "foul" when their opponents call them on their egregious conduct, trying to deflect THEIR misconduct onto others. You do."
Those are all the statements that are remotely negative that I have made to you in this thread... they are not ad hominem because they attack the nature of your comments... and then later your conduct but not your person... because you continued them.
I attempted to avoid calling you directly a "liar" but rather to address the falseness of your comments. Unfortunately, the comments do reflect on the commentator... but that just the way it is. You even admitted to making up figures. If you make up facts, then own it.
I stand by what I wrote. To bad you can't.
That story has long since been surpassed, driftdiver... so why bring it up. Apple passed both Walmart and Microsoft a month after it was published... and is now the number two most valuable company in the world and climbing. So why claim that it isn't? That is just stupid. What it is worth now is what it is worth... not what it was worth at some time in the past. You clam there are many many companies that are more valuable... but APPARENTLY NO ONE BUT YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE??? Name two.
“They already ARE the most valuable tech company in the world”
The title of your thread is the most valuable company in the world. It is not the most valuable tech company in the world.
Please prove they are going to be the most valuable company in the world.
Unless the make the "whole widget", as Apple does. A systems company can do both things, integrating hardware and software better than the companies which only can do one or the other.
Personally, I go for the best, and Apple is the best at producing integrated hardware/software systems. In comparison, the others can only peddle low-quality crap. But it's a free country, and if you prefer low-quality crap, I'll stand up for your right to waste your money on that.
No, that's not inflammatory at all! Be careful, stripes1776 will be along to report you to the moderators...
It's simple math - Go to http://finance.yahoo.com. Enter the ticker symbols. Outstanding shares multiplied by the share price determines the market capitalization. Compare the market cap values. Exxon is #1, and Apple is #2, and the trend is working in Apple's favor. But with the volatility in energy stock prices, Exxon and Apple may be in a see-saw battle for the #1 position for a while.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.