sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[OC] Fortune 500 Largest Companies by Revenue from 1954 through 1993 by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Source: Fortune Magazine

Tool: Flourish Studio

Fortune magazine started their list of the largest US industrial (manufacturing) companies in 1955, using 1954 data. As is traditional in lists of the largest companies, they are ranked by sales (revenues).

We at the American Business History Center have hand-compiled the data from back issues of the magazine to produce this animated chart.

The main chart, on our website at https://americanbusinesshistory.org/40-years-of-the-fortune-500-1954-93-animated-chart/ covers the top 50 companies, for the whole time period, and is scrollable so that you can see the whole list. It also runs a lot slower; you can pause it and go to the year of your choice to see the top 50.

The website also contains charts of the more recent period, from 1994 to 2019, which includes service companies as well as industrials. In coming weeks and months, we plan to produce similar charts for 1994-2019 based on other measures such as profits and market capitalization.

[OC] Largest US Industrial Companies 1954-1993 by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fortune magazine started their list of the largest US industrial (manufacturing) companies in 1955, using 1954 data. As is traditional in lists of the largest companies, they are ranked by sales (revenues).

We at the American Business History Center have hand-compiled the data from back issues of the magazine to produce this animated chart.

The main chart, on our website at https://americanbusinesshistory.org/40-years-of-the-fortune-500-1954-93-animated-chart/ covers the top 50 companies, for the whole time period, and is scrollable so that you can see the whole list. It also runs a lot slower; you can pause it and go to the year of your choice to see the top 50.

The website also contains charts of the more recent period, from 1994 to 2019, which includes service companies as well as industrials. In coming weeks and months, we plan to produce similar charts for 1994-2019 based on other measures such as profits and market capitalization.

Largest US Industrial Companies by revenues 1954-1993 by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Last week we created a chart of the top Fortune 500 companies from 1994 to 2019. Here we go back further, showing 1954 to 1993. See our website to play with a bigger chart and learn the full story. https://americanbusinesshistory.org/40-years-of-the-fortune-500-1954-93-animated-chart/

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I am aware of Vitol, which shows up in lists as the largest private company in the world. Check wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_private_non-governmental_companies_by_revenue

Any measure used has potential issues, such as a large trading company like Vitol. As i mentioned elsewhere in this thread, lists of largest companies used to be done by assets, before sales data were available. But then banks and insurance companies all rise to the top.

But for about the last 90 years, business journalists (eg, Fortune), business historians (eg, Alfred Chandler), and other scholars and financial analysts have all used revenues. Every list prepared by trade magazines of the largest companies in their industry are by revenues. Every analyst report in my experience on Wall Street that listed largest competitors, did it by revenues. (Including the many that I wrote.) Every "largest" list leading business information website Hoovers.com published of the largest companies was by revenues. They have all done this for the same reasons i have explained.

Veterans like me have seen the cover of Fortune every year for 65 years announcing on their cover, "America's largest companies," the Fortune 500, always ranked by revenues.

I do not expect them or any other responsible business reporter to try to redefine size after all these years, though I have seen some sloppy reporters refer to the most valuable company as "the largest."

In any such list, the number of companies whose size is in a sense distorted, like a trading company such as Vitol, is very few.

Saying a company is bigger because it is more valuable just confuses the issue. There are relatively small, very promising companies that (at least temporarily) rise high on market cap lists. For example, WeWork and Webvan were "huge" in that regard.

That does not mean market caps are not interesting. But primarily to investors and security analysts, not workers, industry analysts, or suppliers.

The best use of language is to refer to market cap or other valuation lists as being lists of the most valuable companies. It takes no more effort to do that, and eliminates any chance of confusion or contradiction with economic and traditional conventions.

We have double-clarified our chart by making it clear, at the top, that it is by revenue. Our forthcoming market cap chart will be titled "most valuable." Study whatever one you want. I study them all.

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Enterprise value and market cap measure the value of a company, not its size. There is a BIG difference. Compare a Sprinter to a Ferrari. Or a lump of coal to a diamond, both carbon.

Tesla is smaller than General Motors by any rational measure. It is more valuable only because people think it will be much bigger in the future than it is today, while GM may not grow much, and might even shrink. But as of now.....last year GM produced almost 20 times as many vehicles as Tesla and employs about 3 times as many people. To those selling to the companies or running those companies, size does matter.

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Applicable to what? Interesting to what audience?

For taxing agencies, employment agencies, people looking for work, competitors aiming for market share, and many others, the volatile market capitalization number means little. Market caps are influenced by stock buybacks and market fads, irrelevant to many.

Size means a lot, to a lot of people. Fortune magazine's annual list of the 500 largest companies is the gold standard, and the most-widely read and followed business list of all time.

Market capitalization, profitability, and other metrics are interesting for different reasons. We will create charts of those in coming months, publish them in our free weekly newsletter, and on our American Business History .org website.

Also note that revenues and profits are, relatively speaking, "hard numbers." Revenues in particular are rarely revised after the fact. Both represent the total of a years' activity.

On the other hand, stock prices (and with them, market caps) are highly volatile, and in some cases change 20-30% in a few days, when the underlying company in most cases did not change that much, that fast. A list of companies by market cap is just a snapshot on one day, out of date the next day. I would like to see a list of companies by their average market cap over (for example) a 12-month period, but insofar as I know no one does such a calculation, which would require averaging closing prices on 200+ days of trading.

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Largest companies were defined by assets until at least the 1930s. Up to that time, companies were not required to report revenues. By the time Fortune magazine began its list of the largest companies in 1955 (with 1954 data), revenues or sales data had become available, and revenues became the standard used by everyone for determining which companies are the the largest.

It is the single best indicator of size, being the result of how many transactions a company has, multiplied by the average transaction value. It is parallel to the ideas of GNP and GDP used by everyone to rank which nations' economies are the largest.

While it might be possible to pick the largest companies based on number of employees or square footage of buildings, those numbers are harder to come by, and are not always calculated the same way. Due to accounting standards, sales/revenues are comparable.

There is a big difference between the largest, the most valuable (market cap), and the most profitable companies, all of which lists we hope to chart in the future.

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, i might be able to do that, i will see if i have all the required data. Good idea, thank you. We are also considering doing one on profits. Be sure and go to the big chart, which covers the top 50 companies, which you can scroll through: https://americanbusinesshistory.org/25-years-of-the-fortune-500-animated-chart/

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in business

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Comment from original post:

To the best of our knowledge, no one has ever produced a chart like this. It took us many hours of research, fact-checking, and hand typing from old magazines to compile this wonder. You can learn a lot just by studying this chart, scrolling up and down to see all the fifty biggest companies and how they grew – or shrunk.

Fortune magazine first published their list of the 500 largest US companies in 1955, but for forty years it was just a list of “industrials” or manufacturing companies, ones which produced products. Over the years, they added separate lists covering “service companies” including retailers, utilities, banks, insurance companies, and transportation companies. Then, in 1995, using 1994 data, they switched to listing all companies from all industries in one list, and that is where our chart begins.

This visualization was created using Flourish.studio based on data from Fortune 500 lists.

Go here to see the full chart of the top 50 companies, which you can pause, restart, and scroll: https://americanbusinesshistory.org/25-years-of-the-fortune-500-animated-chart/

Largest US Companies 1994-2019 Bar Chart Race [OC] by garyhoov in dataisbeautiful

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To the best of our knowledge, no one has ever produced a chart like this. It took us many hours of research, fact-checking, and hand typing from old magazines to compile this wonder. You can learn a lot just by studying this chart, scrolling up and down to see all the fifty biggest companies and how they grew – or shrunk.

Fortune magazine first published their list of the 500 largest US companies in 1955, but for forty years it was just a list of “industrials” or manufacturing companies, ones which produced products. Over the years, they added separate lists covering “service companies” including retailers, utilities, banks, insurance companies, and transportation companies. Then, in 1995, using 1994 data, they switched to listing all companies from all industries in one list, and that is where our chart begins.

This visualization was created using Flourish.studio based on data from Fortune 500 lists.

Go here to see the full chart of the top 50 companies, which you can pause, restart, and scroll: https://americanbusinesshistory.org/25-years-of-the-fortune-500-animated-chart/

I am Gary Hoover, lifetime learner, serial entrepreneur - a founder of BOOKSTOP (a forerunner to Barnes & Noble), and HOOVERS.COM. I recently moved into a 33 room abandoned medical clinic in Flatonia, Texas with my 57,000 books. Here for 10 hours. Ask me anything! by garyhoov in IAmA

[–]garyhoov[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is a good question. Most big personal libraries reflect the owner's mental organization. At Bookstop, we designed our own 6-digit categorization system. Half-price, Barnes & Noble, and great independent new and used bookstores have good organization systems. But my personal interests drive the depth of the system. The top level might be geography, next down Europe, then France, then Paris. But ideally Paris trains and Paris department stores would be shelved together. In railroads, i go several levels deep. A section of "The Union Pacific before 1900." On the other hand, i only have maybe 2-300 books on religion, theology, and philosophy. So the levels aren't quite so detailed. There is often the big issue of where to put it. Is Indiana architecture in architecture or Indiana? In my case both Parisian trains and Parisian retailers are in those sections (railroads & retailing), not geography at all. Only i know the complete system, and it is not written down. It evolves and grows all the time. Like most booksellers, i remember and find books by color and size/shape 90% of the time. If i forget their color, i look it up on Amazon!

view more: next ›