> Why does a company that is worth more that 20 billion dollars rent property in the first place? Market cap often isn't a good metric for how large a company

> Why does a company that is worth more that 20 billion dollars rent property in the first place? Market cap often isn't a good metric for how large a company is operationally, nor a great indicator of its operational needs. This is especially true right now, given that valuations are often quite inflated. Pinterest is worth $21 billion, however they only have 2,400 employees. Shopify is worth $124 billion. They have ~5,000 employees. Target is worth $75 billion and has 368,000 employees. 3M is worth $94 billion and has 96,000 employees. IBM is worth $111 billion and has 356,000 employees. GE is worth $57 billion with 205,000 employees. And so on. Then there is Visa, worth $473b, more than the valuation of all the publicly traded banks in the EU. Only 19,500 employees and comical margins (67% operating income margin, extreme to say the least). Versus, say, Wells Fargo with a $101b market cap and 265,000 employees. Obviously very different businesses within the financial world, however that's the point. Or AMD, worth $100b, with close to 20,000 employees. Intel has 110,000 employees with a $214b market cap. Intel's operating business is ten times larger than AMD (one assumes AMD will enjoy increasing economies of scale from their products as they continue to grow). The market cap just typically doesn't tell you enough about the operations of a business to give you great insight into its office needs.