15 ms·

Five Biggest Stocks Are 23% of S&P 500 Market Cap

tsjq 6y ago
Due to the trillions of dollars blindly going into index funds, thereby purchasing these stocks, are these five companies' stock prices way too artificially high ?
- gruez 6y ago
  But since most index funds are market cap weighted, wouldn't the other 495 companies (assuming s&p 500 index, if you buy a all-cap index it might be 2000+ companies) go up the same % as well?
- 1over137 6y ago
  "blindly"? People choose index funds very deliberately, because mutual funds are so much more expensive.
  - dralley 6y ago
    "Blindly" meaning that your average index fund investor has absolutely no idea what's in their portfolio. They are blind investors.
    - siliconmountain 6y ago
      I buy index. I have a portfolio of 500 large American companies, who are publicly traded, and follow SEC regulations, where gross negligence and gross fraud are mostly avoided, and which maybe a third also have global operations. It’s a basket of restive safe equity, diversified across industry but not much in terms of nationality. Beyond that I don’t know what’s in it and don’t particularly need to care
      - beezle 6y ago
        Wow, no disrespect but that made me laugh. Worldcom? Enron? AIG? Lehman? I could go on but you get the gist. The only thing an index fund (I'll assume SPY for sake of argument) gets you is diversity in number of holdings, but that benefit is greatly reduced when the individual components are heavily skewed in weight. The same applies to industry (and probably always did). In an ideal world that diversity protects you from a one off calamity (ch 7/11) as each holding is expected to be relatively small and not likely to affect many other companies or the entire index to any great extent. That too goes out the window with the current concentrations.
        throw0101a 6y ago
        > The only thing an index fund (I'll assume SPY for sake of argument) gets you is diversity in number of holdings "only thing"? "only"? That's huge: > Famed economist and Nobel Prize winner Harry Markowitz called diversification “the only free lunch in finance.” The thought is that by diversifying, an investor gets the benefit of reduced risk while sacrificing little in expected returns over the long run. * https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/10/03/investment-diversification-the-only-free-lunch-in.html https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/10/03/invest... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markowitz What's the alternative anyway? Throwing darts at listing of stocks? Asking Orlando the cat? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_(cat) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_(cat)
        beezle 6y ago
        You are missing the point. The S&P 500 and most large mutual funds are not anywhere near as diversified as typical investors believe them to be and have become less so over the past few years. Investors buy them for the perception of great diversification as well as the ease of purchase/sale. Diversity in number of holdings works well if the holdings are not heavily overweight/underweight and are not highly correlated. So RSP (equal weight S&P) would meet the definition of well diversified in respect to weighting. Unfortunately, equities have been trending towards an increasing degree of correlation which can't be adjusted for when an etf is constructed mechanically based on market cap. I always urge friends, family etc. to look at the components of the various funds and etfs they hold as they will be shocked to find that, in aggregate, a significant portion of their position is in 10 or 15 stocks. For some that may be acceptable, especially if they hold other non highly correlated asset classes. For others, they need to take a little more time or consult a professional to research how to better balance that risk. As just one example, VXF attempts to capture the return of the non-S&P 500 equities.
    - refurb 6y ago
      Sure they know what’s in their portfolio. The entire index.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      Better to "blindly" invest in a passive index fund (S&P 500, Russell 3000, etc) than to try to pick an individual stocks. Most people will get positive results/returns on the former and worse results for the latter. Evidence for this has been around for decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    I think you mean passively managed mutual fund vs actively managed mutual fund. You can have a passively managed mutual fund that follows an index with extremely low expense ratios like FXAIX or FSKAX. https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/etf-vs-index-fund-the-difference-and-which-to-use https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/et...
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Depends if you have a better alternative that you think will have better growth in profit.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- unreal37 6y ago
  It may be "high" but it's not "artificial". That's real money being invested in these companies. Index funds buy stock and never sell it. It's real money, buying real shares, that takes the stock out of circulation, that don't get day traded. Anyway, not to be caught in semantics, but I believe stocks can be priced high and very high, but that doesn't mean it has to fall. The index fund system props up the prices forever.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
bryanlarsen 6y ago
The addition of Tesla in a few weeks will bring this metric down a little bit. Tesla will be a top ten stock but not a top five stock.
- postingawayonhn 6y ago
  It'll be number 6 (assuming you treat the two classes of Google shares as one company like the source has).
bluedevil2k 6y ago
Try the ETF with the symbol "RSP". It's an S&P 500 fund, but each of the 500 is equally weighted. In other words 0.2% of the fund. The theory is that the larger companies in the S&P 500 have less growth potential, or are already overvalued, compared to the smaller companies.
- Aunche 6y ago
  That theory doesn't make much sense. For example, surely Amazon has a lot more room to grow than Coca Cola.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    I'm not sure; Coca Cola could start investing money and start buying up other food & drink brands. I mean could you have imagined 10, 20 years ago that Disney would start to gobble up other companies like some weird Shoggoth monstrosity and multiply its stock value by 5-6 times?
    - unreal37 6y ago
      Coca-cola revenues have fallen 5% per year on average, for the past 5 years. Of course, they're panicking over that. Of course they're trying to find growth. But they can't find it yet. The fact is, they own so many brands in other beverage categories already. They own 500 beverage brands.
- refurb 6y ago
  How often does the fund get rebalanced? That’s the nice thing with the market cap weighted SP500 funds, no tax consequences from rebalancing. But you could plug “RSP” into a tax-advantaged account. Edit: You can owe taxes even if you don’t personally buy/sell. As a fund shareholder, you could be on the hook for taxes on gains even if you haven't sold any of your shares. https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/taxes/mutual-funds-etfs https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/taxes/mutual-funds-e...
  - 6y ago
andy_threos_io 6y ago
More interesting, that around 2000 the top 5 was Microsoft, GE, Cisco, Intel, Walmart. Nothing last forever.
- Avalaxy 6y ago
  Except for Microsoft :P
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  All of which are still massive companies, with Walmart pulling in half a trillion per year in revenue, double that of Apple or Amazon. Stock market value only tells part of the story (that of the richest getting richer).
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Walmart has a well-understood business model, and so there is less uncertainly/risk, which means that investors generally accept lower returns for greater certainty. The impact and revenues of tech companies is more uncertain, which is more risky, so investors are asking for more return in exchange for taking on that risk. Recent video by Ben Felix of PWL Capital on the topic, "Investing in Technological Revolutions": > Exciting new technologies, and the companies that create them, seem like obvious investment opportunities. Why wouldn’t you want to invest in the companies leading a new world-changing technological paradigm? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k Some of the past recent he's found has shown that investing in a company on the way to being a Top 10 gets you good returns, but once a company is in the Top 10 its returns actually lag the market average. As for income/wealth disparity: redistribution was used to good effect post-WW2 with high marginal tax rates, and it's also why the idea of a 'baby bond' is gaining some traction.
- thebean11 6y ago
  Does anything change if you factor in the dividends of those 5 companies?
asplake 6y ago
I'd have been surprised if it had turned out otherwise. I'd expect some kind of power law distribution, and it's not news that the biggest sticks are, well, huge. If the distribution falls away quickly enough, the result follows.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  But the point is the concentration in the top 5 stocks has increased relative to recent years.
daxfohl 6y ago
The interesting thing is it's all one industry. Has that ever happened before? Oil was pretty dominant for a while, but nothing like this.
- namdnay 6y ago
  I don't think it's fair to say it's one industry. Apart from the fact that they heavily use the internet, can you really say that Amazon and Facebook are the same industry? One is a social network, the other is a retailing and infrastructure shop
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Apple is also primarily a hardware company, Microsoft has it as part of its business (mostly successful in gaming).
- taneq 6y ago
  There was a brief period where it was tulips...
- throw0101a 6y ago
  It's happened with basically all industries: oil, canal building, rail roads, cars. Even bicycles: > Technological revolutions are often accompanied by substantial stock price reversals, but previous literature has produced competing explanations for why this is the case. This paper brings new evidence to this debate using data from the innovation-driven British Bicycle Mania of 1895-1900, in which cycle share prices rose by over 200 per cent before collapsing by more than 75 per cent. These price patterns are not fully explained by fundamentals or by changes in the nature of risk associated with cycle shares. Instead, the evidence from the Bicycle Mania supports the hypothesis of Perez (2009), who argues that new technology, high short-term profits, and loose monetary conditions increase the level of speculative investment, ‘decoupling’ share prices from fundamentals. * https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148345/1/87292534X.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148345/1/87292534X.p... Recent video by Ben Felix of PWL Capital on the topic, "Investing in Technological Revolutions": > Exciting new technologies, and the companies that create them, seem like obvious investment opportunities. Why wouldn’t you want to invest in the companies leading a new world-changing technological paradigm? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k
solatic 6y ago
I'm not sure whether people understand just how big of a problem this is. Resilient economies are well-balanced economies. When Big Tech falls - and it will eventually fall, because no industry is immune to corrections or busts - - the effect on the wider economy will be all the greater. The greater a share of the stock market that Big Tech holds, the larger the blast radius their failure will impose on the wider economy. That FAANG constitutes such a large part of major market indices communicates a failure on the part of regulators. Not just the kind of regulation that technologists care about, i.e. protecting free software and open access, but economic regulation as well, that tries to smooth out the business boom and bust cycles and care about the health of the wider American economy.
- snarf21 6y ago
  And it isn't just FAANG. Look at Disney and Comcast and all the other conglomerates. The SEC and FTC have totally failed our country in the 21st century.
  - andrewmcwatters 6y ago
    I frequently think about the fact that such organizations, from the outside, seem like the people now working there have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing for the American people. The most prominent example I can think of is Microsoft getting in all this trouble over bundling a browser with Windows and yet this proliferation of forced App Stores runs rampant in the industry. Where in world is the FTC now? All of these people should be fired. They’ve been asleep for 20 years.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    You may be interested in the book Goliath by Stoller: > Americans once had a coherent and clear understanding of political tyranny, one crafted by Thomas Jefferson and updated for the industrial age by Louis Brandeis. A concentration of power, whether in the hands of a military dictator or a JP Morgan, was understood as autocratic and dangerous to individual liberty and democracy. This idea stretched back to the country’s founding. In the 1930s, people observed that the Great Depression was caused by financial concentration in the hands of a few whose misuse of their power induced a financial collapse. They drew on this tradition to craft the New Deal. > In Goliath, Matt Stoller explains how authoritarianism and populism have returned to American politics for the first time in eighty years, as the outcome of the 2016 election shook our faith in democratic institutions. It has brought to the fore dangerous forces that many modern Americans never even knew existed. Today’s bitter recriminations and panic represent more than just fear of the future, they reflect a basic confusion about what is happening and the historical backstory that brought us to this moment. > The true effects of populism, a shrinking middle class, and concentrated financial wealth are only just beginning to manifest themselves under the current administrations. The lessons of Stoller’s study will only grow more relevant as time passes. Building upon his viral article in The Atlantic, “How the Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul,” Stoller illustrates in rich detail how we arrived at this tenuous moment, and the steps we must take to create a new democracy. * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath There's been a back and forth over the last century on this topic.
thinkloop 6y ago
microsoft: invented computing apple: invented modern computing google: makes the internet amazon: earth's store facebook: like button

tsjq 6y ago

Due to the trillions of dollars blindly going into index funds, thereby purchasing these stocks, are these five companies' stock prices way too artificially high ?

gruez 6y ago
But since most index funds are market cap weighted, wouldn't the other 495 companies (assuming s&p 500 index, if you buy a all-cap index it might be 2000+ companies) go up the same % as well?
1over137 6y ago
"blindly"? People choose index funds very deliberately, because mutual funds are so much more expensive.
- dralley 6y ago
  "Blindly" meaning that your average index fund investor has absolutely no idea what's in their portfolio. They are blind investors.
  - siliconmountain 6y ago
    I buy index. I have a portfolio of 500 large American companies, who are publicly traded, and follow SEC regulations, where gross negligence and gross fraud are mostly avoided, and which maybe a third also have global operations. It’s a basket of restive safe equity, diversified across industry but not much in terms of nationality. Beyond that I don’t know what’s in it and don’t particularly need to care
    - beezle 6y ago
      Wow, no disrespect but that made me laugh. Worldcom? Enron? AIG? Lehman? I could go on but you get the gist. The only thing an index fund (I'll assume SPY for sake of argument) gets you is diversity in number of holdings, but that benefit is greatly reduced when the individual components are heavily skewed in weight. The same applies to industry (and probably always did). In an ideal world that diversity protects you from a one off calamity (ch 7/11) as each holding is expected to be relatively small and not likely to affect many other companies or the entire index to any great extent. That too goes out the window with the current concentrations.
      - throw0101a 6y ago
        > The only thing an index fund (I'll assume SPY for sake of argument) gets you is diversity in number of holdings "only thing"? "only"? That's huge: > Famed economist and Nobel Prize winner Harry Markowitz called diversification “the only free lunch in finance.” The thought is that by diversifying, an investor gets the benefit of reduced risk while sacrificing little in expected returns over the long run. * https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/10/03/investment-diversification-the-only-free-lunch-in.html https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2018/10/03/invest... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Markowitz What's the alternative anyway? Throwing darts at listing of stocks? Asking Orlando the cat? * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_(cat) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_(cat)
        beezle 6y ago
        You are missing the point. The S&P 500 and most large mutual funds are not anywhere near as diversified as typical investors believe them to be and have become less so over the past few years. Investors buy them for the perception of great diversification as well as the ease of purchase/sale. Diversity in number of holdings works well if the holdings are not heavily overweight/underweight and are not highly correlated. So RSP (equal weight S&P) would meet the definition of well diversified in respect to weighting. Unfortunately, equities have been trending towards an increasing degree of correlation which can't be adjusted for when an etf is constructed mechanically based on market cap. I always urge friends, family etc. to look at the components of the various funds and etfs they hold as they will be shocked to find that, in aggregate, a significant portion of their position is in 10 or 15 stocks. For some that may be acceptable, especially if they hold other non highly correlated asset classes. For others, they need to take a little more time or consult a professional to research how to better balance that risk. As just one example, VXF attempts to capture the return of the non-S&P 500 equities.
  - refurb 6y ago
    Sure they know what’s in their portfolio. The entire index.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    Better to "blindly" invest in a passive index fund (S&P 500, Russell 3000, etc) than to try to pick an individual stocks. Most people will get positive results/returns on the former and worse results for the latter. Evidence for this has been around for decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Random_Walk_Down_Wall_Street
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  I think you mean passively managed mutual fund vs actively managed mutual fund. You can have a passively managed mutual fund that follows an index with extremely low expense ratios like FXAIX or FSKAX. https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/etf-vs-index-fund-the-difference-and-which-to-use https://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/et...
lotsofpulp 6y ago
Depends if you have a better alternative that you think will have better growth in profit.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
unreal37 6y ago
It may be "high" but it's not "artificial". That's real money being invested in these companies. Index funds buy stock and never sell it. It's real money, buying real shares, that takes the stock out of circulation, that don't get day traded. Anyway, not to be caught in semantics, but I believe stocks can be priced high and very high, but that doesn't mean it has to fall. The index fund system props up the prices forever.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

bryanlarsen 6y ago

The addition of Tesla in a few weeks will bring this metric down a little bit. Tesla will be a top ten stock but not a top five stock.

postingawayonhn 6y ago
It'll be number 6 (assuming you treat the two classes of Google shares as one company like the source has).

bluedevil2k 6y ago

Try the ETF with the symbol "RSP". It's an S&P 500 fund, but each of the 500 is equally weighted. In other words 0.2% of the fund. The theory is that the larger companies in the S&P 500 have less growth potential, or are already overvalued, compared to the smaller companies.

Aunche 6y ago
That theory doesn't make much sense. For example, surely Amazon has a lot more room to grow than Coca Cola.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  I'm not sure; Coca Cola could start investing money and start buying up other food & drink brands. I mean could you have imagined 10, 20 years ago that Disney would start to gobble up other companies like some weird Shoggoth monstrosity and multiply its stock value by 5-6 times?
  - unreal37 6y ago
    Coca-cola revenues have fallen 5% per year on average, for the past 5 years. Of course, they're panicking over that. Of course they're trying to find growth. But they can't find it yet. The fact is, they own so many brands in other beverage categories already. They own 500 beverage brands.
refurb 6y ago
How often does the fund get rebalanced? That’s the nice thing with the market cap weighted SP500 funds, no tax consequences from rebalancing. But you could plug “RSP” into a tax-advantaged account. Edit: You can owe taxes even if you don’t personally buy/sell. As a fund shareholder, you could be on the hook for taxes on gains even if you haven't sold any of your shares. https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/taxes/mutual-funds-etfs https://investor.vanguard.com/investing/taxes/mutual-funds-e...
- 6y ago

andy_threos_io 6y ago

More interesting, that around 2000 the top 5 was Microsoft, GE, Cisco, Intel, Walmart. Nothing last forever.

Avalaxy 6y ago
Except for Microsoft :P
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
All of which are still massive companies, with Walmart pulling in half a trillion per year in revenue, double that of Apple or Amazon. Stock market value only tells part of the story (that of the richest getting richer).
- throw0101a 6y ago
  Walmart has a well-understood business model, and so there is less uncertainly/risk, which means that investors generally accept lower returns for greater certainty. The impact and revenues of tech companies is more uncertain, which is more risky, so investors are asking for more return in exchange for taking on that risk. Recent video by Ben Felix of PWL Capital on the topic, "Investing in Technological Revolutions": > Exciting new technologies, and the companies that create them, seem like obvious investment opportunities. Why wouldn’t you want to invest in the companies leading a new world-changing technological paradigm? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k Some of the past recent he's found has shown that investing in a company on the way to being a Top 10 gets you good returns, but once a company is in the Top 10 its returns actually lag the market average. As for income/wealth disparity: redistribution was used to good effect post-WW2 with high marginal tax rates, and it's also why the idea of a 'baby bond' is gaining some traction.
thebean11 6y ago
Does anything change if you factor in the dividends of those 5 companies?

asplake 6y ago

I'd have been surprised if it had turned out otherwise. I'd expect some kind of power law distribution, and it's not news that the biggest sticks are, well, huge. If the distribution falls away quickly enough, the result follows.

jimbokun 6y ago
But the point is the concentration in the top 5 stocks has increased relative to recent years.

daxfohl 6y ago

The interesting thing is it's all one industry. Has that ever happened before? Oil was pretty dominant for a while, but nothing like this.

namdnay 6y ago
I don't think it's fair to say it's one industry. Apart from the fact that they heavily use the internet, can you really say that Amazon and Facebook are the same industry? One is a social network, the other is a retailing and infrastructure shop
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Apple is also primarily a hardware company, Microsoft has it as part of its business (mostly successful in gaming).
taneq 6y ago
There was a brief period where it was tulips...
throw0101a 6y ago
It's happened with basically all industries: oil, canal building, rail roads, cars. Even bicycles: > Technological revolutions are often accompanied by substantial stock price reversals, but previous literature has produced competing explanations for why this is the case. This paper brings new evidence to this debate using data from the innovation-driven British Bicycle Mania of 1895-1900, in which cycle share prices rose by over 200 per cent before collapsing by more than 75 per cent. These price patterns are not fully explained by fundamentals or by changes in the nature of risk associated with cycle shares. Instead, the evidence from the Bicycle Mania supports the hypothesis of Perez (2009), who argues that new technology, high short-term profits, and loose monetary conditions increase the level of speculative investment, ‘decoupling’ share prices from fundamentals. * https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148345/1/87292534X.pdf https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/148345/1/87292534X.p... Recent video by Ben Felix of PWL Capital on the topic, "Investing in Technological Revolutions": > Exciting new technologies, and the companies that create them, seem like obvious investment opportunities. Why wouldn’t you want to invest in the companies leading a new world-changing technological paradigm? * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZnVt_CvL3k

solatic 6y ago

I'm not sure whether people understand just how big of a problem this is. Resilient economies are well-balanced economies. When Big Tech falls - and it will eventually fall, because no industry is immune to corrections or busts - - the effect on the wider economy will be all the greater. The greater a share of the stock market that Big Tech holds, the larger the blast radius their failure will impose on the wider economy. That FAANG constitutes such a large part of major market indices communicates a failure on the part of regulators. Not just the kind of regulation that technologists care about, i.e. protecting free software and open access, but economic regulation as well, that tries to smooth out the business boom and bust cycles and care about the health of the wider American economy.

snarf21 6y ago
And it isn't just FAANG. Look at Disney and Comcast and all the other conglomerates. The SEC and FTC have totally failed our country in the 21st century.
- andrewmcwatters 6y ago
  I frequently think about the fact that such organizations, from the outside, seem like the people now working there have forgotten what they are supposed to be doing for the American people. The most prominent example I can think of is Microsoft getting in all this trouble over bundling a browser with Windows and yet this proliferation of forced App Stores runs rampant in the industry. Where in world is the FTC now? All of these people should be fired. They’ve been asleep for 20 years.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  You may be interested in the book Goliath by Stoller: > Americans once had a coherent and clear understanding of political tyranny, one crafted by Thomas Jefferson and updated for the industrial age by Louis Brandeis. A concentration of power, whether in the hands of a military dictator or a JP Morgan, was understood as autocratic and dangerous to individual liberty and democracy. This idea stretched back to the country’s founding. In the 1930s, people observed that the Great Depression was caused by financial concentration in the hands of a few whose misuse of their power induced a financial collapse. They drew on this tradition to craft the New Deal. > In Goliath, Matt Stoller explains how authoritarianism and populism have returned to American politics for the first time in eighty years, as the outcome of the 2016 election shook our faith in democratic institutions. It has brought to the fore dangerous forces that many modern Americans never even knew existed. Today’s bitter recriminations and panic represent more than just fear of the future, they reflect a basic confusion about what is happening and the historical backstory that brought us to this moment. > The true effects of populism, a shrinking middle class, and concentrated financial wealth are only just beginning to manifest themselves under the current administrations. The lessons of Stoller’s study will only grow more relevant as time passes. Building upon his viral article in The Atlantic, “How the Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul,” Stoller illustrates in rich detail how we arrived at this tenuous moment, and the steps we must take to create a new democracy. * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/40538538-goliath There's been a back and forth over the last century on this topic.

thinkloop 6y ago

microsoft: invented computing apple: invented modern computing google: makes the internet amazon: earth's store facebook: like button