3 ms·

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

by andy_threos_io 6y ago

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?
- andy_threos_io 6y ago
  Dividends are around 1-5%, large caps are closer to 1% (or 0) (AAPL 0.89%, MSFT 1.04%)
  - thebean11 6y ago
    Were they higher 20 years ago though, when valuations weren't as crazy? Either way, that 1-5% compounding for 20 years makes a difference.
beezle 6y ago
In fact, that is quite interesting - Software, Industrial, Networking, Semi, Retail.

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?

andy_threos_io 6y ago
Dividends are around 1-5%, large caps are closer to 1% (or 0) (AAPL 0.89%, MSFT 1.04%)
- thebean11 6y ago
  Were they higher 20 years ago though, when valuations weren't as crazy? Either way, that 1-5% compounding for 20 years makes a difference.

beezle 6y ago

In fact, that is quite interesting - Software, Industrial, Networking, Semi, Retail.