4 ms·
Note: some have pointed out I went by weight while the article went by revenue. I don’t have a Bloomberg so can’t update this comment with ranking by revenue).
by gumby 3y ago
Note: some have pointed out I went by weight while the article went by revenue. I don’t have a Bloomberg so can’t update this comment with ranking by revenue).
I have loved the Economist for 40 years but you have to check things sometimes:
> Big health accounts for eight of the top 25 companies by revenue in the s&p 500 index of America’s leading stocks, compared with four for big tech and none for big pharma.
Actually tech constitute 9 of the top 25 and pharma four, while of the parasitic rentiers discusssed in the article, only one, United Health, makes the list (https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/find-stocks-in-sp500.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/find-stocks-in-s...):
Apple (AAPL): 7.05%
Microsoft (MSFT): 6.54%
Amazon (AMZN): 3.24%
NVIDIA (NVDA): 2.79%
Alphabet Class A (GOOGL): 2.13%
Tesla (TSLA): 1.95%
Alphabet Class C (GOOG): 1.83%
Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B): 1.83%
Meta (META), formerly Facebook, Class A: 1.81%
UnitedHealth Group (UNH): 1.28%
Exxon Mobil (XOM): 1.27%
Eli Lilly (LLY): 1.21%
JPMorgan Chase (JPM): 1.18%
Johnson & Johnson (JNJ): 1.07%
Visa Class A (V): 1.05%
Procter & Gamble (PG): 0.99%
Mastercard Class A (MA): 0.93%
Broadcom (AVGO): 0.92%
Home Depot (HD): 0.85%
Chevron Corporation (CVX): 0.81%
Merck (MRK): 0.75%
AbbVie (ABBV): 0.75%
Costco (COST): 0.67%
PepsiCo (PEP): 0.67%
Adobe (ADBE): 0.65%10
- yumbrand 3y agoThat Investopedia link is by market cap, but the quote you mentioned from the Economist is by revenue.
- JohnCClarke 3y agoEconomist said "by revenue". You seem to have listed by market cap, so not the same.
- doodlesdev 3y agoThe list you grabbed is ordered by market cap, while The Economist said there were 8 Big Health companies in the top 25 _by revenue_ which is a different metric.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]