Live data from Hacker News

Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#101
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree the sky is the limit for Google's future but there's always some risk that FB or Baidu or someone could come in and take 80% of Google's users. Aso by any reasonable measure Apple's market cap should be well over a trillion. Take away their $165 billion cash pile from their $465 billion market cap, give them 0% growth and you're left with the idea that Wall St's expects Apple to be turning out the lights in 4 o…

The big reason investors are skeptical with Apple is that there is no guarantee they can pull the same revenue without creating a hit product every two years. Once the revenue starts to shrink, things go downhill very quickly.

The idea that revenue from Apple lines quickly fades after 2 years doesn't seem to square with history. Desktops growing for over a decade, finally fading due to laptop cannibalization. Laptops growing for over a decade, perhaps stable now and fading in the future due to tablet cannibalization. Music player grew for better part of a decade until heavily cannibalized by phone. Phone still growing 7 years after introduction. Tablets still growing 5 years in. But even if you throw their growth away and say they do 0% for next 4 years the market cap doesn't add up.

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#103

Yet it's so small : XOM ('12) GOOG ('13) Revenue $453 B/a $60 B/a Profit $45 B/a $13 B/a Market cap $393 B $394 B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil (101 for anyone who doesn't know this: revenue is how much you sell, profit is what's left over for shareholders, market cap is how much shareholders think that profit stream is worth). Relevant: check out wikipedia's rankings o…

Hm, applying a bit of my personal sense, I'd say Exxon's business is drying up in the foreseeable future (oil is running out, renewable energy is on the rise). Google is a software business with very strong network effects. I definitely see how there is more demand for software in 100 years than for oil (as a fuel). Economics is not a pure numbers game. They [edit: the numbers] just try abstract what the companies do…

Exxon is here to stay. This is a company that has seen 19 American presidents come and go. No other company in the world invests as much in energy R&D.

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#104
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only market that Google has ever dominated profitably is search engine advertising. Despite, Glass, self driving cars, Android (free), Feedburner (dominated and shuttered) Gmail, Maps, etc... 96%[1] of their revenue is from selling ads. I love a lot of Google products, but the only one they make any money on, is one I despise. It pays for everything else. [1] http://venturebeat.com/2012/01/29/google-advertising/

I was thinking about it last time. And it's sad that it's 2014 and most tech companies that get tons of press and admiration make money with advertisement, something we all hate.

> something we all hate

Doubtless there are some (perhaps even many, in certain circles) who would rather pay directly for services, but you're sorely mistaken if you think that it's anywhere near-universal (even on HN/in tech) that people hate ads more than they hate paying. What you actually mean is "something we all hate, given that we feel entitled to getting services completely for free".

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#105

Yet it's so small : XOM ('12) GOOG ('13) Revenue $453 B/a $60 B/a Profit $45 B/a $13 B/a Market cap $393 B $394 B https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil (101 for anyone who doesn't know this: revenue is how much you sell, profit is what's left over for shareholders, market cap is how much shareholders think that profit stream is worth). Relevant: check out wikipedia's rankings o…

I believe one reason why Google and even Apple are able to surpass Exxon is because Exxon pays out a large portion of its profit in dividends while Google and Apple retain much of theirs in bank accounts as assets. If Exxon didn't pay a dividend they'd easily be the largest company in the world with regards to market cap.

The reverse is a probable case. If Exxon didn't deliver dividends and investors don't believe the company will grow, then they'd pay even less for shares. A large part of a mature's company's worth is tied to interest rates. People pile into a dividend payer because it's better than holding cash - heck they borrow cash to buy the dividend payer. So actually Exxon could be just as vulnerable to a share price fall as Apple.

Lastly, what happens if Exxon holds cash and grows a stockpile? If it's not earning money, the cash just makes a share more expensive, but the dividend as a percentage decreased. Well, the closer that percentage gets to interest rates, the less attractive the stock gets to those type of investors.

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#107
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A two-hit-wonder. 50% of their revenue comes from search and 50% from adsense.

So half from ads and the other half from ads?

This makes approximately as much sense as "Apple is a one-hit revenue wonder: almost all their revenue is from direct sales".

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#108
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? Microsoft left the station in the late 80s. Apple left the station in 2005? And to the contrast, Warren Buffer invests in things like Conoco, WellsFargo, and, humorously, Exxon. Small doesn't mean growing. Large doesn't mean shrinking. Any analysis that assumes either is simply flawed. Buffet looks for companies with good fundamentals and returns, whether the…

> By that analysis, Google "left the station" in what, 2005? By that analysis, Google has most likely experienced the majority of its growth, and its current price reflects not only its actual value but the psychology of investors who try to buy into companies that are already successful, expecting that future returns will reflect past performance (the single most common investor mistake). > Buffet looks for companie…

EDIT: Given that lutusp is bizarrely distancing themselves from their own claims (or rather holding their comments as ever mutable and ethereal all-encompassing statements that mean everything yet mean nothing), this thread is futile.

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By all means sell Google and buy Exxon. Check back with us in 10 years about how that went. > Exxon's better reflect the value of the underlying assets. That's like valuing a car based on the price of the steel it contains instead of where it can take you.

> By all means sell Google and buy Exxon. Check back with us in 10 years about how that went. I am actually going to try to track this (and I don't mean that in a bad way). I am honestly curious about this over the next 10 years.

You don't really have to track it. Just set a google calendar event for 10 years from now, and look back at the stock history then.

If somehow google services go away and you don't get that event reminder, the question may be moot by then... not really, but an interesting thought anyways.

Re: Google Passes Exxon to Become Second-Most Valuable U.S. Company

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that is a correct line of logic. Often, companies pump their stock prices by handing over dividends. That's a sign of a mature company, which can't expect to grow much, but is still valuable to its shareholders if it can provide results in any other way.

No, if the company pays out dividends, its price ought to fall. For example if a stock is at $100, and then pays out $5 in dividends, afterward the price will be $95. The company is worth less after giving away a pile of its cash.

the dividends are not related to stock price- although logically, dividend paying stocks should make a stock more valuable.

Dividends are just a portion of profits paid out to public investors. Companies that don't pay dividends on C class stock still pay dividends on other classes of stock.

Post reply on HN