What's The Largest Company In The world?

[pbreak]

Originally posted by SEAN!

vancouver has been pretty quick to move towards higher density developments, look at yaletown, the propsed development for the southside of falsecreek, the planned developments at UBC and the univercity devlopment at SFU. The main problem with building denser, more ecologically sound neighbourhoods is simply a matter of taste. Alot of north americans are not used to living in nieghbourhoods with higher densities, and prefer living in single family homes on large lots and then commuting to work. this is a major reason why we have so much sprawl in north america, its simply a matter of comsumer choice and developers are only too happy to oblige. however, as our population ages, and preceptions of life in the city change and become more appealing, we can expect a shift in demands towords geographically smaller developments with higher densities and less emphasis on cars as the means of transportation.

obviously we are all the problem - to exist we must consume, there is no way around this... But like you said most north americans are used to living in detached housing (where most of us probably grew up) - but they could/should have realized the impact of this years ago before it became the problem that it is. And as well, don't forget that consumer trends are created, and consumers usually oblige simply for the lack of any real choice in the matter - once again you made the point that developers simply make more money off of suburbian developments than urban ones so that is where they go (one more reason they are evil cause they are only thinking of $$ in this case, no other reason). I do like the recent residentail developments in Vancouver and I do agree that people are going to get used to living in higher density neighborhoods - but will this happen quickly enough to at least slow down the ridiculous strain that sprawl puts on our environment and resources. I do my part too, which is all we can really do - but I still know way to many people with a suburbian attitude and I just hopping that that is not the norm across the rest of north america. As for the skytrain, I agree population density has a lot to do with ridership (it wouldn't make sense to put it into langley or abbotsford) - but the i'm pretty sure if you look at the actual densities along either line you'll end up pretty damn close... I think the expo line just happens to go through older neighborhoods that had less planning designed for cars than the newer (mall infested) lougheed area of north burnaby - or maybe that line is simply poorer and less people can afford cars - whatever the reason I don't think it's population densities in this case.

[cinist]

I see our planning as both good and bad in the Lower mainland. We have been tying to limit urban sprawl through ‘growth concentration areas”’which have been effective in limiting development outside of these areas but not to the extent that was planned for.
Big box retail is dependant on suberbian areas of residential development because of the dependence on cars in these areas. Whereas people in the downtown core can meet all their shopping needs from smaller stores within a walking distance.
Everyone obviously cant live downtown though. I think a good solution for these concerns is to create more subdivisions in suburbia with shopping, recreation and transit- within walking distances. The way subdivisions are developed needs to be improved as more people move into greater Vancouver. I think our population is expected to, double? Within the next 20-30 years and we need to have the planning in place to be ready for that kind of growth.
I think that the development of our downtown core is a huge accomplishment. Its beautiful, open and affordable. More then 20,000 people have moved into downtown in the past six years, yet there is little congestion because people in those areas are giving up their cars. Our freeways (lacking as they are) do not run into the downtown core and I think that has made the city more liveable.
A quarter of what is built downtown is designed for families and 20 % for low income earners.
Buying an apartment in Vancouver is an amazing investment. Nowhere else in North America can you buy housing in a city with as much of a future as Vancouver for such a low cost.
We don’t have a never ending amount of land and one thing I fear is the loss of the protection of agricultural land reserves. This land is probably the biggest factor which has concentrated our growth and it could continue to do so if it remains untouched. \ Recent changes to this which in effect shift control to ‘local control’ are dangerous. In the states where the idea of “local control” comes from not one municipality other then Portland has effectively placed limits on urban expansion.
The sky train will be a necessary means of transportation as we grow into the city we are expected to become. For it to be in place now, is just reasonably good planning.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by pbreak


(one more reason they are evil cause they are only thinking of $$ in this case, no other reason).

thats not evil thats smart..

if im gonna put millions apon millions of dollars on the line im gonna make it worth it..and not gonna be a chump for soemoen esles beenift what the fuck is the point of doing anything if you're not going to get anyhting out of it.

feelinign like a nice guy dosnt count when you're talking about lossing your lively hood..giving a couple hundred bucks to charity dosnt compare to lossine a 100 million on a stupid gamble.

amd you are wrong about the expo line
the reason that line has any semblance of econmic feasibilty is due to the fatc that after that line was build alot of high density constrution was centred aroung the stations...the milleuimin line is not even close to being a break even venture...ever single ride you take on that line is subsidezed to the tune of 35 dollars, you pay 2 everyone else, even alot of whom dont even ride the skytrain and never will, pay another 35 bucks..for each fuckin ride. or atleast thats what the vancouver sun sez..but it dosnet matter, you can try and contest it but if you have any concept of the construction costs of the operating costs assocaited with running such a thing you would understand that theres no way in hell that line even comes clozse to breaking even.

[SEAN!]

Originally posted by cinist

Big box retail is dependant on suberbian areas of residential development because of the dependence on cars in these areas. Whereas people in the downtown core can meet all their shopping needs from smaller stores within a walking distance.
.

its not the cars..its simply that a demand for these type of stores exist..and always will..cheap asses want to shop at warehouse stores..there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop them unless you want to give everyone 200k a year indexed with inflation. there will always be a demand for stuff liek that..not everyone dt wants to shop at urban fair..hell not everyone living in dt cana fford to shop there..so a place like costoc like concrod pacific developmetns is going to build on beaty street adjacent to tinsel town, will have lots of people shoppigthere
and not all of them will eb driving cars...the only way to keep from driving cars is to tax em like hell so there to expensive for normal people to drive..but that will never happen in north america because people here figure that driving is a right..

face it, until all cars are driven by feul cells wewre fucked...and i dont really give a shit either, as long as i can make enuff money to buy 400 dollar t shirts...fuck capitalism rocks/

[Senior]

Originally posted by SEAN!:


its not the cars..its simply that a demand for these type of stores exist..and always will..cheap asses want to shop at warehouse stores..there is absolutely NOTHING you can do to stop them unless you want to give everyone 200k a year indexed with inflation. there will always be a demand for stuff liek that..not everyone dt wants to shop at urban fair..hell not everyone living in dt cana fford to shop there..so a place like costoc like concrod pacific developmetns is going to build on beaty street adjacent to tinsel town, will have lots of people shoppigthere
and not all of them will eb driving cars...the only way to keep from driving cars is to tax em like hell so there to expensive for normal people to drive..but that will never happen in north america because people here figure that driving is a right..

face it, until all cars are driven by feul cells wewre fucked...and i dont really give a shit either, as long as i can make enuff money to buy 400 dollar t shirts...fuck capitalism rocks/

Have you done any research on fuel cells and other alternatives to the internal combustion engine? You make it seem like there's an alternative and right now there isn't. When the world oil supply starts running out things will be very different.

[Sir_K]

The largest company in the world?

First, lets set a couple of things straight. There are a few ways that financial analysts rank a company, and "size" or "bigness" or "largeness" is a pretty weak and vague term to rank by that gets applied to all of them.

A$$ETS.

If you are ranking a company's size by the amount of assets it holds, manages or controls, obviously as previously stated Citigroup (which is Citicorp Financial and Travellers Insurance) takes the cake with $800 billion.
Since this is largely a financial services company it can appear quite small, because square foot per square foot or per employee financial services is one of the most profitable enterprises you could possibly be in.
As for bigness, or LARGEness, imagine a company that throws around $800 billion dollars (remember, this figure includes client money that they manage and insurance funds that can't be spent). That's quite a bit of influence.
By comparison Fidelity International (a mutual fund company) manages $500 billion - but thats all client money. They have almost as much influence.

Square Footage / Locations / Employees:

If you are going to rank a company's largeness by the number of locations or employees it comes down to McDonalds, Pepsico, Walmart, Coca-Cola and their multinational ilk.
Profits per employee or square foot are shit compared to the previous category, but they certainly get the job done and make a lot of money.
When you're rating companies based on their bigness in this way, you really have to look at another figure - net profit per share. Dont listen to to corporate mumbo jumbo posted on the damn investor relations website because they will almost always show you the biggest figure they can find (gross sales, gross revenues, EBIDTA, etc).
What you do is find the total number of common shares outstanding on the market and multiply it by the EPS to find out roughly what they are actually making. Even this number is fudged a quite a bit with some funky accounting because stock brokers see this number on their screen with every quote.

CAPITALIZATION:

A company's LARGENESS or BIGNESS can also be rated by another factor that is very important. Capitalization. This is the actual value of every single share of every single type issued on the market, with no consideration made for debt.
Microsoft would unleash a can of whoop-ass in the race for capitalization. Here's an example - Microsoft's market capitalization is roughly equal to double the value of all companies trading on the toronto stock and venture exchanges. Exxon-Mobil too.
Sell off either all of Microsoft's or Exxon-Mobil's shares at the current market value (which for those who dont know, is absolutely impossible to do because you would tank the share price down to pennies) and the value would absolutely DWARF Wal-Mart.
That's not exactly to say that these companies are actually WORTH that value. That's just what the equity markets are willing to pay.

Ironically, you may notice that profitability isnt even in the ranking of bigness at all. Thats because it isnt.

The smallest companies are the most profitable, the bigger the company the less profitable it is. Sounds strange.

Example :

Over the entire period people have had a stock market (this example relates to the NYSE), small-capitalization indicies (or small companies) stocks given an ROI in the tens of thousands of percentiles.

Large Capitalization indicies (or blue chip) have had an ROI down in the hundreds of percentiles.

WHY?

Lets compare Royal Bank to a company like Datec Group.

Royal Bank tends to make between 1 and 1.3 billion dollars per year. (they pay about the same in taxes, ironically) That works out to about $4.29 per share which at a current share price of $63.88 is 6.7%. Not bad. They just reported some astronomical profits too.

Datec Group is a tinly little company operating in the South Pacific. The total profits of the company are just over 1.5 million dollars per year. That works out to about 9 and a half cents per share. At a current share price of 79 cents, that works out to 12.02% per share. Because of the tech burst they're just getting back on their feet plus they are working a challenging South Pacific marketplace, normally its more like 12.5 cents per share.

Bigness or largeness doesnt mean shit. Its the wrong measure.

[baby_bluez]

DuPont Nylon!!!
think about how much shit is made outta nylon.
even the carpet in your house!, your couch, chair covers, car interiors. not to mention all the clothes we wear that aren't made outta cotton.
its craziness :284: