Jump to content

Talk:List of largest companies by revenue

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Dispute

[edit]

As mentioned by several others in the talk section, the table is missing too many entries for it to be a valid ranked list, and hence I'm marking the list as disputed until further correction is made. Notably it's missing the largest revenue company.

History of Top 100

[edit]

Is there a page with a history of the top 100 companies year by year? If not, it is a shame to lose the work of previous years by updating every year. Is it possible to recover them in some way, eg from "View History"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.7.96 (talk) 07:28, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly missing companies

[edit]

State owned

[edit]
=== References ===
  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ http://www.sonatrach-dz.com/rapfin-2006uk.pdf
  4. ^ [3]
  5. ^ [4]

Others

[edit]

*Nippon Life Insurance Company

*Glencore International AG

References

  1. ^ [5]

Company Mentioned Twice

[edit]

I see Legal & General on here twice. You've got one saying insurance near the bottom and you have one near the top saying financial services (Aren't they the same thing? Or are they separate entities?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.16.9 (talk) 01:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of it, and the article is in the middle of updating, so it will look messy. There are several others that need to be deleted, and several that need to be added. Thanks. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see Eni twice in rank 9 and 29 showing same figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.190.17 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reliance Group

[edit]

I see no mention of Reliance Industries (Mukesh Ambani) as well as Reliance Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group (Anil Ambani).

Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliance Industries is included, along with Vitol, China Mobile, and Trafigura. Will soon include PepsiCo and Gunvor. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly and Probably Missing Companies

[edit]

Bold denotes the companies did make the list.

Companies to Keep an Eye on:

[edit]

Some that were on the list last year and off this year but may come back next year:

Some companies to keep an eye on (2009 stats unless noted otherwise):

Jonathansuh (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also older commented (then deleted) part including under 40 companies in 2007 (some of them may be over 40 now). --Jklamo (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange rates

[edit]

Nice to see that list is extensively updated by somebody else than me. I noticed, that you change most of exachange rates. Your rate is not sourced (mine also wasn´t). I suggest to use rates from FED statistics (http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h10/Hist/), it is trustworthy source and it has good coverage (from rates needed in article only few are missing). --Jklamo (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used x-rates.com, which copies directly from the IMF, European Central Bank among others (as quoted here [6]). I've also got a question. Some financial institutions, like ING Group, Zurich Financial Services, Commerzbank, BNP Paribas, and Groupe BPCE don't list revenue on their respective annual/financial reports. So I usually go with "Interest and similar income", but some don't even have that on their reports. I don't know why this happens, or how to find the revenue. Any help? Jonathansuh (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
x-rates.com is just secondary source, that is not preffered if primary sources are available. IMF is good source, so if you found rates directly on its pages, i have no problem with that. Otherwise i will use FED rates.
Revenue for financial institutions is sometime tricky to found or calculate, income from income statement is a good way (count up all types of income (interest, fees, other income), if net income only is listed). Other option is to use some secondary source (Forbes, FT). --Jklamo (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annual Update

[edit]

Massive update coming up as the companies release their annual reports (maybe mid-February?). Jonathansuh (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back. 10-ks for major companies were released through March 1st. Annual reports probably coming mid-March. However Berkshire Hathaway already released its annual report and is therefore updated. Jonathansuh (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Group and Tata Group

[edit]

I've been thinking this for a while and now I'm pretty sure that the two "companies" listed in the title aren't really companies. They are just a group of loosely connected businesses. So I am thinking of deleting them. I want some opinions. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Group is one conglomerate each of whose area of expertise is catered to by each of its direct subsidiaries, which have just grown so large that they are as big as individual companies elsewhere. If you haven't noticed, all Samsung companies are headquartered in Samsung Town in Seoul, which is also the headquarter of Samsung Group itself. You have no citation to provide that Samsung companies are just loosely connected businesses who don't respond to one common master of the Samsung hierarchy who has full control of the company's operation.Desagwan (talk) 09:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Main problem with Samsung Group is that some of its subsidiaries are listed separately and in some of them Group holds only a minority stake. As result there is no consolidated financial statement. Thus i already replaced Group with largest "subsidiary" - Samsung Electronics. Other subsidiaries did not met the cut-off line of this list (40 M). --Jklamo (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this consolidated financial statement from Samsung Group hold no importance to you?

http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/corporateprofile/ourperformance/samsungprofile.html

Also, part of the revenues of many other companies listed in the list also come as a result of their own minority stakes in different companies. You may need to scrutinize them all and apply your judgment unilaterally on all the companies present in the list, not just the Samsung Group and Tata Group whose solidarities have been challenged here. Desagwan (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compensation remove

[edit]

I removed compensations from CEO column, as only few of them were filled. --Jklamo (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LG

[edit]

I have reverted LG corp back to LG Electronics. The reason is the structure of the holding (see http://www.lgcorp.com/investor/pdf/05_2010_LGAR_eng_holding_structure.pdf). As you can see, LG corp has only minority stakes in most important "subsidiaries" like LG Electronics (35 %) or LG Chem (33,5 %), thus cannot be considered as single entity. Of its "subsidiaries" only LG Electronics is above 40 bil. --Jklamo (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have the same issues been raised with other major companies too? Let us take a look at the shareholding structure of Volkswagen Group as an example.[7] What prevents Volkswagen Group from also being disqualified as a single business entity which has some of its subsidiaries (and their activities, assets, and revenues) outside its realm of dominant influence? Desagwan (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Volkswagen Group Annaal report for its subsidiaries. VW has 99-100% stake in most of them, thus are included in consolidated figures. --Jklamo (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it irrelevant that Volkswagen Group does not appear to have an indigenous shareholder? A bunch of foreign companies are owning the entire group. Desagwan (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota seems to be another good example of all its assets not owned by a single unified, sovereign entity.[8] The thing is that most conglomerates with their huge operational scope and scale can hardly exist today without extending their administrative authority to multiple significant shareholders, and among the paticularly big ones there isn't many single shareholder who really has an undisputed dominant say in the conglomerate's operation (Volkwagen Group itself doesn't even appear to have an indigenous shareholder, while LG Corporation has its own 'LG Corporation' share). I believe it holds some merit to determine the state of solidarity of a company by the sheer existence or inexistence of a consolidated financial statement, so that we may not have to over-complicate our analysis by examining the shareholding structure of every single company being registered here beyond normal effort. A consolidated financial statement exists because the subsidiaries whose financial information are included in it accepted that the master conglomerate who released it has the authoritative right to include the subsidiaries' performance as one of 'their' collective performance. Desagwan (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again see Toyta Annual report fot its subsidiaries. There is no need to examine structure of subsidiares every single company on the list, but if there are reasonable doubts, it is examined. It is not only case of LG, already Tata Group or Samsung Group were revised same way. --Jklamo (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of Toyota's major subsidiaries, Toyota Industries Corporation (40.6%; revenue),[9] Toyota Tsusho Corporation (21.6%),[10] and Denso Corporation (24.74%)[11] do not owe the majority of their shares to the indigenous Toyota Motors shareholder. The combined revenue of the subsidiaries in which Toyota Motors does not have a majority share account for more than half of Toyota Motors' consolidated revenue (Toyota Industries Corporation is $19 billion, Toyota Tsusho Corporation is $75 billion, and Denso Corporation is $32 billion). Like LG and Samsung their shareholding structure is more of the subsidiaries themselves owning each other with the parent company owning the largest of the lot, which is often not the majority ownership (though still the single most influencial shareholder). Desagwan (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See Toyota AR again, for income purpose fully consolidated are only subsidiaries with majority stake. 20% - 50 % subsidiaries are included just eqity based, thus its share on total TM revenue is smaller than you are stating. Under 20 % subsidiaries are not included entirely. --Jklamo (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest that the same measure hasn't been applied to the consolidated financial statements of LG or Samsung? That they too don't include the entire revenue of their subsidiaries in which they don't have a dominant majority stake? Desagwan (talk) 08:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I must ask for a response to my question as to how LG and Samsung are not proven to include 20 - 50% subsidiaries into their consolidated financial statements in equity basis only, nor that under-20% subsidiaries are excluded entirely as is the case with Toyota Motors. Desagwan (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Desagwan. Nonetheless, it's interesting in that the Czech is toeing the standard Samsung argument. They've deliberately set up their ownership structure so as to keep a low profile for its medussa network of companies. However, it's no secret that the Samsung affiliates are all controlled by Lee Kun-hee through various organs within the Samsung Group.Buryatrider (talk) 06:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Problem We face

[edit]

I understand for simplicity revenue for banks has been declared as gross income. What about Zurich Financial Services? It actually does state its revenue in its annual report. Jonathansuh (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More likely for comparability than simplicity. Yes, there is problem that US financial institutions are publishing gross income and EU one net income. There are three options how to deal with that:
  • use the number, what are reported (net for some and gross for some) - as result loss of comparability
  • use gross income, if is not reported (fon non-US), it will be calculated from financial statements
  • use net income, if is not reported (for non-US), it will be calculated from financial statements
I prefer second option, as for example Fortune (in Global 500) is using gross income. Also second option is possible, but i oppose the first option, because of loss of comparability. --Jklamo (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another cutoff

[edit]

It is December now and list is still not updated completly. I think it is still too long to be periodically updated. Thus i suggest another cutoff - to $50 bn. I think it is better to have updated (but a bit shorter) list, than long unupdated list. --Jklamo (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iranaian Company

[edit]

I have noticed that someone had created a fake entry by the name of ' Iranaian Company '. I have corrected this mistake but have not been able to change the ranks of other companies that needed an edit due to this alteration Kindly discuss Arnav.agroo (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC) arnav.agroo[reply]

Rank column

[edit]

What about removing the "rank" column? It's redundant with "revenue" and makes editing the table very time-consuming and prone to error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.58.208 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sortable list; when sorted, say by company name, you can not tell the relative position of the revenue. Kuru (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is even the metric for "rank"??? It is neither revenue, nor profit. How is it determined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:1410:8A0:99E4:BF85:A8F0:7170 (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

I am going to update this with the 2011 Profit margins from the links on the company's pages here on Wikipedia. Stidmatt (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Be Careful, misleading information about Credit Suisse

[edit]

Many of the numbers are misleading. I checked the Income Statement of Credit Suisse and someone add all numbers together. In banks only net revenues are counted and all other banks are used iqual. Please be careful!!!!£ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.120.187 (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ordering numbers

[edit]

The number of employees column does not sort correctly because all sort software, except for real database stuff that has been carefully crafted, sorts on the first char that it encounters. So 1,000,000 is less than 1. The only way of fixing this problem, short of writing new software, is to list the same number of columns of numbers for each data point. If 1,000,000 is the biggest number, then you have to enter 1 as 000,000,001. I've made a couple of changes to show how this is going to work if that is what the people minding this article would like to have things look this way. (As far as I know, there is no way to supress leading zeroes.)P0M (talk) 01:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is incorrect. See help:sorting. There are problems, and some remain even after I've cleaned it up a bit, but it is not true that it mindlessly sorts on the first character.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to be sorting correctly now. Use non-break spaces in place of leading zeroes?P0M (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please drop the fixation that you need the same number of columns. It isn't true.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When I removed the references from the employee field, the column sorted correctly. That doesn't match the advice given, nor does it explain why Revenue, even with refs, sorts correctly, but it strongly suggests that the problem lies with the references.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are looking at this at the same time. I was just going to suggest moving the references to a separate column, since the help file says that numbers won't sort right if there is any non-number content. I guess I was looking at the version before the one where you removed the references. P0M (talk) 01:09, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove them in here, I made a partial copy in my Sphilbrick/sandbox. (Which changes often, so probably will be different in a day or two.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is horrendous

[edit]

While we do not encourage Ownership of articles, someone ought to either step up and agree to clean this up or we ought to throw it away. Most numbers aren't referenced. I checked a few that had references and did not get a single one to match. The sorting is messed up (thought not for the reason mentioned above). There's a point at which information can be so bad it is worse than nothing at all. This may qualify. If someone wants to step up, great. If not, I'll propose that it be deleted.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Dutch Shell & Exxon Mobil - Data overlap

[edit]

Both Royal Dutch Shell and Exxon Mobil show the same data for employees, Market Cap and CEO. Needs correction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.168.33 (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what just happened??

[edit]

no flags and it looks horrible.--Shokioto22 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am redoing the table to conform to Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 23:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Military and Social Security companies

[edit]

If we're going to include public companies like China's electric utility, we must include military and social security companies. The U.S. and China have the only military companies with more than 100 billion in revenue. U.S. Social Security has roughly equal revenue to the Forces. Mr G (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cutoff

[edit]

I used to regularly work on this article, and I guess I came back to it. The cutoff used to be 40bil, which I admit is too long. However, isn't 100bil too short now? What about 60 bil? Just a thought. Jonathansuh (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PetroChina and Sinopec

[edit]

These two companies are actually subsidiaries, or publicly traded arms of the CNPC and Sinopec Group respectively. Therefore I will change PetroChina's entry to CNPC. Sinopec's revenue that is listed currently was from Sinopec Group already. Also, I still think the cutoff is too short... we should go at least 75bil. Jonathansuh (talk) 22:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting by capitalization problem

[edit]

Sorting by capitalization seems to ignore where the decimal is placed - doesn't sort the figures in true decending/ascending order, only by numerical placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.82.16 (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to fix it using template:nts --Jklamo (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exor

[edit]

I think that Exor shold be excluded from the list, as most of its "revenue" (see p. 166 of EXOR AR) comes from full consolidation of Fiat Industrial and Fiat, even if Exor hold only minority stake in both companies (30.45% and 30.47%). So it is same story as Samsung Group (or LG group) already excluded from the list. --Jklamo (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You bring a good point. I just wanted to say that Fortune 500 does recognize the revenue as is, so I think we could keep it... just my opinion. Also, what do you say about expanding cutoff? I have created a userpage where I listed some 90 bil companies, if you want to take a look. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fortune 500 does, but for example Forbes Global 2000 does not.
About cutoff, i was already proposing it to ease updating. But 100 bn mark seems to high for me. So i have absolutely no objection against adding 90+ or 80+ companies back to the list. For me even having 100 entries in the list is still acceptable. --Jklamo (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange Rates

[edit]

I think it would be convenient to make a table of all the significant exchange rates we use, such as euro to dollar, pound to dollar, yen to dollar, etc. This way it's easier for us editors, and easier for viewers too. Jonathansuh (talk) 23:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. But i am not sure, if the article itself will be the best place for this table. Maybe supbage of this discussion (while having link to the subpage from the top of this page by creating some short editing guidelines box) can be good place. --Jklamo (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Phillips 66

[edit]

Phillips 66 was spun off from ConocoPhillips this year... Expect it to make the list next year. If I forget about this company someone please update it next year. Jonathansuh (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

[edit]

Is there a reason for showing the logo's of the companies ranked first and third, but not for the company ranked second? PinkShinyRose (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • All logos that are tagged as non free images must comply with rules #8 and #10c of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria. The logos for the the second and fourth companies are non-free, and were removed because they currently do not comply with those rules. Because this results in the list of logos being incomplete, IMO, that entire list should be removed, or else the page will likely be reverted and no longer be in compliance with Wikipedia's policies again Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goldman Sachs

[edit]

The entry on Goldmans here says it had revenue of $163 billion in 2012 - yet it's not listed. Why? LookingGlass (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entry at that time said $34.163 billion, currently $40.874 billion, so not large enough to make the list. RoyBoy 16:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung rank @ $327b

[edit]

It looks as though Samsung should be higher in the list with $327billion... am I missing something? - RoyBoy 16:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of being cosolidated entity (unlike Samsung Electronics)? --Jklamo (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the $327 billion number came from, the link cited lists samsung at 177 billion and in 13th place.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:8100:E20:F0B0:D895:76FD:BB42 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://beta.fortune.com/global500/list

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2014

[edit]

Saudi ARAMCO is the largest company by far: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco 86.30.135.170 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This article lists companies by yearly revenue, not net worth. Biblioworm 21:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TOTAL's CEO to be updated

[edit]

Total appointed Patrick Pouyanne as CEO after Christophe de Margerie died in plane crash. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11179895/Total-appoints-Patrick-Pouyanne-as-CEO-after-Christophe-de-Margerie-dies-in-plane-crash.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.40.135.3 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Jklamo (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

[edit]

14.139.122.244 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC) tata[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updated stats from Forbes

[edit]

See http://www.forbes.com/global2000/ —DIV (137.111.13.4 (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

[edit]

Aya mohamed ahmed (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 00:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2015

[edit]

Tata Group Revenue : 103.27 Number of Employees : 581473 Reference(s) : http://www.tata.com/htm/Group_Investor_GroupFinancials.htm 117.249.248.211 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 23:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

[edit]

49.200.116.136 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

[edit]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of largest companies by revenue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Growth in size of the largest companies

[edit]

<snip: I just found the column of the table giving the year, which I hadn't see before. Please excuse me for asking about this; I just removed this inappropriate question. DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)>[reply]

What can be said about the growth in size of the larger companies? I have the impression that the US and other national governments have been approving mergers and acquisitions so fast that the total revenues of the larger corporations are growth faster the US and international economies. That's what I was looking for when I came to this site. Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 09:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2016: Small grammar fix

[edit]

Please change 'conglomerate' to 'Conglomerate' on for the Industry column for Tata Motors by Capitalizing the 'C' on for the Industry column for Tata Motors epicfinley (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done -- Dane2007 talk 03:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Aramco

[edit]

Should be on the list no ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B82B:D6B5:7C58:6480:953F:A09E (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why doesn't it appear on the list? Aramco's annual revenue is 318 b$ should be 2nd or 3rd biggest company in the world. It holds The first place of oil&gas companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240D:1A:106:F200:BC83:4D52:E4E7:9441 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it with proper source. That is the problem, as Saudi Aramco does not publish any financial data.--Jklamo (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gazprom

[edit]

Missing Gazprom? – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not this year, maybe next year.--Jklamo (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung's revenue doesn't match with ref

[edit]

I get it that the reference is only for Samsung Electronics, but then a better ref should be provided for Samsung as a whole. --fireattack (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung is Chaebol, not a company, so it does not belong to the list.--Jklamo (talk) 08:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of Important Companies

[edit]

Why aren't companies like Mitsubishi, Toyota etc here? Well, when it comes to revenue, Mitsubishi stands higher that Walmart with 542 billion USD. Since, there are many companies which haven't been mentioned, I'm not sure whether Mitsubishi tops the list. But I'm sure there are many companies which are missing here. This article needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayaditya.dey (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota is seventh, Mitsubishi is Keiretsu, not a company.--Jklamo (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Column suggestion

[edit]

I think a column for "form of ownership" or management model would be useful. Perhaps more colors besides the yellow indicating state ownership is an alternative. 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.116.221 (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying that the yellow means state ownership somewhere on the page would be useful. 203.214.87.89 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volkswagen

[edit]

Volkswagen in Fortune list [12] is clearly Volkswagen Group (Volkswagen AG), not its marque/subsidiary Volkswagen.--Jklamo (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Recent edits

[edit]

since this is the page called "List of largest companies by revenue", so we should have two or three tables , for example for the years 2015, 2016 and 2017. instead of own points of view, or own personal analysis as this edit. we need to know what other users think about it, I am also pinging @General Ization:. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rank numbers incorrect when the table is sorted by revenue

[edit]

This article does not at all seem to be serving its purpose. It is supposed to be a list of the largest companies by revenue but when the table is sorted by revenue, the rank numbers are out of order. This means that when sorted by the rank (which is the default and what most readers will do), the revenue numbers are out of order and readers will obtain an inaccurate understanding of the intended topic. At this juncture, the article is conveyed at best misleading information and at worst false or unreliable information. Given these problems and the difficulty we are having in finding reliable and consistent sources/data for revenue information, I think it would be prudent to make one last effort to improve this article before deleting it.--Arryak24 (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An IP had slipped in a change to China National Petroleum. Simply fixing the entry feels less dramatic. Kuru (talk) 11:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toyota

[edit]

I don’t know if this has been discussed before but most sources I’ve seen classify Toyota as the largest car company. CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is highly unreliable

[edit]

Many companies are missing (see points raised above). This article should be totally revisited. Pensées de Pascal (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding reports help?

[edit]

To improve article sourcing, should we add reports from the companies themselves? I found this one for Walmart https://s2.q4cdn.com/056532643/files/doc_financials/2021/ar/WMT_2021_AnnualReport.pdf It's official data reported to the SEC, so it should be reliable. Real60isanumber (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC) I'll try and find more for other companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real60isanumber (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largest companies by country

[edit]

It would be interesting to have a section that listed largest companies by country.

Molochild (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"List of largest automotive companies by revenue" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect List of largest automotive companies by revenue has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 29 § List of largest automotive companies by revenue until a consensus is reached. rayukk | talk 09:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Group

[edit]

I don't think Tata Group belongs on this list. It is not a legally incorporated entity, but a group of loosely affiliated companies operating under the "Tata" brand umbrella. As evident from the previous discussions, we have excluded Samsung Group on similar grounds, as it is only a group of affiliated companies and not one consolidated company. Samsung Electronics is indeed a legally incorporated company and hence included on the list. It appears that an IP user added Tata Group to the list in this edit. Yuvaank (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue&oldid=1252868204"