There hasn't been much change at the top of my favourite list this year.
Perhaps I should say my favourite business list. I refer, of course, to
Fortune Magazine's list of the US top 500 corporations. The Fortune 500 has
been around for a long time now and it makes fascinating reading.
Fortune ranks companies by sales. Other measures are used for compiling
subsidiary schedules, using numbers of employees, market capitalisation or
growth rates but it is the value of a corporation's sales that defines the
actual 500 itself. Thus, companies like Microsoft come a long way down,
even though when this particular list was compiled (it was actually
published last month), Microsoft was still the world's most valuable
corporation. How the mighty have fallen. Microsoft has shed nearly half its
market value so far this year. Still, I suppose that is what makes the
selection of the criteria you use so important. The stockmarket can be very
fickle in terms of the valuation it places on your business.
The growth ratings look most interesting. Dell Computer tops this
particular list, for the 10 years to the end of 1999 anyway, recording an
average of 52 per cent growth in revenues. Second in line is Microsoft ,
with a 37.5 per cent average, while interestingly both Berkshire Hathaway
and Charles Schwab are also up there with the leaders. Berkshire Hathaway
has been having a lean time of it recently, with Warren Buffett admitting
that technology as an investment area had passed him by. Charles Schwab, on
the other hand, is as much a beneficiary of new technology as any business.
Along with Dell and Microsoft, Schwab ranks in the top 10 of fastest-
growing companies by profits and in terms of how much money they have made
for their shareholders. Berkshire Hathaway does not even make the top 50 in
either of those lists.
One day I must try to compile a list of stock exchanges. Once again, the
use of different criteria will produce varying results. The market
capitalisation of the shares traded on an exchange, turnover, volumes,
profits – all can lay claim to providing a valid measure of worth. And,
like the Fortune 500, whichever you use is likely to give a different
answer.
The new London/Frankfurt axis – or IX as it is to be known, whatever that
means – may not yet be eligible to top any of the Exchange lists but
perhaps that is the aim. The cynics among us might wonder if any list of
exchanges will be around long enough to enable Europe's leading stockmarket
provider to clamber into pole position. Securities trading is eminently
suited to migration to the market. London has looked vulnerable for some
little while, given its chequered history in technological innovation and
the loss of its last remaining regulatory role to the FSA.
Yet London's position as equal partner demonstrates its continuing
importance as a financial centre. More money is managed in London than
anywhere else in the world – more than 1.4trillion, assuring you subscribe
to the American view that a trillion is one thousand billion. Frankfurt, in
contrast, can muster only 12th position – just behind Edinburgh. And the
City of London alone has more office accommodation than the whole of
Frankfurt, and more than a third of the City's offices are occupied by
foreign firms compared with just 20 per cent in Germany.
While we can take comfort from knowing that the skills that we have here
are greater than anywhere else in Europe, it would to underestimate the
importance of the internet. This is the driving force behind the
amalgamation of the Paris, Amsterdam and Brussels exchanges, which together
push Frankfurt into third place in Europe – London is, of course, number
one. Even New Zealand is rumoured to be holding talks with the Australian
stock exchange. At least they share a common language.
The threat is worldwide and comes from electronic communications networks,
of which there are already a number in the US. They are taking a growing
percentage of business there and are known to have their sights on Europe,
even though this will be a tougher market to crack. Ruben Lee's recent
book, What is an Exchange?, terms ECNs as Monsters – Market-Oriented New
System for Terrifying Exchanges and Regulators. Never have I heard such an
apposite acronym.
View more on these topicsNews
Comments