Aramco is a very difficult valuation. The attempted IPO on LSE was a disaster and the company refused to submit to various audit requirements. Then the Saudis strong-armed their neighbours into buying stock.
At this point the true scale of their reserves is extremely difficult to estimate, and the valuation of those reserves is also difficult given the political future for oil & gas in many markets.
Realistically they will probably squeeze a trillion dollars out of it but...
Somebody made a Facebook account for me in 2010. Last and only activity: that same picture in 2010. The only Apple product I bought I took back. Glad to have done my part.
One of the reasons these companies are so successful is because in many cases they make it increasingly hard to avoid using their products. For one example, AWS underpins so much of the internet so you're interacting with the company every day whether you want to or not. That company is probably the best example of an organization whose end goal is to be Buy-N-Large from the movie Wall-E.
The addition to the list of a colossal conglomerate/holding company that completely owns companies from Dairy Queen and GEICO to BNSF Railway and Fruit of the Loom only strengthens this argument.
You could add the stock tickers in another column since this is a stock market based quiz? Might add a little more depth to this and if people are interested they could know the ticker symbol to look up.
Aaaaaaaaand it's back off the trillion-dollar list. I imagine it'll bounce back and forth quite a bit in the near future before settling above a trillion dollars for good in a few years.
A friend of mine bought Nvidia stocks a few years ago because she somehow foresaw this after reading some article. Good on her. Another friend bought German defence company Rheinmetall RIGHT AFTER Putin invaded Ukraine, that also turned out well for him (my friend, not Putin). Sometimes when it feels right to buy, it actually is.
You haven't been paying attention! The world has an absolute glut of oil because of fracking. And if oil companies do manage to make a profit, they are often taxed at extremely high rates. For example, North Sea oil companies are paying a 78% "windfall" tax despite oil prices being at generational lows.
Oil has been an abysmal investment for more than a decade.
To put things in perspective, back in 2010, Apple and Exxon were worth about the same. Now Apple is worth nearly 10x as much.
And Exxon is a star performer. Many smaller companies have simply went bankrupt. Many people would argue that this is the way that should be. And that's why you don't make money on oil.
Eli Lilly is getting a one time boost from blockbuster GLP-1 medications. These medications will create trillions of dollars in value. Obesity, cancer, and heart disease will fall, and US life expectancy will rise by multiple years.
So I'd say Eli Lilly "deserves" its trillion dollar valuation for the value it created.
But I wouldn't buy the stock. Why? Because, like oil, pharma is a structurally unprofitable enterprise.
1) The cost to develop new drugs doubles every 9 years (Eroom's law)
2) You only get patent protection for 20 years
3) Prices are highly regulated. The US pays 70% of the cost of all drugs worldwide, with the rest of the world mostly freeloading. This is unsustainable. Already the Trump administration has cut deals with Eli Lilly to make drugs available at much lower prices.
4) China is becoming a major player in pharma and will be able to develop drugs at a fraction of the cost
Plus Eli Lilly has competitors with Novo's Ozempic and Wegovy, then add in the Hims and Hers GLP-1 market and other compounders. On top of that, many pharma companies are working on their own GLP-1s to develop as soon as the patent is gone, or they'll find various ways around the patent.
most of the US economy is currently propped up by a few of these companies passing money around among one another fyi. we can revisit this in a few years to see how it all panned out
At this point the true scale of their reserves is extremely difficult to estimate, and the valuation of those reserves is also difficult given the political future for oil & gas in many markets.
Realistically they will probably squeeze a trillion dollars out of it but...
I can't believe I only found it today after like a year.
Apple: $2.38T
Amazon: $945.59B
Microsoft: $1.82T
Alphabet: $1.25T
Meta (Facebook): $293.13B
Tesla: $526.39B
Facebook has lost two-thirds of its value since hitting $1B last year, and Tesla has lost almost half.
I was trying companies like Blackrock because I was convinced more investment firms would be on there.
Oil has been an abysmal investment for more than a decade.
To put things in perspective, back in 2010, Apple and Exxon were worth about the same. Now Apple is worth nearly 10x as much.
And Exxon is a star performer. Many smaller companies have simply went bankrupt. Many people would argue that this is the way that should be. And that's why you don't make money on oil.
So I'd say Eli Lilly "deserves" its trillion dollar valuation for the value it created.
But I wouldn't buy the stock. Why? Because, like oil, pharma is a structurally unprofitable enterprise.
1) The cost to develop new drugs doubles every 9 years (Eroom's law)
2) You only get patent protection for 20 years
3) Prices are highly regulated. The US pays 70% of the cost of all drugs worldwide, with the rest of the world mostly freeloading. This is unsustainable. Already the Trump administration has cut deals with Eli Lilly to make drugs available at much lower prices.
4) China is becoming a major player in pharma and will be able to develop drugs at a fraction of the cost