Apple Is No Longer The World's Most Expensive Company

Tyler Durden's picture

Irony of all ironies; on the 1-year anniversary of AAPL replacing XOM as the world's most-expensive market capitalized company, the incessant fall of the formerly invincible has dragged it back below XOM once again. This one-year of glory is disappointing as when MSFT managed to top XOM in 1998, it held on to the top-spot for almost 3 years before relinquishing it back to the company that runs the world's most valuable limited resource.

One-year on - and AAPL is now less than XOM once again...


while MSFT managed to hold the #1 spot for almost 3 years...


Of course the day's volatility will likely swing AAPL and XOM in and out of each other...


Charts: Bloomberg

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
rubearish10's picture

We've seen this movie before.....haven't we?

Squid Vicious's picture

You'd be much safer buying a pizza or coffee chain for only 30x earnings...  /sarc

Spastica Rex's picture

Curiously, Exxon Mobile has been on an undulating plateau for about 8 years.

Dr. Engali's picture

Undulating......sounds a little kinky.

wee-weed up's picture


Imagine former Exxon Mobil CEO Lee (Jabba the Hut) Raymond belly dancing.

Matt's picture

How about their profits and cash flow? Also undulating? Perhaps while CapEx is increasing?

Seer's picture

I think it goes back a bit farther that this.  Think Exxon Valdez...

Never One Roach's picture

No one saw this coming!

A company that produces a hard asset outperforming one that produces iBoxes ?



SmoothCoolSmoke's picture

But, but...... AAPL fade was supposed to = SP fade.  ZH told me so!

flapdoodle's picture

The Matrix programmers replaced the SP algorithm on Ben's instructions.

rubearish10's picture

Yeah well, there should be news shortly that at least one of the Hotel Hedge Appliers may fade to black as I'm hearing of a few stressed funds having a thing called "a liquidity problem". They're not long enough gold!

blinky's picture

Tyler, you should do an article about how the silver shortage killed apple

fuu's picture

Thanks for that first post evar in 84 weeks!

NotApplicable's picture

Good catch!

Blinky the sock puppet. Sounds like a damn cartoon character.

Is anyone keeping a list?

blinky's picture

Tyler, you should do an article about how the silver shortage killed apple

syntaxterror's picture

He should do a post on why he banned Blinky the chat bot.

falak pema's picture

only normal, Aapl is a sheeple product and Exxon an Oligarchy product. As we enter into biflationary deleveraging the sheeple products will get blocked whereas the Oligarchy products will continue to grow.
Thats the price you pay when 6 Walton family owners of Walmart are as rich in terms of wealth as ONE third of the lowest echelon of the US population. 

100 millon people and 6 people have same wealth; in the USA!

The Walton Family Has As Much Money As The Bottom Third Of The US - Business Insider

fuu's picture

"Thats the price you pay when 6 Walton family owners of Walmart are as rich in terms of wealth as ONE third of the lowest echelon of the US population. 

100 millon people and 6 people have same wealth; in the USA!"

And to suggest that there may be something wrong with that picture means you are a communist who hates America.

trav777's picture

have you EVER looked at how the bottom 3rd behaves?  They have zero ability to ever have any wealth...a 5th grade education is a marvel if it sticks with them.  Function in a civilized society is a stretch.  Their basic concept of what civilization IS ain't the same as yours.

I have no idea where you idiots get the notion that everyone deserves a comfy outcome.  Walton kids are PRECISELY WHY hot chicks chase rich dudes, SO THAT THEIR OFFSPRING/GENES have EXACTLY THIS ADVANTAGE.

You freakin marxists hate nature, hate science, hate evolution, hate biology.

There is no price being "paid" by virtue of wealth disparity. 

Spastica Rex's picture

The greater the wealth disparity, the better the system is working. Without losers, how would anyone know who's winning?

Matt's picture

There wouldn't be so much disparity if the poorest people didn't have 8 children. I suspect the difference in reproduction rate between the wealthiest and poorest people is a factor in the inevitable increase in disparity over time.

Cathartes Aura's picture

zygote personhood.

there's a *lightbulb* moment.

fuu's picture

Oops. I should have said "Marxist who hates America", my bad.

flapdoodle's picture

What's wrong with Communism? I think it makes a lot of sense: What's mine is mine and what's yours is negociable...

Seer's picture

And the top behaves?

"There is no price being "paid" by virtue of wealth disparity. "

I disagree, but do so in a completely (to most folks here) counter-intuitive way.  I think that it's the "wealthy" whom are in the worst position.  I think this way for two reasons:

1) The masses have always tended to strike out at the "wealthy" when things get bad;

2) "Wealth" is generally a condition of "excess;" nature doesn't do excess, that is, nature doesn't support excess (for any significant amount of time); it's Goldilocks and the Three Bears- the porridge is either too hot, too cold, or just right; "too hot" means too much; "too cold" means not enough; just right means sustainable; if you're not sustainable then you're in a bit of a tenuous position.

In the case of Exxon and Wal-Mart I believe that they should be more entitled to "wealth," as these entities provide things that are more essential.  How long they can do so, in the face of over-all decline, is the question; but, it's certain that they'll outlast the likes of Apple, FaceBook, Microsoft et al.

secret_sam's picture

     You freakin marxists hate nature, hate science, hate evolution, hate biology.

It's not nature/science/evolution/biology that causes the Fed to prop up our TBTF banks.  Don't be an idiot.

tango's picture

I don't understant your point.  So what if the Waltons have a boatload of money?  They worked hard, took risks and succeeded.  Please state exactly why this is so bad.  If the 100 million want more they have to do something besides draw welfare, food stamps, housing support, health care, child care, Obama phones, etc.   Do you honestly think that redistributing the Walton money will create permanent prosperity?

Spastica Rex's picture

Why did we get rid of kings?

It was stupid. The 100 million are basically begging for them again. The Royal Waltons are as good as any, I reckon.

falak pema's picture

you only look at the end result; you should concentrate on the PROCESS. 

TO get to such a dominant position there is a LOT of corruption and master plans that have biased the working of the so called free market. Nobody gets this big without having an inside track and that is ONE track that feeds the political rat race.

Once you understand that you understand why/how empires are made and why they HAVE to fall.

The process, the mind set; the result is just the consequence.

We have to change the process and the mind set of impunity of "anything goes".

Spastica Rex's picture

It's all an expression of nature. Competition ultimately leads to kings and queens. If humans are indeed solely bestial, solely competitive by natue, that is our destinty.

Getting pissed at the Waltons is maybe like getting pissed at honey bees in a hive for not being competitive with one another. It's their nature to be little fucking communists.


falak pema's picture

good philosophical question : are we reptilian in our primal instincts and do we stay that way ad vitam aeternam?

the invisible hand does not exist alas. 

WHat is not right is a model that destroys general well being for the benefit of a few; and which is distorted in regulatory capture by those very interested parties; judge and party to their own success/impunity. That is how empires rise on manifest lies. Those values have to be defined and then defended. That is basically what being civilized is.

Matt's picture

Perhaps civilization is inherently unsustainable.

falak pema's picture

absolutely, in each formal expression; it has to move and change its skin like a reptile. But the quest goes on.

TO REX : Human nature knows no absolutes in this world; that's why it invented the "supreme being" mantra! 

You are looking for metaphysical truths...

Spastica Rex's picture

But what is "right?"

We are reaping what we have sown, it's that simple. We can't have our cake, and eat it too, etc., etc.

If the transformation of matter into energy is the ultimate expression of human nature, we're doing a pretty damn fine job. We'll transform the Earth, and maybe the rest of the entire fucking universe, too. There will be winners, and and an infinite shit-ton of losers. Eventually, bacteria in a petri dish all lose - but we don't castigate them for being immoral.

Nobody has entirely convinced me that they have an accurate and final description of human nature, however.

flapdoodle's picture

Its not matter into energy, its matter into energy into information

The hope is that we are on the cusp of a leap of consciousness (maybe Ray Kurweil's singularity) which will transcend our reptiloid past - the problem is that TPTB continue to hold on to power and exploit modern technology using all the fruits and tools which progress has provided to tighten their control.

(the moral of the story is : don't be a fruit or a tool of TPTB!)

NotApplicable's picture

Yep, if only all of the legimate mafias, as well as the ones posing as governments didn't exist, then WM wouldn't have had to get in bed with them, or else!

But since that's the nature of the beast today, there is no other way to accomplish what they've done.

I no more hate them than I do all of the lower classes on the welfare dole, as it's absolutely inevitable that it cannot be escaped.

As always, dont' hate the player. hate the game.

Oh, and in other news, those 6 WM people are not the whole of the Walton family wealth. Bud's two daughters have their pockets swolled too.

Seer's picture

As much as I dislike BIG (and WalMart) I DO agree with your logic here.  I do so only based on the fact that they provide more necessary things (food and clothing) than do entities like Apple (and, esp, FaceBook).

I suspect that people push Apple et al because it's sexy, something that WalMart in no way is.  We as "sophisticated" people aiming higher wish to associate with stuff that's ABOVE the masses, above those that visit WalMarts and the like.

NOTE: WalMart WILL crash and burn, as will every BIG entity.  I recognize the current reality as well as the future one.

" If the 100 million want more they have to do something besides draw welfare, food stamps, housing support, health care, child care, Obama phones, etc."

This is a bit condescending.  And I hope that the down-arrows were for this (I'm not voting because of this, as it cancels out any positives that the rest of your post would have otherwise garnered from me).  To say that one could rise from the ghetto and beat out WalMart if only one wanted to do so is pure fantasy: we ought not confuse possibility with PROBABILITY; the probability of this occurring is near zero (even if someone were so inclined to challenge this statistic).

"Do you honestly think that redistributing the Walton money will create permanent prosperity?"

No.  NOTHING is permanent.  Even the entire Walton clan will disappear: those that decide to engage in sustainable living practices are more likely to continue, but I doubt that will happen.

Squid Vicious's picture

where did Joe T say he was buying for his future generations of grease monkeys? 525?

TrumpXVI's picture

That was long enough IMO.

In a post Peak Oil world, I wouldn't expect any company that manufactures discretionary consumer products to have a higher market cap than a company that produces an essential product.

Matt's picture

What you mean, I think, is in a low-energy world. It all hinges on whether we make the next breakthroughs to new sources of abundant energy, or whether we collapse into another dark age.

Seer's picture

"It all hinges on whether we make the next breakthroughs to new sources of abundant energy, or whether we collapse into another dark age."

Your (loaded) premise is that there IS a new energy source (assumed to be able to replace the existing cheap energy sources in EROEI and volume).

How about:

It all hinges on whether we work to live sustainably in accordance with nature's laws, or whether we go on a wild goose-chase over the cliff in pursuing a new, abundant (and cheap) energy source.

Conjuring up "dark ages" is no different than loading up with the negative of "goose-chase over the cliff."  Further, the "dark ages" aren't necessarily as dark as most believe them.  I believe that "enlightenment" can exist w/o having to experience the meaning of Jevons Paradox.

Matt's picture

Without a massive amount of energy for things like Haber Bosch, there may only be enough food for 2 billion people. Do you think the starving ~6 billion people will just sit and die and let the other 2 billion live in peace? Hell no, they will bring war and death to the less-densely populated areas.

Living sustainably with nature's laws = mass die off, one way or another.

"Further, the "dark ages" aren't necessarily as dark as most believe them."

Well, if you have epidemics killing off 30 to 50% of the population every couple generations, how well do you think culture and science will thrive amongst the masses? Just because things weren't too bad for the top 1%, doesn't mean they were good.  

dr_doom's picture

I like to read your stuff, Tyler. But hey, give me a break with aapl. Who cares what the market cap is?? The world is waking up to the fact, that iphone 5, 5s, 6, 6s and a repackaged 3 for emerging markets won't be enough. Let's move on now. I'm more interested in your thoughts about the complete idiotic trading in NFLX.....

syntaxterror's picture

The world's most valuble resource after Channel #5 ($80k/gallon) is the ink in HP ink jet printers at around $5,000/gallon.

NotApplicable's picture

Nope. Absolutely untrue.

Price does not equal value. Price discovery is a market clearing mechanism, while value is wholly subjective, being completely unquantifiable. All one can do is to sort valuations in order of personal preference, assigning them a rank. Even these ranks are not permanent, but subject to change based upon our individual needs and desires.

smiler03's picture

Actually Chanel No 5 is closer to $54000 per gallon.


15ml = £137.50 = £9.16 per millilitre 

1 US gallon = 3 785.41178 millilitres = £34670 per gallon

£34670 = $54000

And the cost of this would pale into insignificanccompared to some vintage red wines.

Matt's picture

The Chanel can be bought cheaper in bulk. Wines are not fungible, so you cannot trade them as a commodity.