Apple beats Microsoft, sets all-time record for company value at $621 billion

“Apple is the world’s most valuable company, ever,” Peter Svensson reports for The Associated Press.

“On Monday, its surging stock propelled the company’s value to $621 billion, beating the record for market capitalization set by Microsoft Corp. in the heady days of the Internet boom,” Svensson reports. “Apple Inc. has been the world’s most valuable company since the end of last year. It’s now worth 53 percent more than No. 2 Exxon Mobil Corp.”

Svensson reports, “Microsoft is now worth [less than half of Apple’s value at] $257 billion.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Boom! Look what Steve Jobs built!

What I can’t figure out is why he [Steve Jobs] is even trying [to be the CEO of Apple]? He knows he can’t win.Bill Gates, June 1998

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “dslarsen” for the heads up.]

37 Comments

    1. From foxbusiness.com:
      “Interestingly, Microsoft’s record $620.58 billion market cap in 1999 is actually worth $853.41 billion in today’s dollars when inflation is accounted for.”

      Well that would also mean being worth only about $258 billion today Microsoft has dropped about 72% in value from it’s highest point. Not good for the Redmond POSeurs.

    1. It is indeed impressive for this valuation to occur during a global economic downturn. As a minor correction, though, it’s not really up to a bureaucrat whether or not we are currently in a recession or not. “Recession” has a generally agreed upon definition of two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the GDP. In the US, the recession lasted something like December ’07 to June ’09. Since then, GDP growth has been positive, indicating recovery, though barely, which makes the recovery feel sluggish or non-existant.

      Debating stimulus vs. austerity and all of that is best saved for a different website, I just thought I’d fill you in that there actually is a definition for “recession”.

      1. Thats the textbook version of recession, which doesn’t reflect reality. It should take into account unemployment and wages into account. Positive growth occurred as big corps do more with less, pay workers less but make them do more, the barometer shouldn’t be just how corps are doing, but how WORKERS are doing.

        1. The total number of private-sector jobs is 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak.

          Meanwhile, since 2008, 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed. Even with the obfuscation, unemployment remains above 8%.

          The government’s most widely publicized unemployment rate measures only those who are out of a job and currently looking for work. It does not count discouraged potential employees who have quit looking, nor those who are underemployed — wanting to work full-time but forced to work part-time. For that count, the government releases a separate number called the “U-6,” which provides a more complete tally of how many people really are out of work.

          The number is startling: 14.9% real U.S. unemployment.

          Nearly 110 million U.S. individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

          Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

          The full sordid story – from Newsweek of all places – here

          1. Well, since you brought it up, you can say we are STILL in Bush’s America. Obama just hasn’t brought it back as far and as fast as many would like.
            –my apology for getting political here–

            . . . then again, you can say we are still in Clinton’s America, and Reagan’s America, and Franklin Roosevelt’s . . .

  1. Yeah, except MDN conveniently cropped the part of the article that says this “does not take inflation into account.” So in reality, Apple is still hundreds of billions of dollars short what Microsoft was worth in 1999.

    1. Good point. Considering inflation, Microsoft’s value has sunk farther than its current flaccid value would indicate, compared to the 1999 high. What’s your point again?

      1. My point is that this is not a significant milestone. Apple has to be worth about $850 billion in today’s dollars, or about $620 billion in 1999 dollars, to really take the title of most valuable company ever.

    2. yes, but they did quote the part about the “boom” which was really a bubble. microsoft would not have had anything close to that valuation if not for the bubble and the bubble effect overwhelms the difference in inflation since then.

    3. Inflation has been relatively low for quite a while. I don’t know the exact figure, but let’s assume that the inflation has averaged 3% since 1999. At that rate, it would take roughly 24 years of compounding (rule of 72) for that rate to cut the value of a 1999 valuation in half. The actual average rate over the last 13 years is probably lower than 3%, especially given the recent recession, but let’s go with 3%.

      Based upon an average inflation rate of 3%, 13 years of inflation since 1999 would only reduce the Microsoft valuation by approximately one-third. So a current Apple valuation of $621B would equate to a $418B valuation in 1999. Add to that the fact that Microsoft was overvalued in the dotcom stock market bubble, and your assertion is more than a bit grandiose. Besides, the key is how long Apple can maintain its market cap. Microsoft did not last very long at the top.

        1. Thanks for the more accurate numbers. So, if you take Apple’s $621B market cap back to 1999, it would be less than $200B short of Microsoft’s market cap at that time. That is significant gap, but will soon be overcome.

    1. That’s what our prime minister, with his master’s degree in economics, said in late 2008, after the US and global markets started melting down late summer. He also promised there would be no deficit budget.

      A few months later he released a massive deficit budget and we were officially in recession a few months later.

      Guess this just proves that in the end, a masters in economics makes you no better than your average weatherman.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.