Apple is 14th fastest-growing tech company
Lists of the fastest-growing companies tend to be dominated by smaller firms. That makes sense; it's a lot easier for a $30 million dollar enterprise to double in size than a $30 billion one.
Which makes it all the more surprising to find Apple (AAPL) appearing for the first time in Forbes' ranking of America's 25 Fastest-Growing Tech Companies — especially given the pummeling its shares have undergone over the past year (from nearly $200 a share in Dec. '07 to less than $100 today).
But there Apple is, at the No. 14 spot, the largest company on the list — a Gulliver among Lilliputians — with sales of $33 billion, yet still growing at an annualized rate of 40% a year over the past five years.
"It is growing more like a technology start-up than a big company," writes John J. Ray in an accompanying article. (link)
Apple is 60 times bigger than No. 1 on the list, biotech tool-maker Illumina (ILMN), and nearly 500 times bigger than No. 5, semiconductor designer Techwell (TWLL).
The only company of comparable size among the top 25 is — you guessed it — Google (GOOG), No. 2 with sales of $21.8 billion and growing at the rate of 72% a year.
For the full list, click here.
Apple stock split just before it got to $200/ share – that is why it is down to $100
ex ped: You wish. Apple stock hasn't split since 2005.
Okay, so I looked up Apple's old revenue figures and did the math with the non-GAAP adjustments. Here are the figures:
GAAP revs
2003 – $6.2B
2004 – 8.3B
2005 – 13.9B
2006 – $19.3B
2007 – $24.0B
2008 – $32.5B
The rate of revenue growth is 40%, as in the table.
Using non-GAAP would give us two adjustments:
2007 – $24.6B
2008 – $38.0B
Using those adjustments, revenue growth is 44%.
ex ped: 44% would bump it up to 11th place, ahead of Red Hat by a nose.
Of course, since PED has been posting info from Andy Zaky and others, he knows that Apple's revenue growth is being underestimated by this table, since it is using GAAP numbers. The true sales for Apple would use non-GAAP figures. This is only because Apple started to use deferred revenues in the last year and a half. There's a lag until the non-GAAP catches up to the GAAP figures. Nothing fishy or wrong, just a time lag until the two accounting approaches come together. In the interim, charts like the above will underestimate Apple's true revenue growth.
Seeing as PED has reported the true revenue growth, from linking to Andy Zaky's Bullish Cross blog in the past, I"m surprised he didn't mention it.
ex ped: Fair point. But PED didn't know what kind of deferred revenue might hidden in the other 24 balance sheets, and did not want to make the mistake of dropping an apple into a bunch of oranges.
That disconnect can work both ways. Over the last 15 years there have been plenty of times to buy at low prices, due to the company being undervalued and underestimated. To me, it's a simple, safe stock.
I am popping a bottle of champagne the day AAPL's market cap blows past MSFT. I have been predicting since mid 2008 that it will happen by Sept. 2009.
Apple is the best tech company in America. Period. Google is the facade…it is going to be like Yahoo in a few years.
So… in comparison, Google's growth rate is much more impressive. But the article is focusing on Apple. Got it.
(Yes, I realize I'm reading this on Apple 2.0, still…)
While this does not surprise me, can you imagine if it picked up the full revenue of the IPHONE sales as opposed to following the deferred method.
They're number one on the list of "Best Companies With Biggest Stock Disconnect." Buying Apple products is a no brainer. Buying AAPL stock not so easy a call.
Think what those numbers would look like if they chose to book i-phone revenues at the time of sale rather than spread the revenue over the two-year life of the contract. Mind-boggling.