Their efficiency is impressive.
On an annualized basis, they are doing ~$120B.
They have ~85k employees.
That means they are generating ~1.5M Revenue Per Employee.
That's crazy
On an annualized basis, they are doing ~$120B.
They have ~85k employees.
That means they are generating ~1.5M Revenue Per Employee.
That's crazy
Definetely needs to be weighted.
An example, Murphy Oil Corporation has 1,294 employees...
Also another interesting trend is how many healthcare companies are in that list.
AmerisourceBergen is a drug distributor / wholesaler, so they have huge revenues bc they sell expensive drugs, but they don't capture much of that (their net income is negative)
Express scripts is a PBM and highly profitable. I don't really know what PBMs do at a useful level of detail, but their profitability has been a subject of debate as pharma companies blame them for high prices. They basically aggregate demand for drugs and negotiate prices on behalf of payers, and make money on their ability to do so
Gilead had one of the best selling drugs of all time, that did $5B in revenue in the first quarter of launch, and $20B+ in the first year I think. Since then rev has declined but still massive
The insurance companies get lots of rev from premiums but margins are low
Biogen and celgene also have one or two drugs that do $5-10B / year
Should note that drugs only account for 10% of health spend. The biggest driver of healthcare costs -- hospital care (30%) and physician services (20%) don't show up in this chart bc they are fragmented industries and also human-capital intensive
Were you in a class with Professor Long at Tulane? He has a great, great slide illustrating these and many other facts about the US healthcare economy over the last century.
Alphabet's growth rate is actually accelerating.
And they're not acquiring this growth, they're generating it organically.
Truly astounding.
It sounds really interesting and might benefit others as well.
(disclaimer: I work at Google, although I read the book before I joined. I remember initially thinking the book was just corporate PR, but later I had the opportunity to see firsthand how accurate it was)
[1] https://smile.amazon.com/Work-Rules-Insights-Inside-Transfor...
Usually, when a business is as lucrative as google's, competition arrives. But it seems like tech doesn't work that way.
For example, if a chicken restaurant is making $1.5 million in revenue per employee, then you'd see tons of chicken restaurants pop up to compete. Even the employees, seeing such extraordinary revenue, would quit and open up shop. But for a variety of reasons, tech doesn't seem to work that way.
Is it lack of capital? Lack of opportunities? Lack of tech-oriented people? Lack of entrepreneurs?
> That's crazy
It's ridiculous. It's amazing how profitable large tech companies are. What's even more puzzling is why there aren't more googles/facebooks/etc, especially in other countries like france, germany, britain, etc.
Also, the "cost per employee" can look artificially higher because they contract out so many of the support positions they do have. I think "employees" mostly constitute management, marketing, and engineers?
My guess is that this 85k is just FTE
Many other companies that have more customers than Alphabet manage to have support staff. While I doubt Alphabet cares, I won't use one of their paid services until I can get support.