2008 "Worst Year" In Fortune 500 History

Exclusive: First Look At Magazine's Annual List Reveals 84.7% Decline In Profits Among 500 Largest Companies

(CBS)  It was 1955, the year Disneyland opened and Ray Kroc sold his first hamburger. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were born that year.

And it was in 1955 that Fortune magazine published the very first Fortune 500 list.

It's an annual compilation of America's 500 largest companies, its changing roster reflecting the current economic climate.

"Everything that happens in business in the United States shows up in one way or another in the 500," said Carol Loomis, Fortune's senior editor-at-large. "It's a mirror to the economy."

Since 1955, more than 2,000 companies have earned a spot on the list, but in 55 years only three have achieved the number one slot: General Motors, ExxonMobil and Wal-Mart.

Originally, the list only included industrial corporations. The top 10 in 1955 included DuPont, U.S. Steel and Gulf Oil. But by 1995 it was clear that America had shifted to a service economy, and corporations like AT&T and financial giants like Citicorp were included.

"It's amazing how many companies that are today on the list didn't even exist when we first started the list," said Loomis ¡ companies like Microsoft, Wal-Mart, Costco and Google.

… And that brings us to a first-look at THIS year's list, which we're pleased to reveal this morning with thanks to our friends at Fortune Magazine.

Read it ... and weep.

2008 was the worst year in the history of the Fortune 500 for America's largest companies.

From $645 billion in profits in 2007, profits dropped this year to just $98.9 billion - an 84.7 percent decline!

Records were broken: Eleven of the top 25 largest corporate losses in list history took place last year.

The biggest loser of them all: Insurance giant AIG. The company posted a $99.3 billion loss. But it's still on the list ("too big to fail" indeed!). It's ranked at number 245, down from number 13 just one year earlier.

Thirty-eight companies disappeared from the list altogether. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers may be no surprise, but it was also "last call" for brewer Anheuser Busch.

And the bubble burst for gum maker William Wrigley Jr.

… Making room for fashionable newcomers like Polo Ralph Lauren. And (perhaps a sign of our need for retail therapy) Visa and Mastercard are also Fortune first-timers.

Of course, they rank far behind ExxonMobil which, boosted by higher gas prices, motored past Wal-Mart to arrive at the coveted number one spot.

Speaking of life at the top, 15 women ran Fortune 500 companies in 2008m an all-time high.

They're among the ranks of 25.6 million Americans working (or, who used to work!) for the nation's largest companies.

That's one out of every six of us.

This year's Top 20 companies, with rank, revenues and profits, +/- (in millions) are:

1. Exxon Mobil (442,851.0; 45,220.0)
2. Wal-Mart Stores (405,607.0; 13,400.0)
3. Chevron (263,159.0; 23,931.0)
4. ConocoPhillips (230,764.0; -16,998.0)
5. General Electric (183,207.0; 17,410.0)
6. General Motors (148,979.0; -30,860.0)
7. Ford Motor (146,277.0; -14,672.0)
8. AT&T (124,028.0; 12,867.0)
9. Hewlett-Packard (118,364.0; 8,329.0)
10. Valero Energy (118,298.0; -1,131.0)
11. Bank of America Corp. (113,106.0; 4,008.0)
12. Citigroup (112,372.0; -27,684.0)
13. Berkshire Hathaway (107,786.0; 4,994.0)
14. International Business Machines (103,630.0; 12,334.0)
15. McKesson (101,703.0; 990.0)
16. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (101,491.0; 5,605.0)
17. Verizon Communications (97,354.0; 6,428.0)
18. Cardinal Health (91,091.4; 1,300.6)
19. CVS Caremark (87,471.9; 3,212.1)
20. Procter & Gamble (83,503.0; 12,075.0)



The full details of this year's Fortune 500, appearing in the May 4 issue of Fortune Magazine, can be found on their Web site.

[hypnotoad72]

Bush tanked the economy, thats pretty much a general consensus. I don't think he vetoed a spending bill the whole time he was in office. That boy likes to take care of his friends.....
Posted by at 2:35 AM : Apr 20, 2009
--------------

Agreed. And now President Obama has to have the government take up the slack because companies are laying off workers and anyone being reemployed is likely "underemployed" (e.g. part time, no benefits, etc) -- funny how all the republicans the last 8.25 years said nothing about Bush's spending, but in comes Obama and everybody throws a big tantrum - without bothering to look at facts. Then again, which president said "facts are useless things"? That's right, Bush II's idol: Ronald Reagan. And I'm not sure even Reagan would have approved of Bush II's antics.

If only it was 1981 again. Things seemed more optimistic.

[lucytomato]

Thirty-eight companies disappeared from the list altogether.
2008,em , 1929--similar ,God bless America ,Hopefully ,This bad time will pass over soon.

[dahizzle]

Bush tanked the economy, thats pretty much a general consensus. I don't think he vetoed a spending bill the whole time he was in office. That boy likes to take care of his friends.....

[lauryl]

When I went to the Fortune website it had different rankings. That's strange...

[glidescube]

I know it's been said already but the worst year was brought to you by the worst President ever.

Obama has inherited the economy from hell and this bail out was needed to stabilize the banks.

Giving more tax breaks to the rich as the Reps are suggesting simply wont work in this current situation. What good will it do to give a rich shop keeper a tax break if all his customers are out of money? Put the money into the pockets of Joe the plumbers customers and they will have the wherewithal to hire Joe to fix the pipes.

Now I realize that the stimulus packages have been unpopular but then again so is chemotherapy. But when you have cancer like this economy has right now the unpopular cures are sometimes the only option.

[rave_on3]

Obama is the worst president in 100 years. He will reduce us all to debt slaves for eternity.
Posted by weedapeapl at 5:56 PM : Apr 19, 2009

Here's my prediction:

If the result is worse - they'll blame Bush.

If the result is better - they'll give credit to Obama.
Posted by weedapeapl at 6:20 PM : Apr 19, 2009

Sounds like you see a glimmer of hope. By that I mean hoping your assessment of Obama is on point so you can somehow reap some validation for backing the wrong (even worse) horse.

[omega39-2009]

It is funny to me, what the Republicans have done to themselves.

They wanted to hog as big a piece of America's pie just for themselves as they could; they wanted workers who would be far more pressed for a job and so would work cheaper and be more malleable.

So they began playing with the tax laws and foisted free trade upon America. Consequently, America's inequality curve shifted to the level of 1929.

And what happened? They had to run the economy on credit, in order to make it run at all - and they had to drive even that with a false-to-the-point-of-fraudulent housing bubble.

And the Republicans couldn't even keep themselves honest enough to keep the scam going - they had to start writing bad checks on the bad mortgages. Then, just to ensure the whole thing blew up, the Republicans turned a blind eye to the oil companies and the hedge funds manipulating the price of oil - which permitted a price surge sharp enough to burst the rotten fruit of their labors.

Greedy beggers, Republicans - and stupid in their greed. Too stupid to understand that societies and economies are like pyraminds; you keep whacking away at the foundation stones, and it WILL fall over.
Posted by ibsteve2u

And on a dark moonless night, if you listen closely as the warm breeze rustles through the cottonwoods. You can almost here the profound musings of a couple of "mavericks" as they sing their sea shanties about the economy needing less taxes and less regulation or they consider the great things that treasury secretary Gramm could have done for us.

[ibsteve2u]

It is funny to me, what the Republicans have done to themselves.

They wanted to hog as big a piece of America's pie just for themselves as they could; they wanted workers who would be far more pressed for a job and so would work cheaper and be more malleable.

So they began playing with the tax laws and foisted free trade upon America. Consequently, America's inequality curve shifted to the level of 1929.

And what happened? They had to run the economy on credit, in order to make it run at all - and they had to drive even that with a false-to-the-point-of-fraudulent housing bubble.

And the Republicans couldn't even keep themselves honest enough to keep the scam going - they had to start writing bad checks on the bad mortgages. Then, just to ensure the whole thing blew up, the Republicans turned a blind eye to the oil companies and the hedge funds manipulating the price of oil - which permitted a price surge sharp enough to burst the rotten fruit of their labors.

Greedy beggers, Republicans - and stupid in their greed. Too stupid to understand that societies and economies are like pyraminds; you keep whacking away at the foundation stones, and it WILL fall over.

[weedapeapl]

Wait until next year.
Posted by searingtruth at 6:06 PM : Apr 19, 2009

Here's my prediction:

If the result is worse - they'll blame Bush.

If the result is better - they'll give credit to Obama.

[searingtruth]

Wait until next year.
ST


"We became victims of our own crime."
SearingTruth, 2002

A Future of the Brave

[weedapeapl]

"Amazing but this isn't the first time this has happened, and yet the lesson is always forgotten. - Posted by debinok1

I read somewhere recently that the difference between humans and rats is that rats learn from their experiences.

[weedapeapl]

Posted by veteran71 at 2:41 PM : Apr 19, 2009

As always, you can't defend Obama without bringing up Bush.

Obama's bailout is WORSE than the Bush bailout.

Obama is the worst president in 100 years. He will reduce us all to debt slaves for eternity.

[speakinup]

"Amazing but this isn't the first time this has happened, and yet the lesson is always forgotten. - Posted by debinok1


Instant gratification comes with its price deboink. Just as President Obama's spending will.

I find it amusing how some get the concept of making sure the credit cards are paid off (something I always do), and yet want to back the largest spending plan in the history of the nation (under President Obama, Pelosi & Reid) when the country already has a sizable debt.

I say let the course of events take place. All we are doing right now is setting ourself up for double digit inflation.

Of course - that would be another way of making the rich pay for the poor's upkeep. Unfortunately it wipes out a large section of our nation's middle class savings - just when the baby boomers are retiring.

If those that voted for Obama though Social Security's future looked bleak before - wait until four years from now when the dollar is worth 10 cents because of the inflation.

[debinok1]

""Visa and Mastercard are also Fortune first-timers. ""

When credit card companies make the Fortune 500 it is time for some serious evaluation of what is important and what isn't. Their profits did not come from sales or even legitimate services for that matter, they came from fees and interest charges. They made their entire profit on the backs of Americans. Americans must stop this cut up the credit cards and pay them off or if need be file bankruptcy. The credit bubble has burst leaving Americans feeling the sting while the people who put them there are making a fortune. Amazing but this isn't the first time this has happened, and yet the lesson is always forgotten.

[breadline1]

and these greedbags complain about paying there share of the tax burden? maybe it really is time to redistribute the wealth so I can be rich and pay my fair share.

[suzyqsmith]

In your story today on Fortune 500 I thought you might have mentioned my father, Edgar P. Smith, who was responsible for originating the concept of the Fortune 500 companies. He was an editor for Foprtune Magazine.

Suzanne Talbott

[cs4466]

It is clear that the legacy of the republicans and neocons will take some time to recover from. However, I have confidence in President Obama and his ability to lead us through it.

[omega39-2009]

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/apr2009/gb20090410_254738.htm?chan=globalbiz_europe+index+page_top+stories
Posted by omega39-2009 at 12:05 PM : Apr 19, 2009

You might want to read that article again, at the G20 Summit at which time Europe told the enemy in our White House to stick it in his ear....NOT one European nation has poured money into their banks. NONE!

They only agreement that came out of the G20 Summit was they agreed on coordinated regulation of world markets....NOT BANKS!
Posted by Rowdy106

Here is another and notice the date, well before the G20 summit.

October 14, 2008

Like soldiers falling into step, governments across Europe offered up a series of sweeping bailout plans for their banking systems Monday, pushing past $2 trillion the amount of taxpayer money that has been pledged to shore up the continent's floundering financial sector.

Markets responded positively to the news, with stock exchanges gaining back some of the ground lost in last week's selling binge. The bourses in Paris and Frankfurt, Germany, both closed up more than 11%, while London's index climbed more than 8%.

The rescue packages announced by the leaders of Germany, France and other European nations combine massive infusions of capital with guarantees for short-term loans. The rolling wave of bailout announcements was the continent's first coordinated response to the global financial crisis after days of squabbling and dizzying drops in global markets.

"The time of going it alone is, fortunately, over," French President Nicolas Sarkozy declared. Though the proposed bailouts are not guaranteed success in restoring investor confidence, "the highest risk in our times would be not to dare," Sarkozy said.

The combined rescue packages of France and Germany, continental Europe's two largest economies, exceed $1 trillion, far more than the $700-billion package approved by the United States nearly two weeks ago.

Sarkozy said France would make as much as $490 billion in state funds available to keep the country's banks afloat, including $54 billion for capital injections.

In Berlin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel proposed a $653-billion bailout package, the largest emergency program in Germany's postwar history and more than 1 1/2 times the government's entire 2008 budget. Under the plan, likely to be passed by Parliament this week, $109 billion would be earmarked for recapitalizing the banks, and the remainder would take the form of loan guarantees.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/14/business/fi-europe14

[debinok1]

Once again I see rowdy has chosen to support the common conception by opening her mouth and proving everyone right.

[demongirl60]

Gee, too bad....
I have NEW marching orders for the smug wealthy.

LIV E SIMPLY SO OTHERS CAN SIMPLY LIVE

"nuff said!