Shareholder Wealth Enhancement, 1926 to 2022

Hendrik Bessembinder*
W.P. Carey School of Business
Arizona State University

Initial Draft: May 2023

Current Draft: June 2023

* Email: hb@asu.edu. The author is also a consultant to Baillie Gifford and Co.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Shareholder Wealth Enhancement, 1926 to 2022

Abstract
Investments in publicly-listed U.S. stocks enhanced shareholder wealth by more than $55.1
trillion in aggregate during the 1926 to 2022 period, even while investments in the majority
(58.6%) of the 28,114 individual stocks led to reduced rather than increased shareholder wealth.
The degree to which wealth enhancement is concentrated in relatively few stocks has increased
over time: for example, the number of high-performing firms that explain half of the net wealth
creation since 1926 decreased from ninety as of 2016 to eight-three as of 2019 and to seventy-
two as of 2022. I identify the firms with both the largest enhancements and largest reductions in
shareholder wealth since 1926 and during more recent intervals.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Shareholder Wealth Enhancement, 1926 to 2022

1. Introduction

Many studies have quantified shareholder returns on equity investments, but most focus on

averages of monthly or other short-horizon returns.1 I report here on long-run outcomes to shareholders,

measured as the dollar amount of shareholder wealth created (or dissipated) by investments in each of the

28,114 firms that issued common stock appearing in the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP)

database from 1926 to 2022. This paper is in part an update to earlier studies that assessed wealth

enhancement outcomes through 2016 and 2019, respectively.2 I also document how the concentration in

market-wide wealth enhancement among relatively few firms has increased in recent years. In addition to

identifying the firms with the largest enhancement to shareholder wealth, I identify those firms with the

largest reductions in shareholder wealth, both for the full post-1926 sample and in recent years.

The term “shareholder wealth creation” (henceforth SWC) as used here is the improvement (or

decline) in the wealth of a company’s shareholders in aggregate over the period that the company’s shares

were listed on the public stock markets. The benchmark is the wealth that would have been attained had

the invested capital earned one-month Treasury bill returns instead. SWC considers net distributions

(dividends, spinoffs, share repurchases, new share issuances, etc.) as well as share price changes for each

stock during each month from 1926 to 2022, but is measured as of the end of the sample period.

Delisting returns compiled by CRSP, which include any proceeds received as a result of mergers or

acquisitions as well as estimates of any remaining value after delistings for negative reasons, are included

for those firms that exit the database prior to the end of the period evaluated. The SWC measure for each

firm captures the dollar amount by which the firms’ shareholders in aggregate were rewarded for taking

1
Studies that report on arithmetic means of short horizon returns include those that compile outcomes for
characteristic-sorted portfolios, those reporting Sharpe Ratios (which rely on mean returns in the numerator) and
those reporting “alpha” (conditional arithmetic mean) estimates from factor model regressions.
2
See Bessembinder (2018) and (2021).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

positions in the risky equity security rather than low-risk Treasury bills. It should be noted, however,

that SWC is not a direct measure of the efficiency or quality of firms’ management or strategies. In

particular, since it relies both on realized cash flows and on stock market valuations, SWC is potentially

affected by macroeconomic, technological or social shocks, and by shifts in investor optimism or

pessimism.

When aggregated across companies, SWC is similar to a value-weighted market return in the

sense that large companies are more important than small in the calculation. However, SWC outcomes

differ from value-weighted market returns not only because they are expressed in dollar terms rather than

as percentages, but also because they explicitly account for share issuances and repurchases, and the fact

that dividends are not (in aggregate) reinvested in the stock market. SWC is also distinguished from a

simple examination of firms’ market capitalization by the fact that it considers all lifetime cash flows to

or from shareholders.3 Spinoffs, share repurchases, and dividends, for example, reduce a firm’s market

capitalization as assets are separated from the ongoing firm, but do not similarly decrease calculated

shareholder wealth creation.

2. Methods and Data

I measure shareholder wealth creation (SWC) using the method specified by Bessembinder

(2018). The algebraic formulation is reproduced in the appendix to this paper. Conceptually, SWC

focuses on cash flows to (in the case of dividends, share repurchases, or spinoffs) or from (in the case of

share issuances) a firm’s shareholders in aggregate.4 The first market capitalization observation (in 1926

or the first month the firm appears in the CRSP database) is viewed as an initial investment, i.e. a cash

flow from shareholders, and the final market capitalization observation (at the end of the sample period or

3
Nevertheless, I compile and describe in Section 5 data on concentration in firms’ market capitalization, for
comparison.
4
It is an important point of perspective that dividends and share repurchases are not (and cannot) be reinvested in
the firm through secondary market transactions, since each secondary market trade involves both a purchase and a
sale by shareholders.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

the month of the firm’s delisting) is treated as a cash flow to shareholders. The benchmark for the SWC

calculation is the wealth that would have been obtained if investors earned one-month Treasury bill

returns instead. In particular, SWC is the increase (or decrease) in shareholder wealth, measured as of the

end of the sample period, attributable to investors’ taking on the risk of holding equity shares rather than

Treasury bills.

Although the SWC measure is defined based on monthly cash flows to or from shareholders in

aggregate, it can also be computed by focusing on excess rates of return and market capitalization each

period. In particular, SWC can be computed by (i) multiplying the firm’s excess (over the one-month

Treasury bill rate) return for each month by its beginning-of-month market capitalization to obtain an

excess dollar return, (ii) compounding each monthly dollar amount forward to end-of-sample (based on

realized Treasury bill rates), and (iii) summing the outcomes.5

I obtain data on returns and shares outstanding for all common stocks (share codes 10, 11, and

12) in the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) monthly stock database. As of December 2022,

CRSP reported returns for common stock issued by 28,114 firms.6 I measure shareholder wealth creation

as of December 31, 2022 for each of these firms. I also compute aggregate wealth creation by summing

outcomes across stocks. Aggregate net wealth creation is defined as the sum of firm-level wealth

creation across all stocks, while aggregate gross wealth creation is the sum of firm-level wealth creation

5
The cash flows realized in each calendar month are restated as end-of-sample equivalents by compounding forward
at the Treasury-bill interest rate, because the Treasury rate is the opportunity cost of capital for purposes of the SWC
measure. Since Treasury rates reflect anticipated inflation (and on average are slightly higher than inflation rates)
there is no need for a separate inflation adjustment – each outcome is measured at a single (end-of-sample) point in
time. Bessembinder, Chen, Choi, and Wei (2019) show that the wealth creation measure can also be interpreted as
the “Net Future Value” of all cash flow to or from shareholders in aggregate. The internal rate of return of the same
series of cash flows is sometimes referred to (e.g. Dichev, 2007 and Dichev and Yu, 2011) as the dollar-weighted
return to investors.
6
I identify firms based on the CRSP permco variable. Some firms (e.g. Alphabet) issued multiple classes of
common stock, identified by the CRSP permno variable. For these firms I compute SWC for each class of common
stock, and then sum the resulting SWC figures across share classes within the firm.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

across only those stocks with positive outcomes. Data on one-month Treasury bill interest rates since

1926 are obtained from the website of Professor Kenneth French.7

In addition to measuring wealth creation outcomes from 1926 to 2022, I measure corresponding

outcomes from 1926 to 2016 and from 1926 to 2019, periods that correspond to those considered in

Bessembinder (2018) and Bessembinder (2021), respectively.8 Comparing outcomes across these time

frames provides insights as to the degree to which the concentration of historical wealth creation has

changed in recent years.

3. Shareholder Wealth Creation 1926 to 2022.

I implement the SWC measure for each of the 28,114 firms using the CRSP monthly stock

database from 1926 to 2022.9 Summing the outcomes across firms indicates that net SWC totaled $55.11

trillion as of the end of 2022.10 Of the sample firms, 11,633 (41.38% of the total) created positive wealth

for their shareholders over their full lifetimes. Summing across those firms with positive outcomes

indicates gross SWC in the amount of $64.23 trillion. In contrast, shareholders in 16,481 firms (58.62%

7
https://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/Data_Library.
8
For each of these periods, I rely on CRSP stock data and Fama-French Treasury rate data downloaded as of April
2023. Outcomes reported here for the periods ending in 2016 and 2019 differ very slightly from those reported by
Bessembinder (2018) and Bessembinder (2021) for the corresponding periods. These minor differences reflect (i)
small (never more than one basis point in a month) changes in the Treasury Bill interest rate data recently reported
on Kenneth French’s website as compared to earlier versions of the data, and (ii) changes in the CRSP shrcd
variable in the recent CRSP data as compared to earlier vintages, such that a few securities previously identified as
common stocks are no longer so designated, and vice versa. It might also be noted that firms such as General
Motors and AT&T Corporation which exited the database prior to 2016 nevertheless showed an increase in wealth
creation outcomes from 2016 to 2022. This reflects that fact that shareholder wealth is assessed as of the indicated
end-of-sample date. In particular, wealth creation for these firms increased by the compound Treasury bill interest
rate between the indicated dates.
9
Delisting returns are included for stocks that delist for either negative (e.g. low share price) or positive (e.g.
acquisition) reasons, to avoid the bias described by Shumway (1997). The SWC measure is constructed from
sample “lifetimes,” that is, the period during which each stock was included in the CRSP monthly database. The
portion of any firm’s life that preceded 1926 is not captured. Further, even for firms that entered the database after
1926, the database does not capture pre-IPO outcomes, or outcomes from the IPO price to the end of the month that
includes the IPO. SWC as measured therefore captures investors’ experience beginning at the end of the month that
the stock is first included in the CRSP database.
10
Wealth creation outcomes for all 28,114 firms are available for download, as is the SAS computer program that
generates the outcomes, at https://wpcarey.asu.edu/department-finance/faculty-research/do-stocks-outperform-
treasury-bills. To replicate the outcomes requires access to the CRSP monthly common stock database.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

of the total) experienced reduced wealth as a consequence of their investments, in the aggregate amount

of $9.11 trillion.11

I next report on the individual firms with the largest positive and most negative SWC outcomes.

Since SWC is measured in dollars as of a single point in time, large outcomes (either positive or negative)

reflect a combination of unusually high or low rates of return and relatively large market capitalizations,

and are accentuated if the unusual returns are earned over longer time periods.

Table 1A reports on SWC outcomes for the fifty firms with the largest lifetime SWC measured as

of December 2022. The Table also reports for each firm the first and last month for which the CRSP

monthly database contains return observations for the firm. The top five firms are Apple (lifetime SWC

of $2.68 trillion), Microsoft (lifetime SWC of $2.09 trillion), Exxon Mobil (lifetime SWC of $1.22

trillion), Alphabet (lifetime SWC of $1.00 trillion) and Amazon (lifetime SWC of $764 billion). Among

these, only Exxon Mobile has been present in the CRSP database since 1926. By comparison, Apple and

Microsoft entered in 1981 and 1986 respectively, Amazon entered in 1997, and Alphabet entered in 2004.

The firm that was listed at the most recent date among those listed on Table 1A is Abbvie Inc., which is

ranked 33rd with $263.0 billion in SWC subsequent to its January 2013 spinoff from Abbott Laboratories

(itself ranked 28th on the list).12

Table 1B reports outcomes for the twenty-five firms with the worst lifetime wealth creation

outcomes, measured as of December 2022. The largest negative outcome is -$102.0 billion in SWC for

11
The fact that overall stock market wealth creation is strongly positive even while most individual firms had
negative wealth creation is attributable to positive skewness in the distribution of compound stock returns (see, for
example, Albuquerque (2012), Fama and French (2018), Farago and Hjalmarsson (2023), Heaton, Polson and Witte
(2017), and Simkowitz and Beedles (1978)), in combination with differences in firm size and lives.
12
Most of the ex-post successful firms identified on Table 1A were still listed on public stock markets at the end of
2022 (though General Motors, which filed for bankruptcy in 2009 is a notable exception that demonstrates the
importance of the fact that the SWC measure includes not just cumulative share price changes, but also prior
dividends and share repurchases). The dominance of firms still listed reflects a number of factors, including (i) the
real economy is larger in recent as compared to earlier decades, (ii) industry concentration as reflected for example
in sales has increased in recent years (see, for example, Figure IV in Autor, Dorn, Katz, Patterson, and Van Reenan
(2020), who refer to the emergence of “superstar firms”), and (iii) that firms with longer lives will have greater SWC
outcomes, other things equal, as long as returns to their shares exceed Treasury interest rates.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

Worldcom Inc., which was delisted in 2002 in the wake of its bankruptcy filing. However, many of the

firms contained in Table 1B are for firms that remain publicly traded as of the end of the 2022 sample

period, including Rivian Automotive (SWC of -$91.6 billion), Deutsche Bank (SWC of -$47.3 billion),

Coinbase (SWC of -44.6 billion), Doordash (SWC of -$31.9 billion), and Airbnb (SWC of -$27.5 billion).

The outcome for Rivian is noteworthy because the $91.6 billion in wealth reduction is the second worst

lifetime SWC outcome among the 28,114 firms in this study, even though the outcome accrued over just

thirteen calendar months.13

4. The Concentration of Shareholder Wealth Creation.

Table 1A also reports on the percentage of the $55.11 trillion in net SWC from 1926 to 2022

accounted for by each of the firms listed. Apple alone accounts for 4.86% of the net SWC. Microsoft

and Exxon Mobile account for another 3.80% and 2.21%, respectively, implying that the Top 3 firms

together account for 10.87% of the net SWC since 1926. The Top eleven firms collectively account for

slightly over 20% of net SWC, the top twenty-three firms account for slightly more than 30%, and the

Top forty-two firms account for just over 40%. The fifty firms listed on Table 1A account for 43.13% of

the $55.11 trillion in net SWC attributable to all 28,114 firms publicly listed in the U.S. markets since

1926.

Bessembinder (2018 and 2021) previously documented a high degree of concentration in SWC,

for samples that spanned from 1926 to 2016 and 2019, respectively. Table 2 provides data regarding the

degree of concentration in SWC since 1926 for samples that measure SWC as of the end of 2016, 2019,

and 2022. Outcomes are reported both when explaining the concentration of net SWC and when

explaining the concentration of gross SWC.14

13
Rivian’s IPO was completed on November 10, 2021. Since the methods employed here require data on market
capitalization at the end of the prior month, this study measures Rivian’s wealth creation outcomes for the months
from December 2021 to December 2022.
14
Ellenberg (2014) articulates how the use of percentages to explain a figure that is the net of both positive and
negative outcomes can be misleading. This concern is most acute in those situations where the net outcome
explained is close to zero, as could be the case if SWC were measured over short time horizons. Of course, stock

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 The main conclusion supported by the data contained in Table 2 is that the degree to which SWC

since 1926 is concentrated in relatively few firms has increased in recent years. Outcomes obtained when

focusing on net SWC are reported in Panel A. The number of firms required to explain ten percent of net

SWC decreased from five as of 2016 to four as of 2019 and three as of 2022. The number of firms that

explain fifty percent of net SWC decreased from ninety as of 2016 to eighty-three as of 2019 and to

seventy-two as of 2022. The number of firms required to explain all of the $34.8 trillion in net SWC as of

2016 was 1,094, increased to 1,173 when explaining the $47.39 trillion in net SWC as of 2019, but

decreased again to 966 firms required to explain all of the $55.1 trillion in SWC as of the end of 2022.15

Since the number of firms in the database increases as the sample window is widened, the percentage of

firms required to explain each of these thresholds decreased relatively more than the number of firms

required.

Bessembinder (2021) noted that the $12.57 trillion increase in net SWC from $34.82 trillion at

the end of 2016 to $47.39 trillion at the end of 2019 was highly concentrated, in that only five firms,

Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook (now known as Meta Platforms) accounted for

22.1% of the increase. By comparison, the $7.27 trillion increase in net SWC from $47.39 trillion at the

end of 2019 to $55.11 trillion at the end of 2022 is even more concentrated. Five firms, Apple, Microsoft,

Alphabet, United Health Group, and Eli Lilly, accounted for 32.1% of this increase.16 This increased

market investing involves outcomes that for a given firm are the net of many individual price increases and
decreases and for a portfolio are the net of winning and losing positions, implying that net outcomes are the natural
object of study. I also compute and evaluated gross wealth creation, which is the sum of wealth creation across only
those firms with positive outcomes. Note that the percentage of firms that accounts for 100% of gross wealth
creation is also the percentage of all firms with positive wealth creation outcomes.
15
The number of firms with positive SWC is substantially larger than the number that explains 100% of net SWC.
Focusing for example on outcomes measured as of 2022, 966 firms are sufficient to explain 100% of net SWC. An
additional 10,667 firms generated positive SWC. However, the positive SWC for these firms was just sufficient to
offset the negative SWC of the remaining 16,481 firms (Panel C of Table 2), such that SWC for the 27,148 firms not
included among the Top 966 sums to zero. The total number of firms with positive SWC can be identified on Table
2 based on the percentage of firms required to explain 100% of gross SWC.
16
As an additional point of comparison, the ten firms with the greatest increase in firm-level SWC from 2016 to
2019 explain 29.52% of the increase in net SWC during that interval, while during the subsequent 2019 to 2022
period the ten firms with the greatest increase in firm-level SWC explained 45.10% of the increase in net SWC.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

degree of concentration in SWC outcomes in recent years is consistent with the prediction of Noe and

Parker (2005) that the internet-based economy has contributed to more “winner take all” outcomes.

Focusing on gross SWC (Panel B of Table 2) instead of net SWC also supports the conclusion

that the degree of concentration in wealth creation has increased since 2016. The number of firms

required to explain ten percent of gross SWC decreased from seven as of 2016 to five as of 2019 and four

as of 2022. The number of firms that explain fifty percent of gross SWC decreased from 138 as of 2016

to 121 as of 2019 and to 110 as of 2022. The number of firms required to explain all of the gross SWC

(equivalently, the number of firms with positive SWC outcomes) increased from 10,669 as of 2016 to

11,633 as of 2022, but the percentage of firms with positive SWC outcomes decreased from 42.07% as of

2016 to 41.38% as of 2022.

5. Concentration of Market Capitalization

It should not be surprising that SWC as measured here is concentrated in relatively few stocks to

some degree. Bessembinder (2018) and Farago and Hjalmarsson (2023) show that the compounding of

purely random short-horizon percentage returns induces positive skewness in compound long-horizon

percentage returns. Further, differences in firm sizes and in the number of months that firms are included

in the database contribute.17 Still, the degree of concentration is notable, as is the fact that concentration

has increased in recent years.

I next report as a basis for comparison, the degree of concentration in market capitalizations of

publicly-listed U.S. common stocks over time. As noted, the SWC measure used here differs from firms’

market capitalizations because SWC captures prior cash flows to shareholders, including dividends, as

well as seasoned equity offerings or share repurchases (which alter market capitalization by increasing

17
Note, though, that firm size (as measured by market capitalization) and return performance are intertwined. Firm
size depends partly on market capitalization at the time of its IPO or creation as a spinoff, partly on subsequent
equity offerings or share repurchases, and partly on its compound long-run return per share. Apple, as a case in
point, was not a uniquely large firm at the time of its IPO, and its rise to become the largest stock by market
capitalization reflects high compound returns in the decades since its listing (offset only in part by over $500 billion
in share repurchases in recent years).

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

and reducing shares outstanding, respectively). Still, the concentration of market capitalization is

informative.

I compute the market capitalization of every common stock included in the CRSP monthly stock

database as of the end of each calendar year from 1974 to 2022, as the product of price per share and

shares of common stock outstanding.18 I then sum market capitalizations across the five largest firms, the

fifteen largest firms, and across all firms, and compute the percentage of the total market capitalization

accounted for by the largest five and fifteen firms. Also, to ensure that outcomes are not affected by

changes in the numbers of firms listed on the public U.S. markets over time, I compute the sum of market

capitalizations for the 1500 largest stocks, and compare the market capitalization of the top five and

fifteen firms to this benchmark as well.

Outcomes are displayed on Figure 1. The data indicate that the concentration of market

capitalization as of the end of 2022 is generally similar to that at the end of 1974. In particular, the five

largest firms accounted for 15.4% of total market capitalization and 16.0% of the largest 1500 firms’

market capitalization at the end of 2022, compared to 15.1% and 15.8%, respectively, at the end of 1974.

However, the degree of concentration in market capitalization has varied substantially in the intervening

years. For example, the market capitalization of the largest five firms relative to the largest 1500 firms

reached a minimum of 7.9% at the end of1993 and a maximum of 19.3% at the end of 2021 (indeed, each

of the measures displayed on Figure 1 reached its maximum in 2021).

Understanding the determinants of the variation in the degree to which stock market

capitalization is concentrated in a relatively few firms comprises an interesting avenue for future research.

The variation in market capitalization in recent years is most relevant in terms of gaining perspective

regarding the finding documented here that SWC is not only highly concentrated, but has become more so

18
I begin the calculation at 1974 to avoid any potential distortion from the fact that the CRSP database excludes
Nasdaq-listed stocks in earlier years. For those firms with multiple share classes I compute market capitalization
for each class (CRSP permno) and sum across classes to obtain firm (CRSP permco) market capitalization

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

since 2016. The data on Figure 1 show that the concentration of market capitalization has increased

substantially from 2016 to 2022. In particular, the market capitalization of the largest five firms relative

to that of the largest 1500 firms rose from 9.5% at the end of 2016 to 16.0% at the end of 2022. That is,

while dividends and net share repurchases are also relevant, the increased concentration of SWC since

2016 is reflected in increases in the simple measure of market capitalization concentration.19

6. Additional Comparisons and Recent Outcomes

The fact that wealth creation in the U.S. public stock markets is concentrated in relatively few

firms naturally focuses attention on the identity and characteristics of the firms that created the most

wealth for their shareholders. Of course, the fact that a given firm performed very well up to a given

point in time is no guarantee that it will continue to outperform thereafter. I next report on comparisons

of outcomes across those measured at the end of 2016, 2019, and 2022, respectively, identifying both

firms that continued to improve shareholder wealth in recent years, and those that stumbled.

Table 3, like Table 1, reports lifetime SWC for the fifty firms with the largest outcomes measured

as of the end of 2022. In addition, it reports SWC outcomes for the same firms as of the end of 2016 and

2019, and changes in SWC outcomes across these dates. Apple displayed the greatest increase in

lifetime SWC, from $746 billion (rank #2) as of 2016 to $2.68 trillion (rank #1) as of 2022, an increase of

$1.94 trillion. Microsoft followed closely, as SWC increased by $1.46 trillion from $630 billion (rank

#3) as of 2016 to $2.09 trillion (rank #2) as of 2022. Alphabet moved up from a ranking of 11 in 2016

(SWC of $365 billion) to rank #4 in 2022 (SWC of $1.00 trillion), while Amazon moved up from #14 in

2016 (SWC of $335 billion) to rank #5 in 2022 (SWC of $764 billion).

Several firms moved into the Top 50 in terms of SWC as of the end of 2022 from positions far

outside the Top 50 as of 2016. The largest climb in terms of rankings was Tesla, which moved from #334

19
The data in Figure 1 show that increases in the concentration of market capitalization actually began in 2013, and
continued until the end of 2021. The market downturn of 2022 disproportionately affected the largest capitalization
stocks, leading the notable decline in market capitalization concentration as of the end of year that can be observed
in Figure 1.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

as of 2016 (SWC of $22 billion) to #31 (SWC of $271.6 billion) as of 2022. Other notable increases in

rankings from 2016 to 2022 include Thermo Fisher Scientific (from #194 to #46), Broadcom (from #148

to #38), Abbvie (from #135 to #33) and Nvidia (from #128 to #26).20

Of course, some firms that ranked highly in terms of lifetime SWC at a given point in time

subsequently underperform. Among the firms that remained in the top 50 as of 2022, two (General

Electric and Wells Fargo) had decreases in lifetime SWC between 2016 and 2022. General Electric’s

decline from $608 billion in SWC as of 2016 to $463 billion as of 2022 and from a ranking of #4 to a

ranking of #17 was notable. Three of the firms listed on Table 3 displayed large declines in SWC

between 2019 and 2022 even though their SWC figures increased on balance between 2016 and 2022.

These included Amazon (decrease in lifetime SWC from $865 billion at the end of 2019 to $764 billion at

the end of 2022), Intel (decrease in lifetime SWC from $387 billion to $269 billion) and Meta Platforms

(decrease in lifetime SWC from $390 billion to $207 billion).

The previously-described results focused on Table 3, which lists firms that comprised the Top 50

in terms of lifetime SWC as of the end of 2022. Of course, there were also firms that ranked among the

Top 50 at earlier dates, but did not so rank at the end of 2022. Table 4 reports SWC outcomes for firms

that were among the Top 50 as of the end of 2016, but were not among the top 50 as of the end of 2022.

Among these, the largest declines in SWC from 2016 to 2022 were observed for AT&T Inc. (from $169.5

billion to $124.1 billion), Schlumberger (from $134.1 billion to $105.3 billion) and Disney (from $191.9

billion to $166.9 billion). Disney experienced an improvement in SWC from 2016 to 2019 of $80.1

billion, which was then more than offset by a decrease in SWC of $105.2 billion from 2019 to 2022.

Table 5 reports on the twenty-five firms with the largest decline in SWC from 2016 to 2022, as

well as from 2019 to 2022, including for firms that did not rank among the Top 50 at any point in time.

The list of largest SWC declines from 2016 to 2022 includes General Electric and AT&T Inc., as

20
However, it is also noteworthy that both Tesla and Nvidia were briefly ranked much higher. SWC measured as of
the end of 2021 amounted to $991 billion and $718 billion (rank #5 and #6) for Tesla and Nvidia, respectively.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

mentioned previously. It also includes Kraft Heinz (decrease of $48.8 billion, from $13.6 billion to

-$35.2 billion) and Walgreens Boots Alliance (decrease of $30.8 billion, from $94.7 billion to $63.9

billion). It also includes thirteen firms that were initially listed after the end of 2016. These include,

Dupont De Nemours, Coupang, Coinbase Global, Uber, Doordash, Snowflake, Airbnb, Uipath,

Quantumscape, Zoom Video, and three electric vehicle firms: Rivian Automotive, Lucid Group, and

Nikola Corp.21

The list of the largest declines in SWC from 2019 to 2022 includes, among other firms,

Salesforce (decrease of $38.4 billion, from 102.7 billion), Verizon (decrease of $60.6 billion, from 226.1

billion), and Boeing (decrease of $73.8 billion, from $257.8 billion). It also includes Meta Platforms

(decrease of $183.6 billion, from 390.8 billion), Intel (decrease of $118.1 billion, from 387.4 billion), and

Disney (decrease of $105.2 billion, from 272.1 billion). The decreases in lifetime SWC during the three-

year period 2019 to 2022 for these three firms are noteworthy, as they exceed in absolute magnitude the

worst lifetime SWC outcomes previously identified on Table 1B.

7. Conclusions

It is inevitable that SWC measured over long horizons will be concentrated in few firms to an

extent because of differences in initial size, the number of months the firm has been listed, as well as

purely random return outcomes that are only observable ex post. This study documents that the degree to

which SWC is concentrated in relatively few firms is not only striking, but continues to increase in recent

years. These outcomes are worthy of further study. In particular, to what extent are the results

attributable to the mathematical observation (Bessembinder, 2018 and Farago and Hjalmarsson, 2023)

that the compounding of purely random short-horizon returns will lead to positive skewness in compound

long-horizon returns? Alternatively, to what extent are the outcomes attributable to more fundamental

21
The firm listed on Table 5 is that created by the 2017 merger of Dow Chemical and E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company (the latter of which is listed on Table 1). This firm was initially named DowDuPont and subsequently
renamed Dupont de Nemours after a pair of spinoffs during 2019. See
https://www.investors.dupont.com/investors/dupont-investors/faq/default.aspx.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

economic explanations such as increased concentration within industries, a shift toward “winner take all”

outcomes, or the increased emergence of disruptive or transformational firms?

The SWC employed here takes account not only of the time series of cash flows to investors, but

also end-of-period valuations that are based on the market’s forward-looking assessments, and will

therefore change as unforeseen events arise. This study identifies the best-performing firms in terms of

lifetime SWC measured as of 2016, 2019, and 2022, but also highlights how some firms listed as top

performers at certain dates subsequently stumbled. The list of firms that turn out to have delivered the

best shareholder outcomes over upcoming decades is likely to differ substantively from the lists contained

herein. However, it can be anticipated that SWC is likely to be concentrated in a relatively few firms

during future decades as well.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 References

Albuquerque, R., 2012, Skewness in stock returns: reconciling the evidence on firm versus aggregate
returns, Review of Financial Studies 25, 1630–1673.
Autor, David, David Dorn, Lawrence Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen, 2020, The fall of
labor share and the rise of superstar firms, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 135, 645-709.
Bessembinder, Hendrik, 2018, “Do Stocks Outperform Treasury Bills?” Journal of Financial Economics,
129, 440-457. The pre-publication document can be downloaded at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2900447.
Bessembinder, Hendrik, 2021, “Wealth Creation in the U.S. Public Stock Markets 1926-2019”, Journal of
Investing, 30, 47-61. The pre-publication document can be downloaded at https://ssrn.com/abstract=
3537838.
Bessembinder, Hendrik, Te-Feng Chen, Goeun Choi, and K.C. John Wei, 2019, “Do Global Stocks
Outperform US Treasury Bills?” Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3415739.
Dichev, I.D., 2007, What are stock investors’ actual historical returns? Evidence from dollar-weighted
returns, American Economic Review 97, 386–401.
Dichev, I.D., Yu, G., 2011, Higher risk, lower returns: What hedge fund investors really earn, Journal of
Financial Economics 100, 248-263.
Ellenberg, J., 2014, How Not to be Wrong, The Power of Mathematical Thinking, Penguin Books, New
York, New York.
Fama, E.F., French, K.R., 2018, Long horizon returns, Review of Asset Pricing Studies, forthcoming.
Farago, A., Hjalmarsson, E., 2023, Long-horizon stock returns are positively skewed. Review of Finance,
27, 495-538.
Heaton, J.B., Polson, N.G., Witte, J.H., 2017, Why indexing works, Applied Stochastic Models in
Business and Industry 33, 690–693.
Noe, T., and G. Parker, 2005. Winner take all: competition, strategy, and the structure of returns in the
internet economy, Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 14, 141–161.
Shumway, T., 1997, The delisting bias in CRSP returns, Journal of Finance 52, 327-340.
Simkowitz, M.A, Beedles W.L., 1978, Diversification in a three-moment world, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis 13, 927–94

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Table 1A: Shareholder Wealth Creation, Measured as of December 31, 2022, Top 50 Firms.
Lifetime Wealth
Company Name Cumulative First Last
Creation % of Total
Rank (most recent) % of Total Month Month
($ Millions)
1 APPLE INC $2,680,989.9 4.86% 4.86% Jan‐81 Dec‐22
2 MICROSOFT CORP $2,094,146.4 3.80% 8.66% Apr‐86 Dec‐22
3 EXXON MOBIL CORP $1,217,324.7 2.21% 10.87% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
4 ALPHABET INC $1,004,387.7 1.82% 12.70% Sep‐04 Dec‐22
5 AMAZON COM INC $763,966.4 1.39% 14.08% Jun‐97 Dec‐22
6 BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC DEL $703,631.4 1.28% 15.36% Nov‐76 Dec‐22
7 JOHNSON & JOHNSON $660,879.4 1.20% 16.56% Oct‐44 Dec‐22
8 WALMART INC $628,770.0 1.14% 17.70% Dec‐72 Dec‐22
9 CHEVRON CORP NEW $582,822.1 1.06% 18.76% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
10 PROCTER & GAMBLE CO $580,968.0 1.05% 19.81% Sep‐29 Dec‐22
11 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHS COR $562,564.5 1.02% 20.83% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
12 UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC $551,416.9 1.00% 21.83% Nov‐84 Dec‐22
13 ALTRIA GROUP INC $489,778.3 0.89% 22.72% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
14 MERCK & CO INC NEW $478,236.4 0.87% 23.59% Jun‐46 Dec‐22
15 HOME DEPOT INC $476,653.7 0.86% 24.45% Oct‐81 Dec‐22
16 COCA COLA CO $474,392.2 0.86% 25.31% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
17 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO $463,379.6 0.84% 26.15% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
18 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO $458,663.5 0.83% 26.99% Apr‐69 Dec‐22
19 GENERAL MOTORS CORP $454,402.2 0.82% 27.81% Jul‐26 Jun‐09
20 LILLY ELI & CO $417,603.9 0.76% 28.57% Aug‐70 Dec‐22
21 ORACLE CORP $382,973.8 0.69% 29.26% Apr‐86 Dec‐22
22 VISA INC $371,907.8 0.67% 29.94% Apr‐08 Dec‐22
23 MASTERCARD INC $369,998.4 0.67% 30.61% Jun‐06 Dec‐22
24 PEPSICO INC $369,252.5 0.67% 31.28% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
25 PFIZER INC $350,080.1 0.64% 31.91% Feb‐44 Dec‐22
26 NVIDIA CORP $348,409.9 0.63% 32.55% Feb‐99 Dec‐22
27 DU PONT E I DE NEMOURS & CO $341,540.0 0.62% 33.17% Jul‐26 Aug‐17
28 ABBOTT LABORATORIES $328,813.9 0.60% 33.76% Apr‐37 Dec‐22
29 A T & T CORP $317,565.7 0.58% 34.34% Jul‐26 Nov‐05
30 MCDONALDS CORP $316,545.8 0.57% 34.91% Aug‐66 Dec‐22
31 TESLA INC $271,569.2 0.49% 35.41% Jul‐10 Dec‐22
32 INTEL CORP $269,361.4 0.49% 35.90% Jan‐73 Dec‐22
33 ABBVIE INC $263,092.0 0.48% 36.37% Feb‐13 Dec‐22
34 CONOCOPHILLIPS $258,255.4 0.47% 36.84% Jul‐26 Dec‐22
35 CISCO SYSTEMS INC $255,466.6 0.46% 37.30% Mar‐90 Dec‐22
36 WELLS FARGO & CO NEW $242,854.1 0.44% 37.75% Jan‐63 Dec‐22
37 AMGEN INC $236,894.8 0.43% 38.18% Jul‐83 Dec‐22
38 BROADCOM INC $231,213.2 0.42% 38.59% Sep‐09 Dec‐22
39 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP NEW $219,865.8 0.40% 38.99% Dec‐85 Dec‐22
40 UNION PACIFIC CORP $219,482.9 0.40% 39.39% Aug‐69 Dec‐22
41 BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO $218,919.3 0.40% 39.79% Aug‐29 Dec‐22
42 MOBIL CORP $216,305.2 0.39% 40.18% Jan‐27 Nov‐99
43 BANK OF AMERICA CORP $211,631.6 0.38% 40.57% Jan‐73 Dec‐22
44 META PLATFORMS INC $207,149.2 0.38% 40.94% Jun‐12 Dec‐22
45 RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP $205,459.9 0.37% 41.31% May‐29 Dec‐22
46 THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC $202,874.1 0.37% 41.68% Jan‐73 Dec‐22
47 DANAHER CORP $202,830.8 0.37% 42.05% Sep‐78 Dec‐22
48 LOWES COMPANIES INC $200,016.4 0.36% 42.41% Jan‐73 Dec‐22
49 CATERPILLAR INC $198,540.3 0.36% 42.77% Jan‐30 Dec‐22
50 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC $198,211.4 0.36% 43.13% Jul‐26 Dec‐22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Table 1B: Shareholder Wealth Creation, Measured as of December 31, 2022, Bottom 25 Firms.

Lifetime Wealth
Company Name First Last
Creation % of Total
(most recent) Month Month
($ Millions)
WORLDCOM INC GA NEW ‐$102,002.5 ‐0.19% Dec‐80 Jul‐02
RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE INC ‐$91,631.6 ‐0.17% Dec‐21 Dec‐22
VIAVI SOLUTIONS INC ‐$86,779.8 ‐0.16% Dec‐93 Dec‐22
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES INC ‐$85,441.1 ‐0.16% May‐96 Nov‐06
WACHOVIA CORP 2ND NEW ‐$68,317.3 ‐0.12% Jan‐73 Dec‐08
DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC ‐$59,992.9 ‐0.11% Oct‐17 Dec‐22
DAIMLER A G ‐$59,679.8 ‐0.11% Dec‐98 Jun‐10
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS INTL INC ‐$58,517.0 ‐0.11% Jul‐97 Mar‐11
COUPANG INC ‐$55,190.1 ‐0.10% Apr‐21 Dec‐22
NORTEL NETWORKS CORP NEW ‐$54,009.4 ‐0.10% Dec‐75 Jan‐09
DEUTSCHE BANK A G ‐$47,302.5 ‐0.09% Nov‐01 Dec‐22
COINBASE GLOBAL INC ‐$44,607.7 ‐0.08% May‐21 Dec‐22
SPRINT NEXTEL CORP ‐$39,754.6 ‐0.07% May‐63 Jul‐13
BROADWING CORP ‐$37,680.9 ‐0.07% Aug‐00 Jan‐07
TIME WARNER INC NEW ‐$37,331.8 ‐0.07% Apr‐92 Jun‐18
KRAFT HEINZ CO ‐$35,181.3 ‐0.06% Aug‐15 Dec‐22
ARCELORMITTAL S A LUXEMBOURG ‐$34,678.0 ‐0.06% Sep‐97 Dec‐22
PALM INC ‐$34,185.0 ‐0.06% Apr‐00 Jun‐10
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC ‐$34,112.3 ‐0.06% Jun‐19 Dec‐22
GLOBAL CROSSING LTD ‐$33,438.7 ‐0.06% Sep‐98 Oct‐11
DOORDASH INC ‐$31,912.7 ‐0.06% Jan‐21 Dec‐22
PARAMOUNT GLOBAL ‐$30,056.0 ‐0.05% Jul‐87 Dec‐22
SNOWFLAKE INC ‐$30,050.2 ‐0.05% Oct‐20 Dec‐22
SYCAMORE NETWORKS INC ‐$28,848.8 ‐0.05% Nov‐99 Mar‐13
AIRBNB INC ‐$27,494.6 ‐0.05% Jan‐21 Dec‐22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Table 2: Proportions of Total Net and Gross Wealth Creation Accounted for by Indicated Number of Firms

1926 to 2016 1926 to 2019 1926 to 2022

Total Number Firms 25,362 26,150 28,114

Net Shareholder Wealth Creation $34.82 trillion $47.39 trillion $55.11 trillion
Gross Shareholder Wealth Creation $40.84 trillion $54.25 trillion $64.23 trillion

Panel A: Net Wealth Creation

Number Number Number
Fraction of Net Wealth Creation Firms % of Firms Firms % of Firms Firms % of Firms
10% 5 0.020% 4 0.015% 3 0.011%
20% 14 0.055% 13 0.050% 11 0.039%
30% 29 0.114% 26 0.099% 23 0.082%
40% 53 0.209% 47 0.180% 42 0.149%
50% 90 0.355% 83 0.317% 72 0.256%
60% 148 0.584% 139 0.532% 120 0.427%
70% 235 0.927% 226 0.864% 196 0.697%
80% 375 1.479% 369 1.411% 317 1.128%
90% 621 2.449% 627 2.398% 528 1.878%
100% 1,094 4.314% 1,173 4.486% 966 3.436%

Panel B: Gross Wealth Creation

Number Number Number
Fraction of Gross Wealth Creation Firms % of Firms Firms % of Firms Firms % of Firms
10% 7 0.028% 5 0.019% 4 0.014%
20% 18 0.071% 16 0.061% 14 0.050%
30% 40 0.158% 34 0.130% 31 0.110%
40% 76 0.300% 66 0.252% 61 0.217%
50% 138 0.544% 121 0.463% 110 0.391%
60% 238 0.938% 212 0.811% 195 0.694%
70% 416 1.640% 372 1.423% 343 1.220%
80% 764 3.012% 688 2.631% 632 2.248%
90% 1,578 6.222% 1,464 5.598% 1,372 4.880%
100% 10,669 42.067% 11,020 42.141% 11,633 41.378%

Panel C: Firms With Negative Shareholder Wealth Creation

Firms With Negative Wealth Creation 14,693 57.933% 15,130 57.859% 16,481 58.622%

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

 Table 3: Shareholder Wealth Creation, Measured as of December 31 of 2016, 2019, and 2022
2016 Outcomes 2019 Outcomes 2022 Outcomes Changes in Wealth Creation ($ Millions)
Wealth Creation Wealth Creation Wealth Creation
Company Name (Most Recent) ($ Millions) Rank ($ Millions) Rank ($ Millions) Rank 2016 to 2019 2019 to 2022 2016 to 2022
APPLE INC 745,675 2 1,643,997 1 2,680,990 1 898,322 1,036,992 1,935,315
MICROSOFT CORP 629,804 3 1,411,655 2 2,094,146 2 781,851 682,492 1,464,343
EXXON MOBIL CORP 1,002,144 1 988,411 3 1,217,325 3 ‐13,733 228,914 215,180
ALPHABET INC 365,285 11 718,207 5 1,004,388 4 352,922 286,181 639,103
AMAZON COM INC 335,100 14 865,293 4 763,966 5 530,192 ‐101,327 428,866
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC DEL 355,864 12 510,215 9 703,631 6 154,352 193,416 347,768
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

JOHNSON & JOHNSON 426,210 7 543,212 6 660,879 7 117,001 117,668 234,669

WALMART INC 368,214 10 541,436 7 628,770 8 173,222 87,334 260,556
CHEVRON CORP NEW 390,427 9 430,391 15 582,822 9 39,964 152,431 192,395
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO 355,364 13 487,368 10 580,968 10 132,004 93,600 225,604
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHS 520,240 5 525,976 8 562,565 11 5,736 36,589 42,324
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC 172,168 32 311,569 25 551,417 12 139,401 239,848 379,248
ALTRIA GROUP INC 470,183 6 470,417 11 489,778 13 234 19,361 19,595
MERCK & CO INC NEW 286,671 18 394,316 17 478,236 14 107,645 83,920 191,566
HOME DEPOT INC 230,703 22 347,594 20 476,654 15 116,891 129,060 245,951
COCA COLA CO 326,085 15 413,012 16 474,392 16 86,927 61,380 148,307
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 608,115 4 461,432 12 463,380 17 ‐146,683 1,947 ‐144,736
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 238,148 21 440,214 14 458,664 18 202,066 18,449 220,515
GENERAL MOTORS CORP 425,318 8 445,858 13 454,402 19 20,540 8,544 29,084
LILLY ELI & CO 112,420 57 182,785 44 417,604 20 70,365 234,819 305,184
ORACLE CORP 214,245 24 284,323 27 382,974 21 70,078 98,651 168,729
VISA INC 129,757 45 330,621 22 371,908 22 200,863 41,287 242,150
MASTERCARD INC 110,970 58 315,635 23 369,998 23 204,665 54,364 259,029
PEPSICO INC 224,475 23 288,670 26 369,252 24 64,196 80,582 144,778
PFIZER INC 179,894 30 245,219 33 350,080 25 65,326 104,861 170,187
NVIDIA CORP 54,804 128 132,473 68 348,410 26 77,669 215,937 293,606
DU PONT E I DE NEMOURS & CO 307,976 16 335,118 21 341,540 27 27,143 6,422 33,564
ABBOTT LABORATORIES 181,152 29 276,524 29 328,814 28 95,373 52,289 147,662
A T & T CORP 297,240 17 311,595 24 317,566 29 14,355 5,971 20,326
MCDONALDS CORP 178,327 31 253,485 32 316,546 30 75,158 63,060 138,219
TESLA INC 22,121 334 57,090 172 271,569 31 34,968 214,480 249,448
INTEL CORP 259,252 20 387,430 19 269,361 32 128,178 ‐118,069 10,109
ABBVIE INC 52,465 135 108,833 82 263,092 33 56,367 154,259 210,627
CONOCOPHILLIPS 143,849 39 169,701 47 258,255 34 25,852 88,555 114,406
CISCO SYSTEMS INC 131,295 44 237,157 34 255,467 35 105,863 18,309 124,172
WELLS FARGO & CO NEW 261,300 19 278,476 28 242,854 36 17,175 ‐35,622 ‐18,446
AMGEN INC 137,877 42 212,148 38 236,895 37 74,272 24,746 99,018
BROADCOM INC 48,212 148 112,128 81 231,213 38 63,916 119,085 183,001
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP NEW 74,311 91 139,446 60 219,866 39 65,135 80,420 145,555
UNION PACIFIC CORP 122,357 48 190,503 42 219,483 40 68,146 28,980 97,126
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB CO 161,915 37 187,665 43 218,919 41 25,749 31,254 57,004
MOBIL CORP 202,461 25 212,238 37 216,305 42 9,778 4,067 13,845
BANK OF AMERICA CORP 69,195 100 207,671 39 211,632 43 138,476 3,961 142,437
META PLATFORMS INC 181,243 28 390,781 18 207,149 44 209,537 ‐183,631 25,906
RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORP 126,168 47 168,953 48 205,460 45 42,785 36,507 79,292
THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC 39,653 194 113,006 80 202,874 46 73,352 89,869 163,221
DANAHER CORP 66,031 106 121,205 73 202,831 47 55,174 81,626 136,800
LOWES COMPANIES INC 87,788 76 133,438 65 200,016 48 45,649 66,579 112,228
CATERPILLAR INC 101,433 62 141,558 59 198,540 49 40,124 56,983 97,107
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC 90,000 72 152,396 51 198,211 50 62,395 45,816 108,211
 Table 4: Shareholder Wealth Creation, Measured as of December 31 of 2016, 2019, and 2022,
firms among the Top 50 in 2016 but not among the Top 50 in 2022.
2016 Outcomes 2019 Outcomes 2022 Outcomes Changes in Wealth Creation ($ Millions)
Wealth Creation Wealth Creation Wealth Creation
PERMCO Company Name (Most Recent) ($ Millions) Rank ($ Millions) Rank ($ Millions) Rank 2016 to 2019 2019 to 2022 2016 to 2022
21205 3M CO 200,357 26 213,878 36 194,250 51 13,521 ‐19,628 ‐6,107
20587 DISNEY WALT CO 191,954 27 272,084 30 166,915 66 80,130 ‐105,169 ‐25,039
21645 A T & T INC 169,525 33 191,434 41 124,055 86 21,909 ‐67,379 ‐45,470
20191 AMOCO CORP 168,009 34 176,123 45 179,498 57 8,114 3,375 11,489
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

20288 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 165,115 35 226,053 35 165,475 67 60,938 ‐60,578 360
21734 TEXACO INC 164,279 36 172,213 46 175,513 59 7,934 3,300 11,234
43613 COMCAST CORP NEW 146,872 38 203,502 40 172,656 62 56,630 ‐30,846 25,783
21886 WARNER LAMBERT CO 142,468 40 149,348 53 152,210 73 6,880 2,862 9,742
20315 BOEING CO 139,355 41 257,785 31 183,928 55 118,430 ‐73,857 44,574
21576 SCHLUMBERGER LTD 134,186 43 82,898 107 105,303 103 ‐51,288 22,405 ‐28,882
20908 H P INC 129,290 46 147,062 56 162,282 70 17,772 15,221 32,993
21592 SEARS ROEBUCK & CO 120,587 49 126,410 70 128,833 81 5,824 2,422 8,246
11300 GILEAD SCIENCES INC 118,600 50 120,412 74 158,203 71 1,812 37,791 39,603
 Table 5: Shareholder Wealth Creation for Firms with the Greatest Decrease from 2016 to 2022 and from 2019 to 2022.
Wealth Creation ($ Millions) Measured at Wealth Creation ($ Millions) Measured at
PERMCO Company Name (Most Recent) End 2016 End 2022 Change PERMCO Company Name (Most Recent) End 2019 End 2022 Change
20792 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 608,115 463,380 ‐144,736 54084 META PLATFORMS INC 390,781 207,149 ‐183,631
58911 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE INC 0 ‐91,632 ‐91,632 2367 INTEL CORP 387,430 269,361 ‐118,069
56027 DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC 0 ‐59,993 ‐59,993 20587 DISNEY WALT CO 272,084 166,915 ‐105,169
58024 COUPANG INC 0 ‐55,190 ‐55,190 15473 AMAZON COM INC 865,293 763,966 ‐101,327
55296 KRAFT HEINZ CO 13,606 ‐35,181 ‐48,787 58911 RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE INC 0 ‐91,632 ‐91,632
21645 A T & T INC 169,525 124,055 ‐45,470 20315 BOEING CO 257,785 183,928 ‐73,857
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

58167 COINBASE GLOBAL INC 0 ‐44,608 ‐44,608 21645 A T & T INC 191,434 124,055 ‐67,379
56719 UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC 0 ‐34,112 ‐34,112 20288 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC 226,053 165,475 ‐60,578
57587 DOORDASH INC 0 ‐31,913 ‐31,913 20483 CITIGROUP INC 79,560 19,203 ‐60,357
21881 WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE INC 94,651 63,870 ‐30,781 58024 COUPANG INC 0 ‐55,190 ‐55,190
57255 SNOWFLAKE INC 0 ‐30,050 ‐30,050 58167 COINBASE GLOBAL INC 0 ‐44,608 ‐44,608
21576 SCHLUMBERGER LTD 134,186 105,303 ‐28,882 55341 PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC 80,387 36,973 ‐43,415
57588 AIRBNB INC 0 ‐27,495 ‐27,495 41673 FIDELITY NATIONAL INFO SVCS INC 41,267 ‐159 ‐41,426
58186 UIPATH INC 0 ‐26,424 ‐26,424 45288 SALESFORCE INC 102,663 64,302 ‐38,361
57148 LUCID GROUP INC 0 ‐26,170 ‐26,170 2850 MEDTRONIC PLC 142,868 105,011 ‐37,857
20587 DISNEY WALT CO 191,954 166,915 ‐25,039 21305 WELLS FARGO & CO NEW 278,476 242,854 ‐35,622
57104 QUANTUMSCAPE CORP 0 ‐24,432 ‐24,432 57587 DOORDASH INC 0 ‐31,913 ‐31,913
21866 PARAMOUNT GLOBAL ‐5,908 ‐30,056 ‐24,148 43613 COMCAST CORP NEW 203,502 172,656 ‐30,846
56690 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS INC 0 ‐23,471 ‐23,471 57255 SNOWFLAKE INC 0 ‐30,050 ‐30,050
56382 NIKOLA CORP 0 ‐23,356 ‐23,356 21492 RAYTHEON CO 79,833 52,228 ‐27,605
 Figure 1: Concentration of U.S. Stock Market Capitalization, 1974 to 2022, Top 5 and Top 15 Firms

30.0%

25.0%
Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%
1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022
Largest 5 (% of All) Largest 15 (% of All)
Largest 5 (% of Largest 1500) Largest 15 (% of Largest 1500)

This Figure displays the market capitalization of the five largest and fifteen largest firms relative to the combined market capitalization of all
publicly‐listed common stocks and relative to the combined market capitalization of the 1,500 largest stocks, as of the end of each indicated
year. The sample includes all common stocks (shrcd variable equal to 10, 11, or 12) in the CRSP monthly common stock database.
Appendix: Computing Shareholder Wealth Creation (SWC)
Let W0 denote investors’ initial wealth, and assume an investment horizon of T periods. Let Rft

denote the time t Treasury bill return, and Rt denote the time t return on a common stock, inclusive of

both dividends and capital gains. Further, let It denote investors’ time t equity investment in common

stock, measured by the market capitalization of equity. Finally, let FVt,T = (1+ Rft+1)*(1+ Rft+2)* (1+

Rft+3)*…. *(1+ RfT) denote an interest accumulation factor obtained by compounding forward from time t

to time T at the prevailing one-month Treasury interest rates. Bessembinder (2018) shows that the dollar

amount of shareholder wealth created, measured as of the end of sample period, can be computed as:

WT – W0*FV0, T =

I0*(R1 – Rf1) FV1,T + I1*(R2 – Rf2) FV2,T + … + IT-2*(RT-1 – RfT-1)*FVT-1,T + IT-1*(RT – RfT). (1)

The first line of expression (1) can be interpreted as the difference between investors’ actual final wealth

and the final wealth that would have been attained had the invested capital earned Treasury-bill rates.

The second line of expression (3) shows that this dollar amount can be computed by (i) multiplying the

firm’s excess (over Treasury bills) return by its beginning market capitalization in each period to obtain

an excess dollar return, (ii) compounding each resulting dollar amount forward to the end-of-sample,

using Treasury bill rates, and (iii) summing the outcomes.

Bessembinder, Chen, Choi, and Wei (2019) show that this wealth creation measure can also be

computed as the “Net Future Value” of all cash flow to or from shareholders in aggregate, including their

initial capital investments, dividends, share repurchases, secondary equity issuances and firms’ end-of-

sample market capitalizations. The internal rate of return of the same series of cash flows is sometimes

referred to (e.g. Dichev, 2007 and Dichev and Yu, 2011) as the dollar-weighted return to investors.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4448099