Alternate Title: What will it take for the next major technology company to develop in Boston? Or, anywhere else for that matter?

Facebook recently released their much anticipated initial S-1 IPO filing.[1] It’s been all over the trade and national news along with other recent and forthcoming IPOs.

The general expectation is that Facebook will be valued at $80-100 billion. At that valuation, Facebook will create 10s of billionaires and approaching a 1000 millionaires.[2,3] The created wealth will have a lasting effect on the technology sector and future landscape as Facebook millionaires begin investing in new technologies and entrepreneurs.[4] Also, the resulting capital gains and income from stock and options will generate a lot of tax revenue for California and the U.S.[5]

Boston has not built any major technology companies, on the scale of Google or Facebook, in past 20 years.[6]

The Facebook IPO again raises the question: What would it take, what needs to change in order to build the next major technology company in the Boston area? [7] And the corollary questions: Are stakeholders actually willing to do what it takes? Or, will inertia and myopic irrationality continue to erode Boston’s potential regional advantage in the technology sector.

Here, we’ll look at some of the specific conditions that were primary enablers for Facebook and other major technology companies, and how they relate to Boston. The listed order of the conditions tends to be consistent with Facebook’s chronology, but otherwise, the order or length of discussion is not meant to indicate any particular meaning.

1. The next Facebook won’t be like Facebook.

Searching the dorms of Harvard (or another university) for the next Mark Zuckerberg completely misses the point. The next Facebook won’t look like Facebook, it will go against whatever is current conventional wisdom.

At the time (c. 2004), conventional wisdom doubted that social networking could expand beyond a fad on a few university campuses, and doubted whether it could be monetized beyond being a hobby.

Facebook was actually pitched first in Boston. For an investigative look at how Boston VCs passed on Facebook, see [8]. Not much has changed since then, so that it is hard to see why Boston wouldn’t pass on the next Facebook.

Also at the time, the investment industry was still trying to recover from the dotcom bust, and many were reluctant to invest in ventures (a) that were based on a “get big fast, figure out the revenue later” business model, or (b) whose business models were based primarily on advertising.[9]

The key observation here is that “conventional wisdom” was wrong.[10] Facebook, Google, Apple, etc., all went against their era of conventional wisdom. The next major technology company will go against its context of conventional wisdom as well.

“Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is stupid.” ~ Aphorism [11]

2. Serendipity matters a lot.[12]

Facebook was not the first social network, and at the time (c. 2004), many thought it wasn’t particularly better than or distinctly different from other social networks like Friendster (started c. 2002 [13]) or MySpace (started c. 2003 [14]) or even earlier social platforms. For a snapshot of the history of social networks c. 2007, see [15].

The various social networking efforts were known to each other. MySpace was billed as a next-generation Friendster. As MySpace became edgier, perhaps too racy, and plagued with spam, Facebook was thought to be a “safer” alternative.

In retrospect, MySpace’s biggest obstacle is typically attributed to News Corp.’s attempts to prematurely make MySpace a profit center. Friendster’s biggest obstacle is typically attributed its unstable platform or uncertain strategy. Certainly, those are valid criticisms. However, events could have just as easily gone the other way. What in retrospect is an obstacle, at the time, might have been turned into opportunity. News Corp. provided MySpace with very strong media industry access. Friendster had many notable Silicon Valley advisers, investors, and board members.

Facebook was able to learn a lot from looking at the missteps of others, but serendipity appears to have been as important as hard work.

“Chance favors the prepared mind.” ~ Louis Pasteur [16]

3. Technological and market inevitability.

Along with serendipity, a high degree of inevitability is necessary.

As the Internet began to scale, and more and more people began spending more and more time on the Internet, it was inevitable that one or more entities would provide one or more social networking platforms. The precise form of the platforms would remain uncertain until it became obvious.

Social networking, as currently defined, would not have made much sense during the early days of the Internet. There was not enough technology, not enough scale, and not enough diversity. However, in the context of the early Internet, there was a lot of discussion, research, and small scale developments of the kinds of social environments that eventually would be enabled by the Internet (for a very early view, see Licklider 1968 [17]). It was inevitable that social networking would exist, but a few other technologies needed to be invented and built, and access to the Internet needed to become more pervasive and ubiquitous.

PCs, the Internet, graphical user interfaces, digital media, smart phones, etc. — each were seen as inevitable by some people long before a market was defined and created. Each of these developments also had many detractors, some of whom were hostile or obstructive.

“We stand on the shoulders of giants.” ~ Isaac Newton

4. Founder control matters a lot too.

Zuckerberg has maintained dominant control over Facebook’s direction since its beginnings. He had important advisers, but the final say was his. Whether or not you agree with the details of the path that Zuckerberg took Facebook, and apparently, many insiders did disagree with the details, it is hard to dispute Facebook’s current success.

The Facebook S-1 outlines the degree of control that Mark Zuckerberg has and will continue to have over the governance of Facebook.[1] News reports discuss this in more detail.[18] Zuckerberg directly holds 28.2% of the shares, and has voting proxy for another 30.6% of shares; thus, he controls 56.9% of the vote. Almost all of these are Class B shares which yield 10 votes per share compared to 1 vote per share for the Class A shares that will issue with the IPO. Further, when current holders sell their Class B shares, the sold shares convert to Class A, which would further consolidate Zuckerberg’s control.

Though this degree of founder control may seem off scale, it is not when compared to other major successful technology companies. Bill Gates held 49% of Microsoft at its IPO in 1986, and Sergey Brin and Larry Page together held 32% of Google at its IPO in 2004.[18]

This then brings to question whether Facebook could have achieved even a fraction of its current success if investors had taken their usual early control of the company. You can just imagine how Zuckerberg would have been repeatedly chided and overridden by those in “control” who were convinced they “knew better” (c.f., Steve Jobs ouster from Apple, c. 1985). Reportedly, Zuckerberg always had a definite idea of how Facebook should evolve, though he may not have always been very good at communicating a strategy to the satisfaction of others. Nonetheless, his control of the company likely prevented Facebook from suffering a fate similar to Friendster or MySpace.

“If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favorable.” – Seneca

5. Founder as CEO.

Founder as CEO is another type of control that is more operational than the control provided by the above voting rights. It directly effects company strategy and direction, decision making, as well as governance.

Because Zuckerberg always maintained the CEO position, he was able to drive company strategy and decision making directly without having to explain to someone else what decisions to make and why. The founder as CEO is much more effective operationally than an outsider CEO. To augment any skills or experience that the founder CEO may lack, someone with that experience can always be hired to support the founder CEO.

Quoting a recent article on this topic [19]:

“This year, dozens of startup company founders will be forced out and replaced by experienced outsider CEOs, often from public companies, brought in by venture capital investors to provide “adult supervision.” You can bet that none of these companies will become the next Hewlett-Packard, the original Silicon Valley technology company – or the next Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, or Apple.* These technology juggernauts span software, hardware, services, and media, but they all have something in common. Their founders served as transformative chief executives.

“Still, the conventional wisdom among investors, if not the media, is that founders need to move out of the way for an experienced CEO to take a company ‘to the next level’. …

“Outsider, non-founder CEOs are often overvalued because many corporate boards think the answer to their problems is a superstar CEO with an outsized reputation. This leads them to overpay for people who are good at creating outsized reputations through networking, interviewing, and taking credit for other peoples’ achievements–all bad indicators of future success. …

“Founders tend to know their companies better than outsiders. They know their industries better than most outsiders. They are often more motivated than the average hired-gun CEO to improve a company’s long-term prospects. They are more likely to be innovators, having taken the step of founding a company. In tech firms, they usually know technology better than a typical outsider CEO, whose specialty skews toward marketing and networking.”

And with respect to Google, the article notes:

“Google, arguably, did succeed with adult supervision in the person of Eric Schmidt, CEO from 2001 to 2011. But note that the two founders remained in top positions (outsiders referred to the three as “co-CEOs”) and Schmidt was succeeded by one of the founders.”

Further note that Eric Schmidt was a technologist and worked well with Sergey Brin and Larry Page. Schmidt was not as much of an outsider.

Another key question: Is an outsider CEO’s interests aligned with the founders or the investors? Founder alignment (c.f., Schmidt) portends greater success than investor alignment. Unfortunately, outsider CEOs tend more naturally to align themselves with investors to the detriment of founders and notably to the detriment of the success of the company.

“The chief strategist of an organization has to be the leader – the CEO.” Michael Porter

6. A trusted adviser who gets “it” and amplifies “it”.

Sometimes the early trusted adviser is also the first investor. Sometimes he or she is a mentor. Sometimes, a co-founder or business partner or perhaps a relative. There needs to be someone with whom the founder can openly, speculatively, safely, and efficiently bounce around ideas.

From accounts, it is clear the Zuckerberg getting together with Sean Parker was very important, and came at a critical time for the company. It was serendipitous. Parker provided a significant amplification for Facebook’s strategy. “Back then Parker apparently believed even more passionately in the company’s potential than did Zuckerberg himself.” Parker became Facebook’s president. However, Parker came with notable liabilities. See the references [20] for more of the history.

In some respects, Parker was like a more experienced Zuckerberg with some successes and some failures.

Would Facebook have been as successful if Zuckerberg had not met Parker? Some adviser was probably needed at that time. Would a less controversial person have been able to provide the needed amplification for Zuckerberg and Facebook?

(For a few related interesting startup stories of other major technology companies, see here.)

“Getting it is much more than just saying the words ‘I get it’.” – Anonymous

7. Access to the first (angel) investor.

The first investor of an ultimately successful major technology company, like Facebook, is often important for reasons that go beyond just the money brought to the venture. The investment needs to be substantial enough to achieve a major milestone for the company, then it is helpful if the investor brings more to the effort than just money.

As has been noted in recent years, the initial critical investment often comes not from venture capital but from an angel investor, investing his/her own money. The angel investor typically made money as a recently successful entrepreneur within the prior 10 year innovation cycle. Because of his/her recent success, the angel investor is motivated to support the next generation of innovation and entrepreneurs.[21]

In 1977, Mike Markkula, having participated in Intel’s success, invested $250K with Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak to fund development of the Apple II. Markkula then became Apple’s third founder.[22]

In 1999, Andy Bechtolsheim, one of Sun Microsystems’ founders, invested $100K with Sergey Brin and Larry Page to form Google, even though at the time, there already were many search engines, and many people questioned whether another search engine was needed.[23]

Everyone that’s been paying attention (or saw the movie) knows that Peter Thiel, a founder of PayPal, was first to invest in Facebook, investing $500K. Thiel invested even though Facebook was being threatened with litigation, and even though Thiel had invested in other social networks.

Angel investors often have their own reasons for investing that typically is more than just making money.

(a) Thiel said, “You always hope for strong returns, but the companies that make you proud as an investor are the ones that produce that return by transforming the world for the better—technologically, socially, and economically.”[24]

(b) Guy Kawasaki, an early employee of Apple, said, “Here’s how angel investors differ from venture capitalists. Typically, angel investors have a triple bottom line. First, they’ve “made it,” so now they want to “pay back” society by helping the next generation of entrepreneurs. Second, they’d like to stay current with technology and tinker with interesting products and technologies. Finally, they want to make money. Thus, they are often willing to invest in less proven, more risky deals to provide entrepreneurs with the ability to get to the next stage. I know many nice venture capitalists, but I cannot tell you that many of them are motivated by the desire to pay back society or seek intellectual stimulation. :-)” [25]

In the past 20 years, Boston has not built any major technology companies on the scale of Google or Facebook, which in turn has not produced a large number financially successful employees of these companies looking to be angel investors. Thus, though there are angel investors in Boston, they are fewer in number, they invest with a much smaller pool of personal funds, and many built their companies and successes more than 20 years ago or in businesses which aren’t the basis of current innovations (c.f., Web 2.0 Internet).[26]

8. A broad pool of potential employees with relevant skills.

To build beyond the initial team of founders and employees and scale the company, there needs to be a broad pool of available potential employees who have the skills and experience that are relevant to growing the company’s products and services. Importantly, it needs to be straightforward to hire these new employees with few obstructions in the hiring process.

Perhaps the greatest obstruction to the hiring process is the use of non-compete agreements. Non-competes are especially problematic when they overreach or simply are used to provide an overall chilling effect to employee mobility.

Facebook hired many of its employees from Google and other area technology companies. Because non-compete agreements are not valid in California, Google employees were free to move to Facebook without untoward obstacles. Google could make counteroffers to convince employees not to go to Facebook, but it could not pretend that there may be some illusory competition between search and social networks, and it could not threaten employees and their potential employers with costly litigation.

Google similarly benefited during its early growth period when it was able to hire unimpeded from other companies. Google continued to thrive even though several of its employees moved to Facebook.

The ability to hire to scale each company during their critical growth periods were extremely important to each company’s success. That ability to hire was a result from their region’s employee mobility due to the lack of employee non-compete agreements.[27]

Because of the Boston area’s use of non-compete agreements and the resulting limits to employee mobility, Google and Facebook could not have been built in the Boston area.

Non-competes hinder innovation in two ways. (1) The non-compete is a direct obstacle for an employee moving from one employer to a different employer. This is true even if there is no actual competition between the former and future employer. (2) Perhaps more importantly, an employee who is constrained from moving to a new position often tends to work within his/her current narrow job description. The employee often does not experience new or alternate work environments; thus, may never gain the experiences that would be valuable to a new growing company.

“Practically every enterprise [is] threatened and put on the defensive as soon as it comes into existence.” – Schrumpeter [28]

9. Ability to attract a few experienced executive employees.

Even though founder control is important, a growing company still needs to hire experienced senior management to support and augment the founder.

Sheryl Sandberg was an important addition to Facebook as COO in 2008. Her skills and experience complemented Zuckerberg without replacing him or lessening his role. Importantly, Zuckerberg as CEO still gets to make the final call. Zuckerberg and Sandberg formed a partnership for joint decision making and running the company, somewhat similar to Google’s earlier triumvirate of Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt. For more background on Sheryl Sandberg, see [29]

Sandberg joined Facebook from Google in 2008 after spending 7 years at Google as Vice President of Global Online Sales & Operations. During those 7 years, Google grew its annual revenue geometrically from ~$86M to ~$20B. When she joined Facebook, it had ~$150M annual revenue; it now has $3.7B annual revenue and growing.

Many other executives and senior managers came to Facebook with experience from other major technology companies in addition to Google, including, LinkedIn, Yahoo, Mozilla, Friendfeed, Ebay, MySpace, Amazon, etc. Note that most of the companies were founded within the past 20 years. Also note that most of the companies are local to Facebook.

The absence of non-compete agreements also figure prominently in hiring key executives as well.

“Hire people who are better than you are, then leave them to get on with it. Look for people who will aim for the remarkable, who will not settle for the routine.” – David Ogilvy

“If each of us hires people who are smaller than we are, we shall become a company of dwarfs. But if each of us hires people who are bigger than we are, we shall become a company of giants.” – David Ogilvy [30]

Next Steps.

The primary enablers discussed above are not necessarily the only conditions that factor into developing a major technology company. For example, sometimes access to capital or co-location with customers or partners can be important as well; but now, capital is fairly mobile, and location is more globally oriented. Thus, the above enablers can carry more weight in determining the ability to develop the next major technology company.

Of the above enablers:

1. The next Facebook won’t be like Facebook.
2. Serendipity matters a lot.
3. Technological and market inevitability.
4. Founder control matters a lot too.
5. Founder as CEO.
6. A trusted adviser who gets “it” and amplifies “it”.
7. Access to the first (angel) investor.
8. A broad pool of potential employees with relevant skills.
9. Ability to attract a few experienced executive employees.

Items 1,4,5 simply run counter to “the way things are done” traditionally in the Boston technology culture. The ideas and companies that get funded are not like the next Facebook; control is generally taken away from founders; and, an outsider CEO often installed. Since these traditional behaviors obviously have not been working, you’d think that the behavior would change.

Silicon Valley’s culture has its own conventions, and in some respects, may not be that different from Boston’s, but there are plenty of examples of companies not getting funding in Boston that do get funding when they move to Silicon Valley.

Items 7,8,9 expose the significant regional disadvantage for Boston that derives from not having any major technology companies on the scale of Google or Facebook developed in Boston in the past 20 years. There are no angel investors on the scale of employees from PayPal, Google, or Facebook to fund the ideas that are too speculative for traditional investors. There aren’t the Googles from which to hire key employees, and you couldn’t hire them anyway because of non-compete agreements. Not much can be done about missing out on the developments and successes of the past 20 years. However, eliminating non-compete agreements is likely the most obvious and effective corrective action that could be taken to set the stage for the next 20 years.

Nonetheless, all is not lost. Items 2 and 3 offer hope. The Boston area is still a home of prepared minds ready to pursue the next inevitable convergence of new technologies and market opportunities. The question is whether the Boston culture has learned enough from past failure to welcome the opportunity, or whether the Boston culture will continue its failed past myopic irrationality, and thereby, cede the development of the next major to technology company to a more fertile environment. Many regions around the world are looking to provide such fertile environments for innovation…

- – - – -

Postscript.

While I was finishing this writeup, Scott Kirsner published an excellent article briefly comparing Facebook and Brightcove, their histories and IPOs:

“[...]Facebook and Brightcove, evolved very differently, and they’ll have very different IPOs. In 2004, Facebook left Boston for California; Brightcove remained in Cambridge. The growth of the firms says a great deal about the kind of companies the soil supports in Boston, versus what germinates out West…”

“The numerical differences are stark. Brightcove’s 2011 revenue was $63 million, but the company had a net loss of $17 million. Brightcove has 300 employees, and is expected to have a stock market value of about $300 million when it goes public… Allaire held on to 7 percent of the company after numerous funding rounds.

Zuckerberg owns 28 percent of Facebook, which made a $1 billion profit last year on $3.7 billion of revenue. The company has 3,000 employees and could be worth as much as $100 billion.”[31]

Sad, but True. Now, let’s fix it…

- – - – -

Notes and References

1. Facebook 2012-02-01 S-1 General form for registration of securities under the Securities Act of 1933.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000119312512034517/d287954ds1.htm

Response to: Facebook ‘Shock’ Has Boston Firms Searching for Next Zuckerberg.[1]

Anyone, who is truly serious about “searching” for the next Facebook in the greater Boston area, first has to be serious about getting rid of non-compete agreements in Massachusetts. Not doing so, is to ignore the data and simply to repeat the same mistakes.

The data shows that no companies of any scale have been built in the past 20 years in the restrictive immobile jobs environment that is the result of how non-competes are written, misused, and adjudicated in Massachusetts. Under those conditions, it is not surprising that the pie is getting smaller. Even if the next Facebook was found, the company still couldn’t be built in the environment of non-competes.

During Facebook’s critical growth period, it was able to hire experienced key employees from Google and other Silicon Valley technology companies, without having to consider whether there was a non-compete issue. Though Google lost some employees to Facebook, Google also thrived during the same period. And, it can be argued that Google’s efforts in social media are brought more into focus with a strong Facebook as a competitor.[2]

There are other issues in the Boston innovation culture, but eliminating non-competes would produce a major positive shift in the culture, and would set the stage for addressing the other issues as well. The innovation culture that will result from eliminating non-compete agreements will produce promising scalable companies.

Notes and References

1. Facebook ‘Shock’ Has Boston Firms Searching for Next Zuckerberg. Laura Keeley. Bloomberg. 2011.07.07.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-07/facebook-departure-prompts-boston-venture-capital-firms-to-return-to-city.html

2. For more information on Facebook’s growth, see:
http://www.empiricalreality.com/2011/03/16/the-absence-of-non-competes-fosters-innovation-and-growth-addendum/

3. In the making: A revolution to rid Massachusetts of noncompete agreements. Scott Kirsner. The Boston Globe. 2011.07.07, 2011.07.03.
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/innoeco/2011/07/needed_a_revolution_to_rid_mas.html
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2011/07/03/noncompete_clauses_stifling_to_creativity_in_mass/

The charts and data below update the previous analysis of S&P-1500 Technology Company Founding Dates. Data is shown for all 7 S&P Industry Sectors across the S&P-1500 Companies located in the 12 major CSAs. This uses the same data set as used in the previous several posts, based on the S&P-1500 as of close of business on Friday May 6 2011. See the Overview for further background.

Summary Observations:

In the S&P Natural Resources Sector, the Houston CSA clearly dominates.

Technology Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 1a plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Technology Sector Companies located in the 12 major CSAs.

Each line represents a CSA. A square marker on the line represents the founding of a company. The x axis is the year the company was founded. The y axis is the cumulative number of companies founded in the corresponding CSA. The legend lists the CSAs with abbreviated names, their local airport or train station code; the CSAs are listed in decreasing order of cumulative number of companies founded, corresponding to the end point of each line. The color assigned to each CSA is consistent across all charts below to more easily enable comparisons. Selecting the chart will provide a full size view of the chart. A line at 1991 delineates companies founded before and since 1991.

As before, the San Jose CSA dominates the Technology Sector by a wide margin; the San Jose CSA includes the greater San Francisco metropolitan area.

Chart 1a.
Click on chart to see full size.

Chart 1b also plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Technology Sector Companies as above, but changes the scale of the y-axis to better show the relationship of CSAs other than the San Jose CSA.

Since 1991, the New York CSA created 10 companies in the S&P technology sector; the Boston CSA created 2 companies; the Los Angeles CSA created 7; the Washington DC CSA and the Seattle CSA each created 6 companies.

Compared to the Boston and San Jose CSAs, which have roughly equal total population, the New York CSA has roughly 3 times the population; the Los Angeles CSA has ~2.4 times the population; Washington DC DCA has ~1.1 times the population; and the Seattle CSA ~0.55 times the population.

Thus, compared to the Boston CSA, since 1991, and normalizing for population size, the New York and Los Angeles CSAs, each created S&P Technology Sector companies at a slightly greater rate; the Washington DC CSA, at more than twice the rate; and the Seattle CSA, at more than 5 times the rate.

Chart 1b.
Click on chart to see full size.

Health Care Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 2 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Health Care Sector Companies located in the 9 major CSAs having companies founded since 1991. The remaining 3 CSAs had no Health Care companies founded since 1991. Here and in following charts for the respective S&P Sectors, only CSAs having companies founded since 1991 are shown in the charts.

The New York CSA has the largest number of S&P-1500 Health Care Sector companies overall at 22, but only 1 was founded since 1991. The Boston CSA and the San Jose CSA each have 15 companies overall. The Boston CSA has 2 companies founded since 1991, whereas the San Jose CSA has 4, and the Los Angeles and the Washington DC CSAs each have 3.

Chart 2.
Click on chart to see full size.

Consumer Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 3 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Consumer Sector Companies located in the 7 major CSAs having companies founded since 1991. A chart line for the Boston CSA is also shown, though the most recently founded company was in 1985 (Staples).

The New York CSA comparatively has significantly more S&P-1500 Consumer Sector companies overall at 22, but only 1 was founded since 1991. The Los Angeles CSA has 7 companies founded since 1991, more than any other CSA. The Chicago CSA has 3 companies founded since 1991.

Chart 3.
Click on chart to see full size.

Cyclical Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 4 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Cyclical Sector Companies located in the 8 of 12 CSAs having companies founded since 1991. In addition, the Houston CSA is also shown.

The New York CSA has both the largest number overall of companies in the Cyclical Sector at 30 and the largest number of companies founded since 1991 in the Sector at 7. Relative to the size of the population, the Minneapolis, Atlanta and Chicago CSAs also are well represented in the S&P-1500 Cyclical Sector and in companies founded since 1991.

The Cyclical Sector is less concentrated in the 12 CSAs relative to the concentration of companies in the Technology, Health Care, and Consumer Sectors. Half of Cyclical Sector companies are located outside of the 12 CSAs. The Cleveland and Milwaukee CSAs each have a significant concentration of Cyclical Sector companies, roughly on par with Minneapolis, and probably should be shown in the chart.

Chart 4.

Click on chart to see full size.

Financial Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 5 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Financial Sector Companies located in the 9 major CSAs having companies founded since 1991.

Unsurprisingly, the New York CSA has the largest concentration of Financial Sector companies. The Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC CSAs are also well represented in both total number of companies and companies founded since 1991.

Chart 5.
Click on chart to see full size.

Natural Resources Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 6 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Natural Resources Sector Companies located in the 5 major CSAs having companies founded since 1991. The Houston CSA is also shown.

Unsurprisingly, the Houston CSA with its concentration of oil industry companies has the largest number of Natural Resources Sector companies.

Chart 6.

Click on chart to see full size.

Utilities Sector Company Founding Dates

Chart 7 plots the founding dates for the S&P-1500 Utilities Sector Companies located in the 5 major CSAs having companies founded since 1991. Each CSA has 1 company founded since 1991

The Utilities Sector is the smallest of the 7 Sectors by market capitalization, and even relative to its size has smallest number of companies founded since 1991.

Chart 7.
Click on chart to see full size.

Notes and References

See the overview of this series for Notes and References.

Utilities Sector Companies included in the S&P-1500, as of close of business on May 6 2011, are described below. See S&P 1500 Sectors and Companies for an overview of this series of posts.

The first group of tables show summary information for the Utilities Sector companies across 12 major CSAs and other areas. The tables are followed by interactive maps for each of the 12 CSAs showing company locations. Select here to go to the location maps.

Table 1 shows summary information for Utilities Sector Companies across the major CSAs and also for the Utilities Sector companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the total number of companies in the Sector; the number of companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total market capitalization of companies in the Sector; the market capitalization for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total revenue of companies in the Sector; the revenue for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total number of employees world-wide of companies in the Sector; the number of employees world-wide for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991.

Table 1.

Table 2 shows company average information for Utilities Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs and also for the companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the average market capitalization per company in the Sector; the average market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the average revenue per company in the Sector; the average revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; the average number of employees world-wide per company in the Sector; the average number of employees world-wide per company for the companies founded since 1991. The first 2 columns showing number of companies are the same as in Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3 shows per capita information for Utilities Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs. Since the different CSAs have different populations, per capita measures indicate the Sector’s relative contribution and importance to the local economy. Per capita information is not provided for the companies outside of the 12 major CSAs.

Shown for each CSA are: the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector; the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the per capita revenue per company in the Sector; the per capita revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; The columns showing number of companies and number of employees are the same as in Table 1.

Table 3.

S&P-1500 Utilities Sector Company Locations for 12 CSAs

An interactive map is presented for each CSA. The underlying map data is somewhat complicated, and the maps may require a little time to load; sometimes you may need to reload a map by right clicking on the map and selecting “reload this frame” from the popup menu.

The location of each company is shown with a yellow pushpin marker. Selecting the pushpin will popup an information window briefly describing the company: stock symbol, name, address, website, market capitalization, revenue, employeess, etc. You can navigate around the embedded map, but it only shows the companies within the respective CSA.

All of the embedded maps are shown at the same scale, centered on the CSA’s company locations. Occassionally, a company location will be outside of the current view, but you can navigate to it or zoom out to see wider geographic area.

Below the embedded map is a link to a full size map, also centered among the companies in the CSA. The full size map includes all Utilities Sector companies. Thus, you can navigate outside of the CSA, across the US, and beyond to see Utilities Sector companies in other locales.

After the map, the CSA’s Utilities Sector companies are listed in two groups: those founded since 1991, and those founded before 1991. In the lists, selecting the bullet for the list item will take you to a full size map centered on the company location; selecting the stock symbol will take you to the company’s Yahoo!Finance page; selecting the company name will take you to the company’s website.

A map and company lists are also provided for companies that are located outside of the 12 major CSAs. The map shows the entire U.S., and only shows those companies not shown in the other maps.

CS148: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 3 Utilities Sector companies in the Boston CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS488: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There is one Utilities Sector company in the San Jose-SF CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The one company founded prior to 1991 is:

CS408: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 8 Utilities Sector companies in the New York CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 8 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS548: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 5 Utilities Sector companies in the Washington DC CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 5 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS348: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 2 Utilities Sector companies in the Los Angeles CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS206: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 3 Utilities Sector companies in the Dallas CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS500: Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are no Utilities Sector companies in the Seattle CSA.

CS176: Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 6 Utilities Sector companies in the Chicago CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 5 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS122: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 3 Utilities Sector companies in the Atlanta CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS428: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 3 Utilities Sector companies in the Philadelphia CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 3 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS378: Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There is one Utilities Sector company in the Minneapolis CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The one company founded prior to 1991 is:

CS216: Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There is one Utilities Sector company in the Denver CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

None of these companies were founded prior to 1991.

99999: Companies Located Outside of Above CSAs

Select here for a full size map.

There are 51 Utilities Sector companies that are located outside of the above CSAs. The lists below are sorted by state and county (and country), in order to more readily show company location and possible proximities.

The 4 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 47 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

Notes and References

See the overview of this series for Notes and References.

Natural Resources Sector Companies included in the S&P-1500, as of close of business on May 6 2011, are described below. See S&P 1500 Sectors and Companies for an overview of this series of posts.

The first group of tables show summary information for the Natural Resources Sector companies across 12+1 major CSAs and other areas. The Houston CSA is shown separately from “Other” areas below, due to its importance to the Sector. The tables are followed by interactive maps for each of the 12+1 CSAs showing company locations. Select here to go to the location maps.

Table 1 shows summary information for Natural Resources Sector Companies across the major CSAs and also for the Natural Resources Sector companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the total number of companies in the Sector; the number of companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total market capitalization of companies in the Sector; the market capitalization for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total revenue of companies in the Sector; the revenue for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total number of employees world-wide of companies in the Sector; the number of employees world-wide for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991.

Table 1.

Unsurprisingly, the Houston CSA with its concentration of oil industry companies has the largest number of Natural Resources Sector companies.

Table 2 shows company average information for Natural Resources Sector Companies across 12+1 major CSAs and also for the companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the average market capitalization per company in the Sector; the average market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the average revenue per company in the Sector; the average revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; the average number of employees world-wide per company in the Sector; the average number of employees world-wide per company for the companies founded since 1991. The first 2 columns showing number of companies are the same as in Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3 shows per capita information for Natural Resources Sector Companies across 12+1 major CSAs. Since the different CSAs have different populations, per capita measures indicate the Sector’s relative contribution and importance to the local economy. Per capita information is not provided for the companies outside of the 12 major CSAs.

Shown for each CSA are: the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector; the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the per capita revenue per company in the Sector; the per capita revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; The columns showing number of companies and number of employees are the same as in Table 1.

Table 3.

S&P-1500 Natural Resources Sector Company Locations for 12+1 CSAs

An interactive map is presented for each CSA. The underlying map data is somewhat complicated, and the maps may require a little time to load; sometimes you may need to reload a map by right clicking on the map and selecting “reload this frame” from the popup menu.

The location of each company is shown with a pink pushpin marker. Selecting the pushpin will popup an information window briefly describing the company: stock symbol, name, address, website, market capitalization, revenue, employeess, etc. You can navigate around the embedded map, but it only shows the companies within the respective CSA.

All of the embedded maps are shown at the same scale, centered on the CSA’s company locations. Occassionally, a company location will be outside of the current view, but you can navigate to it or zoom out to see wider geographic area.

Below the embedded map is a link to a full size map, also centered among the companies in the CSA. The full size map includes all Natural Resources Sector companies. Thus, you can navigate outside of the CSA, across the US, and beyond to see Natural Resources Sector companies in other locales.

After the map, the CSA’s Natural Resources Sector companies are listed in two groups: those founded since 1991, and those founded before 1991. In the lists, selecting the bullet for the list item will take you to a full size map centered on the company location; selecting the stock symbol will take you to the company’s Yahoo!Finance page; selecting the company name will take you to the company’s website.

A map and company lists are also provided for companies that are located outside of the 12+1 major CSAs. The map shows the entire U.S., and only shows those companies not shown in the other maps.

CS148: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are no Natural Resources Sector companies in the Boston CSA.

CS488: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There is one Natural Resources Sector company in the San Jose-SF CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The one company founded prior to 1991 is:

CS408: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 4 Natural Resources Sector companies in the New York CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 4 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS548: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are no Natural Resources Sector companies in the Washington DC CSA.

CS348: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 2 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Los Angeles CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS206: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 10 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Dallas CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 8 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS500: Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are no Natural Resources Sector companies in the Seattle CSA.

CS176: Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 4 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Chicago CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS122: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 3 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Atlanta CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The one company founded prior to 1991 is:

CS428: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 2 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Philadelphia CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS378: Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There is one Natural Resources Sector company in the Minneapolis CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

None of these companies were founded prior to 1991.

CS216: Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 8 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Denver CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 6 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS288: Houston-Baytown-Huntsville, TX CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 37 Natural Resources Sector companies in the Houston CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 35 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

99999: Companies Located Outside of Above CSAs

Select here for a full size map.

There are 51 Natural Resources Sector companies that are located outside of the above CSAs. The lists below are sorted by state and county (and country), in order to more readily show company location and possible proximities.

The 7 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 44 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

Notes and References

See the overview of this series for Notes and References.

Updated 2011.05.20 to show the Houston CSA separately from the “Other” category because of its large concentration of Natural Resources Sector companies.

Financial Sector Companies included in the S&P-1500, as of close of business on May 6 2011, are described below. See S&P 1500 Sectors and Companies for an overview of this series of posts.

The first group of tables show summary information for the Financial Sector companies across 12 major CSAs and other areas. The tables are followed by interactive maps for each of the 12 CSAs showing company locations. Select here to go to the location maps.

Table 1 shows summary information for Financial Sector Companies across the major CSAs and also for the Financial Sector companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the total number of companies in the Sector; the number of companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total market capitalization of companies in the Sector; the market capitalization for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total revenue of companies in the Sector; the revenue for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total number of employees world-wide of companies in the Sector; the number of employees world-wide for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991.

Table 1.

Unsurprisingly, the New York CSA has the largest concentration of Financial Sector companies. The Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC CSAs are also well represented in both total number of companies and companies founded since 1991.

Table 2 shows company average information for Financial Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs and also for the companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the average market capitalization per company in the Sector; the average market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the average revenue per company in the Sector; the average revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; the average number of employees world-wide per company in the Sector; the average number of employees world-wide per company for the companies founded since 1991. The first 2 columns showing number of companies are the same as in Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3 shows per capita information for Financial Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs. Since the different CSAs have different populations, per capita measures indicate the Sector’s relative contribution and importance to the local economy. Per capita information is not provided for the companies outside of the 12 major CSAs.

Shown for each CSA are: the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector; the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the per capita revenue per company in the Sector; the per capita revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; The columns showing number of companies and number of employees are the same as in Table 1.

Table 3.

S&P-1500 Financial Sector Company Locations for 12 CSAs

An interactive map is presented for each CSA. The underlying map data is somewhat complicated, and the maps may require a little time to load; sometimes you may need to reload a map by right clicking on the map and selecting “reload this frame” from the popup menu.

The location of each company is shown with a red pushpin marker. Selecting the pushpin will popup an information window briefly describing the company: stock symbol, name, address, website, market capitalization, revenue, employeess, etc. You can navigate around the embedded map, but it only shows the companies within the respective CSA.

All of the embedded maps are shown at the same scale, centered on the CSA’s company locations. Occassionally, a company location will be outside of the current view, but you can navigate to it or zoom out to see wider geographic area.

Below the embedded map is a link to a full size map, also centered among the companies in the CSA. The full size map includes all Financial Sector companies. Thus, you can navigate outside of the CSA, across the US, and beyond to see Financial Sector companies in other locales.

After the map, the CSA’s Financial Sector companies are listed in two groups: those founded since 1991, and those founded before 1991. In the lists, selecting the bullet for the list item will take you to a full size map centered on the company location; selecting the stock symbol will take you to the company’s Yahoo!Finance page; selecting the company name will take you to the company’s website.

A map and company lists are also provided for companies that are located outside of the 12 major CSAs. The map shows the entire U.S., and only shows those companies not shown in the other maps.

CS148: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 12 Financial Sector companies in the Boston CSA.

The 3 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 9 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS488: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 9 Financial Sector companies in the San Jose-SF CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 8 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS408: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 54 Financial Sector companies in the New York CSA.

The 8 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 46 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS548: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 12 Financial Sector companies in the Washington DC CSA.

The 3 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 9 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS348: Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 18 Financial Sector companies in the Los Angeles CSA.

The 3 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 15 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS206: Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 6 Financial Sector companies in the Dallas CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 5 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS500: Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 4 Financial Sector companies in the Seattle CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 4 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS176: Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 17 Financial Sector companies in the Chicago CSA.

The 4 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 13 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS122: Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 5 Financial Sector companies in the Atlanta CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 4 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS428: Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 8 Financial Sector companies in the Philadelphia CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 8 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS378: Minneapolis-St. Paul-St. Cloud, MN-WI CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 4 Financial Sector companies in the Minneapolis CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 4 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS216: Denver-Aurora-Boulder, CO CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 4 Financial Sector companies in the Denver CSA.

The 2 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 2 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

99999: Companies Located Outside of Above CSAs

Select here for a full size map.

There are 111 Financial Sector companies that are located outside of the above CSAs. The lists below are sorted by state and county (and country), in order to more readily show company location and possible proximities.

The 14 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 97 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

Notes and References

See the overview of this series for Notes and References.

Cyclical Sector Companies included in the S&P-1500, as of close of business on May 6 2011, are described below. See S&P 1500 Sectors and Companies for an overview of this series of posts.

The first group of tables show summary information for the Cyclical Sector companies across 12 major CSAs and other areas. The tables are followed by interactive maps for each of the 12 CSAs showing company locations. Select here to go to the location maps.

Table 1 shows summary information for Cyclical Sector Companies across the major CSAs and also for the Cyclical Sector companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the total number of companies in the Sector; the number of companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total market capitalization of companies in the Sector; the market capitalization for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total revenue of companies in the Sector; the revenue for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991; the total number of employees world-wide of companies in the Sector; the number of employees world-wide for the companies in the Sector that were founded since 1991.

Table 1.

Table 2 shows company average information for Cyclical Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs and also for the companies that are located outside of the listed CSAs (Other).

Shown for each CSA are: the average market capitalization per company in the Sector; the average market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the average revenue per company in the Sector; the average revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; the average number of employees world-wide per company in the Sector; the average number of employees world-wide per company for the companies founded since 1991. The first 2 columns showing number of companies are the same as in Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3 shows per capita information for Cyclical Sector Companies across 12 major CSAs. Since the different CSAs have different populations, per capita measures indicate the Sector’s relative contribution and importance to the local economy. Per capita information is not provided for the companies outside of the 12 major CSAs.

Shown for each CSA are: the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector; the per capita market capitalization per company in the Sector for companies founded since 1991; the per capita revenue per company in the Sector; the per capita revenue per company for the companies founded since 1991; The columns showing number of companies and number of employees are the same as in Table 1.

Table 3.

S&P-1500 Cyclical Sector Company Locations for 12 CSAs

An interactive map is presented for each CSA. The underlying map data is somewhat complicated, and the maps may require a little time to load; sometimes you may need to reload a map by right clicking on the map and selecting “reload this frame” from the popup menu.

The location of each company is shown with a green pushpin marker. Selecting the pushpin will popup an information window briefly describing the company: stock symbol, name, address, website, market capitalization, revenue, employeess, etc. You can navigate around the embedded map, but it only shows the companies within the respective CSA.

All of the embedded maps are shown at the same scale, centered on the CSA’s company locations. Occassionally, a company location will be outside of the current view, but you can navigate to it or zoom out to see wider geographic area.

Below the embedded map is a link to a full size map, also centered among the companies in the CSA. The full size map includes all Cyclical Sector companies. Thus, you can navigate outside of the CSA, across the US, and beyond to see Cyclical Sector companies in other locales.

After the map, the CSA’s Cyclical Sector companies are listed in two groups: those founded since 1991, and those founded before 1991. In the lists, selecting the bullet for the list item will take you to a full size map centered on the company location; selecting the stock symbol will take you to the company’s Yahoo!Finance page; selecting the company name will take you to the company’s website.

A map and company lists are also provided for companies that are located outside of the 12 major CSAs. The map shows the entire U.S., and only shows those companies not shown in the other maps.

CS148: Boston-Worcester-Manchester, MA-RI-NH CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 11 Cyclical Sector companies in the Boston CSA.

The one company founded since 1991 is:

The 10 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS488: San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 6 Cyclical Sector companies in the San Jose-SF CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 6 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS408: New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 30 Cyclical Sector companies in the New York CSA.

The 7 companies founded since 1991 are:

The 23 companies founded prior to 1991 are:

CS548: Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CSA

Select here for a full size map.

There are 6 Cyclical Sector companies in the Washington DC CSA.

None of these companies were founded since 1991.

The 6 companies founded prior to 1991 are: