Jump to content
HAIF - Houston's original social media

Recommended Posts

When Subdude closed the thread "Big D Offers Little Help", I couldnt help but burst out laughing. The bickering here is nothing short of hysterical, and it's real, mind you. It's more entertainment than soap operas and sitcoms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...

Yeah, even the Dallas Morning News gets into the constant comparisons between Houston and Dallas... like everyone else.

Dallas-Fort Worth rides rising tide

Region wins state bragging rights over Houston area

12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, April 17, 2007

By PAUL FOUTCH / The Dallas Morning News

pfoutch@dallasnews.com

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dw...n1.365b84e.html

The urge to rank everything is our No. 1 pet peeve, but for those keeping score, Wal-Mart Stores Inc. dethroned Exxon Mobil Corp. atop the Fortune 500 list released Monday, and Dallas-Fort Worth topped the Houston area in the number of companies listed.

D-FW placed 24 companies in the Fortune 500, the fourth-highest among U.S. metro areas, displacing Houston, the perennial No. 4, which came in with 23.

D-FW added two companies to Fortune magazine's annual ranking of the nation's largest companies

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as "Houston Metro". It's "Greater Houston".

Houston Metro is a Yankeefied term introduced by Carpetbaggers.

I think the D/FW Metroplex needs to rebrand itself and stick with one term.

The whole state of TX needs to be Yankeefied! > :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such thing as "Houston Metro". It's "Greater Houston".

Houston Metro is a Yankeefied term introduced by Carpetbaggers.

I think the D/FW Metroplex needs to rebrand itself and stick with one term.

:wacko: Oh brother......here we go again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, which is better?

Is it better to have ONE more Fortune 500 company spread out amongst Dallas (11), Fort Worth (5), Irving (4), Plano (3), and Grapevine (1) or is better for Houston to have 22 located in the city?

I'll take the healthier central city any time.

Additionally, here's how it breaks down for Fortune 1000 companies;

Greater Houston area with 51 (48 in the city of Houston and one each in The Woodlands, Galveston, and Angelton).

Metroplex area with 46 (21 in Dallas, 8 in Irving, 7 in Fort Worth, 5 in Plano, and 1 each in North Richland Hills, Grapevine, Richardson, McKinney, and Southlake).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I lived in Addison after college and I was amazed at the competition between the cities. This was during the Telecom boom of the 90s and Dallas kept losing out to Richardson.

Plano is another example with Frito Lay and JC Penny.

And now Grapevine.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So, which is better?

Is it better to have ONE more Fortune 500 company spread out amongst Dallas (11), Fort Worth (5), Irving (4), Plano (3), and Grapevine (1) or is better for Houston to have 22 located in the city?

I'll take the healthier central city any time.

Additionally, here's how it breaks down for Fortune 1000 companies;

Greater Houston area with 51 (48 in the city of Houston and one each in The Woodlands, Galveston, and Angelton).

Metroplex area with 46 (21 in Dallas, 8 in Irving, 7 in Fort Worth, 5 in Plano, and 1 each in North Richland Hills, Grapevine, Richardson, McKinney, and Southlake).

Houston is A LOT better for having 22 in the one city... not spread out over a portion of the state! :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before i piss off the mods, i just want to say that this is not a Houston VS Dallas thing. I'm happy for DFW but i agree, it is better to have them located in one city. Dallas appears to be a stronger metro but Houston ddefinitely has a stronger city.

On the other hand, as much as i keep hearing about Dallas, Plano, Irving, Grapevine, Fort Worth competing with eachother, it makes me question how strong and unified their "metro" really is .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before i piss off the mods, i just want to say that this is not a Houston VS Dallas thing. I'm happy for DFW but i agree, it is better to have them located in one city. Dallas appears to be a stronger metro but Houston ddefinitely has a stronger city.

On the other hand, as much as i keep hearing about Dallas, Plano, Irving, Grapevine, Fort Worth competing with eachother, it makes me question how strong and unified their "metro" really is .

It really dosent matter..........it's all in the Dallas area. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is incredibly stupid on the Dallas Morning News' part. The story is the 50-60 Fortune 500 companies in Texas. What a coup! If not for the petty one-upmanship, a unified Texas would be an even greater economic force to be reckoned with. The reason is -- a lot of people outside this region don't think of Texas in terms of Houston or Dallas. They just think of Texas. When attracting large corporate relocations, which sounds better -- "We're number four and five!"? Or, "We're number one! -- take your pick of two top-10 metropolitan areas, each with a big-business-friendly atmosphere and amenities."

The Dallas "newspaper" blows for having this take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is incredibly stupid on the Dallas Morning News' part. The story is the 50-60 Fortune 500 companies in Texas. What a coup! If not for the petty one-upmanship, a unified Texas would be an even greater economic force to be reckoned with. The reason is -- a lot of people outside this region don't think of Texas in terms of Houston or Dallas. They just think of Texas. When attracting large corporate relocations, which sounds better -- "We're number four and five!"? Or, "We're number one! -- take your pick of two top-10 metropolitan areas, each with a big-business-friendly atmosphere and amenities."

The Dallas "newspaper" blows for having this take.

I disagree simply because they(Dallas Area & Houston Area) are looked at seperately.A company can only move to either or.......Not both, or the whole state for that matter. :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know how much either city subsidizes these big companies. I still remember when Dallas dangled several hundred million dollars in front of Boeing, who nonetheless still opted to place their HQ in Chicago.

Edited by N Judah
Link to post
Share on other sites
Not to add any more fuel to the fire, but if you throw in soon-to-be Dallas-based Comerica (#487) the DFW count is 25

Or...

So, which is better?

Is it better to have ONE more Fortune 500 company spread out amongst Dallas (11), Fort Worth (5), Irving (4), Plano (3), and Grapevine (1) or is better for Houston to have 22 located in the city?

I'll take the healthier central city any time.

Additionally, here's how it breaks down for Fortune 1000 companies;

Greater Houston area with 51 (48 in the city of Houston and one each in The Woodlands, Galveston, and Angelton).

Metroplex area with 46 (21 in Dallas, 8 in Irving, 7 in Fort Worth, 5 in Plano, and 1 each in North Richland Hills, Grapevine, Richardson, McKinney, and Southlake).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Off topic: the bacon Ciabatta burger is the only hamburger Jack-In-The-Box makes that I can stand.

On-topic: You'd not only want a large company headquartered in your core city but you'd also like a large number of jobs as well, not just the executive positions but the mid-level positions, too.

Chicago took a number of the high-fallutin' executive jobs when Boeing relocated there but Seattle kept thousands of the day-in and day-out employees. Usually, that's a more tangible component of the city's overall economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ala Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, Tenneco, and a host of other companies that have their big wigs somewhere else but thousands of high paying jobs in Houston.

However, the best thing for Houston about the Fortune 1000?...

15 are located in downtown Houston.

2 more are located just outside of downtown on Allen Parkway.

1 is located in Greenway Plaza.

A total of 20 are Inside the Loop. Another 19 are Inside the Beltway. Another 2 are on the Beltway but just on the other side. That's 41 total companies on or inside the Beltway. That's a good thing!

Link to post
Share on other sites
And if I'm not mistaken, TXU is going private, so the DFW count is back down to 24...

So what? A company can still be listed on the Fortune 500 without being listed on NASDAQ or the NYSE. It's not a list of publicly traded companies. It's a list of companies. TXU will still be a company. Just a private one. The only difference is that you won't be able to buy stock in it.

Edited by SpaceCity
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what? A company can still be listed on the Fortune 500 without being listed on NASDAQ or the NYSE. It's not a list of publicly traded companies. It's a list of companies. TXU will still be a company. Just a private one. The only difference is that you won't be able to buy stock in it.

I stand corrected (somewhat). I'm not sure what the criteria is. There are a lot of privately-held companies (including the two largest, Cargill and Koch) that would rank in the Fortune 500 but do not appear.

Does anybody know how they determine which private companies are included and which are not?

Edit: I found it. "Private companies (including co-ops) that file a 10K with the SEC. Mutual insurers are included because they file with a government agency."

Can anyone make sense of that? Why would a private company file a 10-K and would a private TXU be likely to file 10-Ks?

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites

Companies are selected by amount of revenue and profit.

HCA is a privately held company. They are number 87 on the list.

I think an interesting statistic is where Texas ranks on the overall number of Fortune 500 companies. We're just one Fortune 500 company away from tying for number 1.

New York 57

Texas 56

California 52

Link to post
Share on other sites
Companies are selected by amount of revenue and profit.

HCA is a privately held company. They are number 87 on the list.

Yeah, I know companies are selected and ranked by amount of revenue (profit has nothing to do with it).

And I recognize that there are a FEW non-public companies lists on the Fortune 500. But the majority of the major privately-held companies on the Forbes list of largest private companies are NOT on the Fortune 500 list, including, as I said earlier the two largest, which would both rank very highly in the Fortune 500, based on their revenue.

As I also said above, according to Fortune magazine, they include all companies that file SEC 10-K reports. What I have not been able to determine is why any private companies file 10-K reports. [EDIT: I found it. "many larger private firms sell bonds and other debt securities to the public and thus have to make SEC filings such as the 10-K annual report". So... those are the only privately-held companies that are included in the Fortune 500 rankings. Furthermore, we can now say that IF the privatized TXU sells bonds or other securities to the public (or has such securities outstanding), it will continue to be included in the Fortune 500 rankings. If not. . . then it will no longer be included.

BTW, where did you get the idea HCA is a privately-held company? I just got a quote from Charles Schwab for HCA's stock. . . Apparently it is publicly-traded. (It closed today at $50.97)

Edited by Houston19514
Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, where did you get the idea HCA is a privately-held company? I just got a quote from Charles Schwab for HCA's stock. . . Apparently it is publicly-traded. (It closed today at $50.97)

Shareholders OK deal to take HCA private

South Florida Business Journal - November 16, 2006

Shareholders voted to approve a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of HCA by an investor group.

Expected to close Nov. 17, the deal would privatize Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA (NYSE: HCA), one of the largest health care companies in the United States.

The investor group includes Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity, Dr. Thomas Frist Jr. and HCA management. Frist is the founder of HCA.

Under terms of the agreement, HCA shareholders will receive $51 in cash, without interest, for each share of HCA common stock held.

HCA said a preliminary tally showed 82.42 percent of the company's outstanding shares were voted at a special meeting and of those 72.95 percent voted in favor of adoption of the merger agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Shareholders OK deal to take HCA private

South Florida Business Journal - November 16, 2006

Shareholders voted to approve a merger agreement providing for the acquisition of HCA by an investor group.

Expected to close Nov. 17, the deal would privatize Nashville, Tenn.-based HCA (NYSE: HCA), one of the largest health care companies in the United States.

The investor group includes Bain Capital, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., Merrill Lynch Global Private Equity, Dr. Thomas Frist Jr. and HCA management. Frist is the founder of HCA.

Under terms of the agreement, HCA shareholders will receive $51 in cash, without interest, for each share of HCA common stock held.

HCA said a preliminary tally showed 82.42 percent of the company's outstanding shares were voted at a special meeting and of those 72.95 percent voted in favor of adoption of the merger agreement.

Gotcha. My mistake. The substance of my prior post, however, still stands. The vast majority of privately-held companies are not included in the Fortune 500 rankings. There is a significant possibility that TXU will not be included in the Fortune 500 rankings after it goes private. (And FWIW, there is probably a decent chance that HCA will not be included in the Fortune 500 in the year AFTER it went private, ie, in the 2008 Fortune 500 rankings)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gotcha. My mistake. The substance of my prior post, however, still stands. The vast majority of privately-held companies are not included in the Fortune 500 rankings. There is a significant possibility that TXU will not be included in the Fortune 500 rankings after it goes private. (And FWIW, there is probably a decent chance that HCA will not be included in the Fortune 500 in the year AFTER it went private, ie, in the 2008 Fortune 500 rankings)

:mellow: interesting........................I wonder why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...