Why are big companies like Apple or Google not included in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) index?
That is a pretty exclusive club and for the most part they are not interested in highly volatile companies like Apple and Google. Sure, IBM is part of the DJIA, but that is about as stalwart as you can get these days. The typical profile for a DJIA stock would be one that pays fairly predictable dividends, has been around since money was invented, and are not going anywhere unless the apocalypse really happens this year. In summary, DJIA is the boring reliable company index. Traditionally, the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) was only comprised of stocks that were traded on the New York Stock exchange.  Neither Apple (AAPL) nor Google (GOOG) are traded on the New York Stock Exchange but instead are traded on NASDAQ.  All NASDAQ tickers are four characters long and all NYSE tickers are only three or less characters long (e.g. IBM or T (AT&T)). However in 1999, MSFT became the first NASDAQ stock to be included in the DJIA.  Given that AAPL now has the largest market capitalization of any company in U.S. history, I think it is likely if they retain that position, that they would eventually be let into the DOW club too, perhaps, ironically, even supplanting Microsoft. "In addition to the answers provided above, the weight the Dow uses to determine the index is not the market capitalization of the company involved. That means that companies like Google and Apple with very high share prices and no particular inclination to split could adversely effect the Dow, turning it into essentially the ""Apple and Google and then some other companies"" Industrial Average. The highest share price Dow company right now, IIRC, is IBM. Both Google and Apple would have three times the influence on the Index as IBM does now." "The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) is a Price-weighted index.  That means that the index is calculated by adding up the prices of the constituent stocks and dividing by a constant, the ""Dow divisor"".  (The value of the Dow divisor is adjusted from time to time to maintain continuity when there are splits or changes in the roster.)  This has the curious effect of giving a member of the index influence proportional to its share price.  That is, if a stock costing $100 per share goes up by 1%, that will change the index by 10 times as much as if a stock costing $10 per share goes up by the same 1%. Now look at the price of Google.  It's currently trading at just a whisker under $700 per share.  Most of the other stocks in the index trade somewhere between $30 and $150, so if Google were included in the index it would contribute between 5 and 20 times the weight of any other stock in the index.  That means that relatively small blips in Google's price would completely dominate the index on any given day.  Until June of 2014, Apple was in the same boat, with its stock trading at about $700 per share.  At that time, Apple split its stock 7:1, and after that its stock price was a little under $100 per share.  So, post-split Apple might be a candidate to be included in the Dow the next time they change up the components of the index.  Since the Dow is fixed at 30 stocks, and since they try to keep a balance between different sectors, this probably wouldn't happen until they drop another technology company from the lineup for some reason.  (Correction: Apple is in the DJIA and has been for a little over a year now.  Mea culpa.) The Dow's price-weighting is unusual as stock indices go.  Most indices are weighted by market capitalization.  That means the influence of a single company is proportional to its total value.  This causes large companies like Apple to have a lot of influence on those indices, but since market capitalization isn't as arbitrary as stock price, most people see that as ok.  Also, notice that I said ""company"" and not ""stock"".  When a company has multiple classes of share (as Google does), market-cap-weighted indices include all of the share classes, while the Dow has no provision for such situations, which is another, albeit less important, reason why Google isn't in the Dow.  (Keep this in mind the next time someone offers you a bar bet on how many stocks are in the S&P 500.  The answer is (currently) 505!) Finally, you might be wondering why the Dow uses such an odd weighting in its calculations.  The answer is that the Dow averages go back to 1896, when Charles Dow used to calculate the averages by hand.  If your only tools are a pencil and paper, then a price-weighted index with only 30 stocks in it is a lot easier to calculate than a market-cap-weighted index with hundreds of constituents. About the Dow Jones Averages. Dow constituents and prices Apple's stock price chart. The split in 2014 is marked.  (Note that prices before the split are retroactively adjusted to show a continuous curve.)"
"I don't understand what the D, to the right of APPLE INC, means. This means the graph below is for the ""D"". There is selection at top and you can change this to Minutes [5,20,60,etc], Day, Week [W], Month [M] I'm not understanding how it can say BATS when in actuality AAPL is listed on the NASDAQ. Do all exchanges have info on every stock even from other exchanges and just give them to end-users at a delayed rate? BATS is an exchange. A stock can be listed on multiple exchange. I am not sure if AAPL is also listed on BATS. However looks like BATS has agreement with major stock exchanges to trade their data and supplies this to trading.com" Who offered who what?  You're pretending industries are fungible. They aren't. Apple and Microsoft are not related to the MIC or big oil. Energy is a demonstrated input in every other sector in the world. Why not include (for example) agriculture in your math? It's 100% dependent on energy costs. You're isolating individual industries as if they exist outside of the greater supply/manufacturing chain and pretending that they can be swapped for one another based on the single metric of market size. Apples and oranges. Except in this case the world runs on oranges. I think there is a huge difference to what Google does with intangible assets as compared to a company such as Facebook. Facebook floated and as people thought it was highly overvalued the share price plummeted. Google on the other hand has many years of relatively stable growth and share price in a market that is generally pretty well informed.  So I disagree. This is kind of a silly article and it mostly misses the point.  First, Google and others essentially have in-house investment banking departments that are vetting, valuing, negotiating, and sealing these deals. These M&amp;A guys are mostly former bankers.   So while they may not be using investment banks, they are certainly using bankers. Google has $60B in cash and does dozens and dozens of acquisitions each year. It's not surprising they find it appealing to move the banking function in-house.   Second, certain tech companies like Google and Facebook and Zynga have unique corporate structures where the CEO / founders retain majority voting control of their companies.   This means guys like Zuckerberg, Page, Brin, Pincus et al control over 50% of all voting shares and they cannot be ousted by the board of directors, nor can they be overruled on any matter via a proxy battle. This gives these founders far reaching control over M&amp;A and thus you see deals like the $19B cash + stock WhatsApp acquisition (and Instagram); both of these deals were reportedly driven by Zuckerberg himself who not only initiated and vetted the deals, but determined the price.   Most CEOs do not have this kind of latitude.   Third, within Silicon Valley, the network is very small and tight and everybody knows each other. The CEOs, founders, VCs, etc...they all know each other and they know who to call when they are looking to acquire.  It's not like Zuck needs a banker to tell him to check out Snapchat... "An index is just a mathematical calculation based on stock prices. Anyone can create such a calculation and (given a little effort) publish it based on publicly available data. The question of ""open source"" is simply whether or not the calculator chooses to publish the calculation used. Given how easy an index is to create, the issue is not the ""open source"" nature or otherwise, but its credibility and usefulness." "Sure, it doesn't, but realistically they can't/shouldn't do anything about it in their index funds, because then they're just another stock picker, trying to gauge which companies are going to do best.  Their funds not all being indexes is what I was getting at with my original question. How much leeway do they have in their definitions of other funds? IE, if they had a dividend fund that included all large cap dividend paying stocks above 3% yield, they couldn't take out Shell just because of climate risk without fundamentally changing what the fund is. But if it's just ""income fund"" then they can do whatever in that space." &gt;I distinctly remember in dot-com crash it was only Internet stocks that were clearly overvalued.  You remember someone had this opinion. Did you ever check the facts?  The [S&amp;P 500](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=%5EGSPC+Basic+Chart&amp;t=my) is the average of the 500 largest corporations of the USA, and it grew steadily through the 1990s, falling after 2000.  Now look at [Apple](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AAPL+Basic+Chart&amp;t=my) for an example of a tech stock that didn't follow that trend. I would think there would be heavy overlap between companies that do well and market cap. You're not going to get to largest market cap without being well managed, or at least in the top percentile. After all, in a normal distribution, the badly managed firms go out of business or never get large. If a stock that makes up a big part of the Dow Jones Industrial   Average decided to issue a huge number of additional shares, that will   make the index go up. At least this is what should happen, since an   index is basically a sum of the market cap of the contributing   companies. No, indices can have various weightings. The DJIA is a price-weighted index not market-cap weighted. An alternative weighting besides market-cap and price is equal weighting. From Dow Jones: Dow Jones Industrial Average™. Introduced in May 1896, the index, also   referred to as The Dow®, is a price-weighted measure of 30 U.S.   blue-chip companies. Thus, I can wonder what in the new shares makes the index go up? If a stock is split, the Dow divisor is adjusted as one could easily see how the current Dow value isn't equal to the sum or the share prices of the members of the index. In other cases, there may be a dilution of earnings but that doesn't necessarily affect the stock price directly as there may be options exercised or secondary offerings made. SO if the index, goes up, will the ETF DIA also go up automatically   although no additional buying has happened in the ETF itself? If the index rises and the ETF doesn't proportionally, then there is an arbitrage opportunity for someone to buy the DIA shares that can be redeemed for the underlying stocks that are worth more in this case. Look at the Creation and Redemption Unit process that exists for ETFs. Price, whether related to a stock or ETF, has little to do with anything.  The fund or company has a total value and the value is distributed among the number of units or shares.   Vanguard's S&P ETF has a unit price of $196 and Schwab's S&P mutual fund has a unit price of $35, it's essentially just a matter of the fund's total assets divided by number of units outstanding. Vanguard's VOO has assets of about $250 billion and Schwab's SWPPX has assets of about $25 billion. Additionally, Apple has a share price of $100, Google has a share price of $800, that doesn't mean Google is more valuable than Apple.  Apple's market capitalization is about $630 billion while Google's is about $560 billion.  Or on the extreme a single share of Berkshire's Class A stock is $216,000, and Berkshire's market cap is just $360 billion.   It's all just a matter of value divided by shares/units. As of this moment the DOW 30 is up 6.92% Year-to-date. Of the 30 stocks in the index  6 are in negative territory for the year. And of the 6 in negative territory 3 are farther below 0 than the average is above 0. The investors in those 3 stocks (Boeing, Goldman Sachs and Nike) would look at this year so far as a disaster. Individual stocks can move in opposite directions from the index. "A company's valuation includes its assets, in addition to projected earnings. Aside from the obvious issue that ""projected earnings"" can be wildly inaccurate or speculative (as in the case of startups and fast-moving industries like technology), a company's assets are not necessarily tied to the market the company is in. For the sake of illustration, say the government were to ban fast food tomorrow, and the market for that were to go all the way to zero.  McDonald's would still have almost 30 billion dollars worth of real estate holdings that would surely make the company worth something, even though it would have to stop selling its products. Similarly, Apple is sitting on approximately $200 billion dollars in cash and securities in overseas subsidiaries.  Even if they never make another cent selling iPhones and such, the company is still worth a lot because of those holdings. ""Corporate raiders"" back in the 70's and 80's made massive personal fortunes exploiting this disconnect in undervalued companies that had more assets than their market cap, by getting enough ownership to liquidate the company's assets.  Oliver Stone even made a movie about the phenomenon. So yes, it's certainly possible for a company to be worth more than the size of the market for its products." "Because Google recently decided that they will not provide Maps for free to partners who use the data, and Apple was the largest Maps user.   Cutting the Apple created Maps app that used Google data and forcing Google to release their own app basically means Google goes from cashing checks from Apple to having to create and support an app all on their own dime.  Also, do you want to guess why Apple Maps w/ Google data didn't have features like Turn by Turn Navigation? If you guessed ""Google didn't allow Apple to have it"", you guess right.   Apple had to do it not only to try and reach feature parity, but to prevent themselves from having to pay their biggest competitor to use Maps data." Apparent data-feed issues coming out of NASDAQ in the after hours market. Look at MSFT, AMZN, AAPL, heck even Sears.      Funny thing though, is that you see traces of irregular prices during the active session around 10:20am on stocks like GOOG. "One part of the equation that I don't think you are considering is the loss in value of the car.  What will this 30K car be worth in 84 months or even 60 months?  This is dependent upon condition, but probably in the neighborhood of $8 to $10K.   If one is comfortable with that level of financial loss, I doubt they are concerned with the investment value of 27K over the loan of 30K @.9%. I also think it sets a bad precedent.  Many, and I used to be among them, consider a car payment a necessary evil.  Once you have one, it is a difficult habit to break.  Psychologically you feel richer when you drive a paid for car.  Will that advantage of positive thinking lead to higher earnings?  Its possible. The old testament book of proverbs gives many sound words of advice.  And you probably know this but it says:  ""...the borrower is slave to the lender"".  In my own experience, I feel there is a transformation that is beyond physical to being debt free."