
WWRR / Вверх / БАСКЕТБОЛ / ХОККЕЙ / ТЕННИС / ФОРМУЛА 1 / CF / БЕНДИ / ЭКОНОМИКА
Сухую статистику надо НЕ мочить, ее надо РАЗМАЧИВАТЬ, можно с пивом ...

Без трафика

Сеть NETORN

Поток: Слушать

• WWRR •
• Вверх •
• БАСКЕТБОЛ •
• ХОККЕЙ •
• ТЕННИС •
• ФОРМУЛА 1 •
• CF •
• БЕНДИ •
• ЭКОНОМИКА •

Гостевая

271314@mail.ru

ФУТБОЛ

ШАХМАТЫ

У.Е.НОТА

ХОККЕЙ

ТЕННИС

ЭКОНОМИКА

ОЛИМПИАДЫ

Forbes made a blunder – Maria Sharapova is at least 38th… not 57st

Russian version

Imagine, what a surprise it would be if the audience should find out that the winner of a beauty contest had been judged simply through weighing ...

Eugene Potemkin
April, 3, 8:19 a.m.
mailto:271314@mail.ru

In the wired world, where everyone has access to a camera, a screen or both, it is easier than ever to find fleeting fame. A hit TV show will do the trick: The cast of Desperate Housewives, largely unknown less than a year ago, is all but overexposed today. Nowadays you can be famous just for being famous--see Paris Hilton--or for having a run of good luck, as Ken Jennings did during his six-month winning stint on Jeopardy!

Yet some stars earn their status by good old-fashioned accomplishment. Tiger Woods has won 60 tournaments in ten years. George Lucas' lifework, his Star Wars franchise, has generated billions of dollars in ticket and merchandise sales over three decades. Though Revenge of the Sith is his last chapter, profits will flow to him for years to come.

And Oprah Winfrey, who perennially ranks near the top of our Celebrity 100 list, takes the No. 1 spot this year for the first time. After 21 years, her daytime chat-fest still rules the airwaves, minting new celebs--and hundreds of millions of dollars in profits.

E-Rnk	Name	Sector	Pay Rank	Web Rank	Press Rank	TV Rank	Power Rank	Diff
1	Oprah Winfrey	Talk Show Hosts	2	2	8	4	1	0
2	Tiger Woods	Athletes	4	12	2	11	2	0
3	Bill Clinton	Speakers	89	1	1	1	56	53
4	Shaquille O'Neal	Athletes	26	26	5	12	5	1
5	Mel Gibson	Directors	3	13	33	15	3	-2
6	Madonna	Musicians	11	5	30	19	8	2
7	Elton John	Musicians	15	10	19	24	9	2
8	George Lucas	Directors	1	3	41	34	4	-4
9	Kobe Bryant	Athletes	39	47	4	2	19	10
10	Steven Spielberg	Directors	5	11	34	22	6	-4
11	Tom Cruise	Actors	30	7	24	16	10	-1
12	Will Smith	Actors	24	15	27	20	13	1
13	Lance Armstrong	Athletes	41	39	9	8	15	2
14	Brad Pitt	Actors	51	8	22	17	11	-3
15	Jay Leno	Talk Show Hosts	34	33	28	5	21	6
16	Paris Hilton	Personalities	87	4	16	10	55	39
17	David Letterman	Talk Show Hosts	16	61	26	7	14	-3
18	Jennifer Lopez	Actors	63	6	25	18	24	6
19	Michael Jordan	Athletes	27	34	16	25	16	-3
20	Desperate Housewives	Personalities	92	20	10	6	25	5
21	Johnny Depp	Actors	21	16	36	31	7	-14
22	Nicole Kidman	Actors	70	14	18	21	45	23
23	P Diddy	Musicians	23	51	38	14	20	-3
24	David Beckham	Athletes	28	53	3	64	26	2
25	Howard Stern	Talk Show Hosts	30	49	46	9	27	2
26	Dan Brown	Authors	6	27	39	61	12	-14
27	Metallica	Musicians	20	9	50	69	23	-4
28	Phil Mickelson	Athletes	48	75	6	30	47	19
29	Rush Limbaugh	Talk Show Hosts	34	39	51	13	28	-1
30	Michael Schumacher	Athletes	8	37	29	81	17	-13
31	Derek Jeter	Athletes	50	38	11	52	38	7
32	Serena Williams	Athletes	73	44	12	27	62	30
33	Alex Rodriguez	Athletes	45	82	7	48	48	15
34	Julia Roberts	Actors	82	17	37	23	39	5
35	J.K. Rowling	Authors	9	24	69	65	22	-13
36	Denzel Washington	Actors	34	25	49	40	31	-5
37	Jeff Gordon	Athletes	53	56	13	45	46	9
38	Maria Sharapova	Athletes	62	52	14	44	57	19
39	Rudy Giuliani	Speakers	94	73	45	3	80	41
40	LeBron James	Athletes	56	60	21	35	53	13
41	Jessica Simpson	Personalities	82	23	40	26	64	23
42	Rod Stewart	Musicians	30	46	43	40	32	-10
43	Jennifer Aniston	Actors	61	35	44	27	37	-6
44	The Olsen Twins	Kid Stars	59	19	64	33	35	-9
45	Bette Midler	Musicians	30	29	70	43	34	-11
46	Will Ferrell	Actors	16	71	55	36	18	-28
47	Shania Twain	Musicians	25	42	56	55	29	-18
48	Peter Jackson	Directors	13	43	67	75	30	-18
49	Hilary Duff		68	21	47	51	54	5
50	Tobey Maguire	Actors	29	27	66	73	42	-8
51	Andre Agassi	Athletes	49	76	23	57	59	8
52	Michael Vick		19	87	35	67	33	-19
53	Manny Ramirez	Athletes	52	84	15	62	60	7
54	Prince	Musicians	12	30	94	93	40	-14
55	Cameron Diaz	Actors	72	18	53	55	66	11
56	Sandra Bullock	Actors	78	22	62	42	65	9
57	Matt Damon	Actors	46	66	42	39	49	-8
58	Adam Sandler	Actors	41	50	54	49	50	-8
59	Lindsay Lohan	Kid Stars	77	32	48	50	52	-7
60	David Copperfield	Magicians	10	90	87	52	41	-19
61	Jerry Bruckheimer	Directors	7	84	72	71	36	-25
62	The Eagles	Musicians	14	63	88	72	43	-19
63	Ray Romano	Actors	22	83	77	63	44	-19
64	Venus Williams	Athletes	87	64	31	54	81	17
65	Oscar De La Hoya	Athletes	18	91	65	82	51	-14
66	Valentino Rossi	Athletes	41	30	76	99	63	-3
67	Ashlee Simpson	Personalities	93	41	52	37	76	9
68	Drew Barrymore	Actors	58	48	63	58	58	-10
69	Regis Philbin	Talk Show Hosts	60	72	74	32	67	-2
70	Lindsay Davenport	Athletes	89	88	20	70	87	17
71	Van Halen	Musicians	38	55	71	75	61	-10
72	Ellen DeGeneres	Talk Show Hosts	68	66	61	38	74	2
73	Naomi Watts	Actors	76	35	58	74	75	2
74	Jennifer Garner	Actors	71	57	57	59	70	-4
75	Annika Sorenstam	Athletes	86	81	32	82	89	14
76	Ronaldo	Athletes	55	54	59	92	72	-4
77	James Patterson	Authors	46	68	78	84	68	-9
78	Emeril Lagasse	Chets	80	70	79	45	85	7
79	Dave Chappelle	Talk Show Hosts	74	58	83	59	78	-1
80	Nora Roberts	Authors	39	77	92	94	71	-9
81	Jack Welch	Speakers	79	80	82	45	83	2
82	Paul Harvey	Talk Show Hosts	34	93	98	84	69	-13
83	Ken Jennings	Personalities	98	96	73	29	94	11
84	Judge Judy Sheindlin	Talk Show Hosts	41	94	91	75	73	-11
85	John Madden		63	74	75	78	79	-6
86	Gisele Bundchen	Models	67	65	86	80	77	-9
87	Heidi Klum	Models	85	62	80	67	90	3
88	Wolfgang Puck	Chets	74	79	81	65	86	-2
89	Matt Hasselbeck	Athletes	57	97	68	95	82	-7
90	Kate Moss	Models	94	59	60	89	93	3
91	Walter Jones	Athletes	54	100	89	99	84	-7
92	Adriana Lima	Models	97	45	100	98	97	5
93	Arthur Agatston	Authors	66	92	85	87	88	-5
94	Kimora Lee Simmons	Personalities	63	98	97	95	91	-3
95	Patricia Heaton	Actors	80	95	93	78	92	-3
96	Tyra Banks	Models	89	69	84	84	95	-1
97	Frankie Muniz	Kid Stars	82	89	90	91	96	-1
98	Amanda Bynes	Kid Stars	100	78	96	95	99	1
99	David Blaine	Magicians	99	86	95	87	98	-1
100	Charlie Palmer	Chets	96	99	99	90	100	0

One of the most established American magazines, Forbes, has published its list of the biggest companies in terms of international economy. The list represents 2000 firms in 27 economical sectors from 51 countries. There are also 12 Russian companies on the list.

This rating differs greatly from those in the Financial Times or Fortune, as is based not on one criterion but on four: income, profit, assets, and capitalization. Companies received their ranks on each criterion and were then estimated on the final sum of all received ranks.

Steve Kichen, the assistant to managing editor of the Journal, believes this to be the fairest comparison method.

Despite having sincere respect for Forbes and the statistical work done, I can’t help noting shortcomings of this method (summarizing several ranks’ figures to one final tally).

Summarizing or averaging of ranks based on different criteria is perhaps the simplest but surely not the fairest method for such ranking.

Let us consider a purely mathematical problem in easy terms. First of all we must make sure that all four criteria are of the same value for our research.

Imagine that you want to find the heaviest man but have only one thing at your disposal – a ledge. You know that the bigger the size of some parts of body, the heavier the person himself, so you have measured the height, feet size, the length of the little finger and the distance between ears of 2000 people. Now you have 4 measure lists. Then you sum up the results. What are the conclusions? The heaviest person is dwarf with long fingers, big head, and oversized feet. Surprising, isn’t it? But it is he, who is the first by three of four criteria (sure his height played false with him).

We proceed further. I am not an economist so this might be right: all the four criteria in case with companies’ ranking are of the same value.

Thus all our parameters are equal. Let us consider the following situation: one of the companies is the leader on three criteria, but is only 100^th on the fourth one. As we can see the same situation is with Microsoft on this list. A company, leading in one sphere, may easily be a looser in some other. In this case such a company gets 103 fine points. If so, then by summarizing this company will look weaker than a company, which is the second on three criteria and 96^thon one criterion. Is that fair? I guess not.

The above-mentioned example must suffice for proving the fact, that Forbes’ ranking based on summarizing of the four criteria is open to objection.

Now, dear reader, let us try to find some other easy way. There a lot of them but not all of them are good enough.

If we should be looking for a good big wardrobe, multiplying the width, depth and height of the wardrobe would be justified. The same is justified ranking of companies, but in this case we will be looking for a company with the least ranking product.

So, the easiest method is multiplying of ranks. How does it work in our example? The first company will have the following result 1*1*1*100=100. The second one to walk over the first could have the following ranks 2 * 2 * 2 * 12. Don’t you think, dear reader, this is just fair? In this case the second company gives up the first place on three criteria but compensates for it through 88 points on the fourth criterion.

It seems that multiplying is a much better solution for finding the biggest company than the summarizing of ranks suggested by Forbes.

 N Company           Country        Economic           F-Rbk Diff
 1 Citigroup          United States  Banking             1    0
 2 General Electric   United States  Conglomerates       2    0
 3 ExxonMobil         United States  Oil & gas operatio  4   -1
 4 Bank of America    United States  Banking             6   -2
 5 HSBC Group         United Kingdom Banking             7   -2
 6 Microsoft          United States  Software & service 31   -25
 7 Fannie Mae         United States  Diversified financ  7   -2
 8 American Intl Gro  United States  Insurance           8    5
 9 BP                 United Kingdom Oil & gas operatio  9    4
10 Wal-Mart Stores    United States  Retailing          10    0

However our method has its faults as well. Let us consider the following situation. By some reasons one company has completely screwed up by one criterion or just hides its real indexes. Apparently it gets the 2000^th place on this criterion. Consequently this company leading on other three criteria will be left behind by a company, which is only 7^th on all criteria.

I believe this is wrong. The right decision can be found in the theory of chances. By answering to the question: what are the chances for us to find the biggest company if we take at random one of the criteria and find out that A is higher than B. This is right only in case when all the parameters are of the same value. Otherwise we have a dwarf with oversized feet and big head as the heaviest person.

However such great trouble as observation of 2000 world leading companies, leaving alone the companies themselves, which are following the publications of one of the most authoritative magazines in the world with great attention, deserves that the achieved results were handled to the best advantage.

One of the possible solutions is presentation of the rating results in accordance with one parameter in the form of matrix of paired comparisons and computation of the companies’ rating.

There are lots of methods of computation of the rating based on the matrix. In this case I’ve used e-rating, which is successfully applied to the analysis of the sport achievements. But is it so difficult to compare the competition of the biggest companies to the sport competition?

The results of such computation method of the rating of the largest companies of the world are presented below.

It is interesting who is underestimated by Forbes, that uses in its rating the simplest method of summarizing of the rating in comparison with e-rating.

The easiest solution to take the difference of ranks in the first and the second ranking is impropriate. Indeed, if we put a company that stands in the first ranking on the 10 place on the first place in the second ranking, because of the difference in ranking we omit nine steps. Following this logic we re-estimate the rank of the company in the same way putting it from 1010 place to 1000. It goes without saying that these are completely different transferences.

It is unlikely that someone would be upset removing from 1010 place to 1000 and back. But everybody would notice the motion within the top 10.

What is the solution for this problem? Lets follow the patch of least effort, that we rejected at the beginning of the present article. To take into consideration the value of the transference according to the rate of the transferable companies let us just resolve the difference of the ranks on their sum. The reader might find some weak points in this solution. Well, nobody possesses verity. So here are the names of the “offended”

The most “offended” Cheung Kong Hong (Kong/China Diversified financials) is estimated by Forbes as 542 company of the world.

. I t seems that change of the rate of such a company with the top 100 wouldn’t have aroused interest neither among adherents nor among contenders. But a leap up for 300 steps does mean something. The second “offended” company- Wells Fargo (United States Banking). From 25-th place it lifts to 12-th. One must admit that it is an essential movement.

The third “offended” – the famous bank of America (United States Banking).It is unlikely that its transference from 6 to third place would leave people, who are interested in the rating of the largest companies of the world, indifferent.

I guess that the reader will be interested in other movements in the world table of ranks, at least in the changes in the top 10 of the “offended” leaders of the world economics.

If there are undeservingly “offended” by Forbes then there must be undeservingly praised companies. Let us see who is fostered by Forbes.

It is unlikely that among these names there will be adherents of such method of rating. Nevertheless “Plato is my friend by truth is more valuable”. I understand that the suggested ranking will face many critics among unbiased readers. Who is overestimated by Forbes?

These are petroleum magnates (ExxonMobil United States Oil & Gas Operations) and BR (United Kingdom gas Operations) from the 4 and 5 places they go to 8 and 9. It is obvious that the overestimation of the first one is a little bigger then of the second one.

Among the movements in the middle of the tableau we mark the fall of BOC (Hong Kong Hong Kong/China Banking) from 177 according to Forbes rating to 309 place according to e-rating.

In conclusion I’d like to point out that ranking of the companies with the help of purely mathematical analysis on the basis of combinations of rating tables using separate parameters of economical industry is a reluctant decision.

To my non-economist’s opinion the answer to the question is creating of an economical model, which will define what does it mean to be the biggest (powerful, effective) company. It will also define in what way four or more economical criteria are connected. One needs a mathematical model .

The biggest = function ( sales , profit , assets , cost …)

It would be great, if the world leaders would find means for solving the problem. For instance, organizing some competition of such models…

P.S. If You need complete List of 2000 let me know...271314@mail.ru

WWRR
Вверх

WWRR Вверх БАСКЕТБОЛ ХОККЕЙ ТЕННИС ФОРМУЛА 1 CF БЕНДИ ЭКОНОМИКА
Copyright Eugene Potemkin 1985 - 2005 271314@mail.ru. Last updated: 11/22/06.
Самые неприступные крепости в головах наших ...