APPENDIX 9.-DATA ON 200 LARGEST MANUFACTURING ENTERPRISES, 19351 The following tables showing data for the 200 largest manufacturing enterprises are results of unpublished census compilations made available through the courtesy of the Bureau of the Census. Special tabulations were prepared from the Census of Manufactures data for 1935 combining the activities of all establishments operating under a common ownership regardless of the industry in which the establishments were classified. This tabulation made possible the 1 Appendix 9 was prepared by Grace W. Knott. selection of the largest multiple-establishment enterprises, to which were added the largest single-establishment enterprises. From this combined list of large enterprises, ranked according to the value of products, data for the 200 largest manufacturing enterprises were tabulated. In order to avoid the possibility of disclosure for individual enterprises in the figures presented, a more stringent procedure has been followed than is usually employed by the Census Bureau. Ordinarily in the TABLE I.-Leading 200 manufacturing enterprises (based on value of products), grouped by fives and ranked according to value added by 1 No data for employees of central administrative offices are included. 2 This is an average of the numbers reported for the several months of the year. In calculating it, equal weight must be given to full-time and part-time wage earners (not reported separately to the Census Bureau) and for this reason it exceeds the number that would have been required to perform the work done in the industries if all wage earners had been continuously employed throughout the year. The quotient obtained by dividing the amount of wages by the average number of wage earners cannot, therefore, be accepted as representing the average wages received by full-time wage earners. 3 Profits and losses cannot be calculated from the Census figures because no data are collected for certain expense items, such as interest, rent, depreciation,t axes, insurance, and advertising. 4 The aggregates for cost of materials and value of products include large amounts of duplication due to the use of the products of some industries as materials by others. For the United States as a whole, this duplication amounts to about one-third of the gross value of products. 5 Wage earners and salaried employees. Source: Census of Manufactures 1935-Special tabulations. 270 census reports figures are given for three or more establishments when it can be done without disclosing approximations of data for individual concerns. In these tabulations figures are shown for groups of five enterprises only. Table I shows the 200 enterprises ranked according to the value added by manufacture and grouped by fives; table II presents the data for these enterprises ranked according to total manpower (salaried employees plus wage earners) and grouped by fives; and table III shows the 200 enterprises ranked according to value of products and grouped by fives. Data are shown for the following items: 1. Number of establishments. TABLE II.—Leading 200 manufacturing enterprises (based on value of products), grouped by fives and ranked according to manpower, 1935 TABLE III.-Leading 200 manufacturing enterprises (based on value of products), grouped by fives and ranked according to value of prod ucts, 1935 APPENDIX 10.-THE 200 LARGEST NON-FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS IN 1935 AND THEIR ASSETS 1929-19361 The first step in this study of corporate concentration is the bringing up to date of the figures published in 1930 by Berle & Means in The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Those figures covered the years through 1929. The information on assets of individual corporations was secured from the manuals issued yearly by Moody's Investment Service. When the present study was begun, the 1937 set of manuals was not yet complete. The 1936 manuals, giving information as of December 31, 1935, provided the latest data available. The three 1936 manuals for nonfinancial companies— industrials, public utilities and railroads were scanned, page by page, and the total asset figure for each balance sheet noted. All companies reporting assets of $50,000,000 and over were listed. In every case where a reserve for depreciation and/or depletion was listed on the liability side of the balance sheet, this reserve was deducted from the total asset figure, so that the figures used represent in all but a few instances total assets less depreciation. In the case of a few companies, the information supplied did not indicate whether such deduction had been made in reporting their total assets, and no reserve for depreciation appeared among the liabilities. No company was listed if more than 50 percent of its voting stock was owned directly or indirectly by another company. In some cases, the information with regard to control provided by Moody's was supplemented by material filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. From the list of nonfinancial companies with assets of $50,000,000 and over the list of the 200 largest for 1935 was made up. A list of the 200 largest for 1932 was made by following the same procedure, beginning with a page-by-page scanning of the 1933 manuals, etc. These two lists and the Berle & Means list for 1929 provided the names of 268 companies which appeared on the list of the 200 largest nonfinancial corporations in 1929, 1932, and 1935. A card was made for each company of the 268, listing the Moody's figure for total assets less depreciation for each year from 1929 to 1935, inclusive. By sorting these cards in order of size for each year, a list of the 200 largest was secured for 1930, 1931, 1933, and 1934, and a figure for the total assets of the 200 largest for each of these years was arrived at. It was assumed that while a page-by-page examination of the manuals for these intervening years might reveal cases 1 Appendix 10 was prepared by Helen Hurd. The marked drops in total assets between 1931 and 1932 and between 1933 and 1934 are accounted for largely by the fact that in each of these years a large group of companies wrote down their assets. The difference between the total assets figure for 1929 derived above (78.1 billion dollars) and the figure for this year published by Berle & Means (81.0 billion dollars) is accounted for in great measure by the decision to exclude companies, included by Berle & Means, whose assets were principally foreign. If these companies are included, the total assets of the 200 largest corporations are as follows: |