## Partial answer: close price and trading volume by company The investigation stopped early, so this is a partial answer. The data covers only 5 of the 152 companies in the company-level gold table. **Choice of metric and category (my judgement, not tested against alternatives)** - **Category:** `company_name`. It is the only non-time dimension in the dataset, and the gold tables are organised by company and by date. - **Metric:** `close` (closing price), with `volume` as a secondary metric. Both are in the data, but I did not test which one best captures what matters. ### How the metric varies by company (5 companies returned) | Company | Rows | Avg close | Min close | Max close | Total volume | Avg daily volume | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | NVIDIA | 3,415 | 21.04 | 0.26 | 179.27 | 1.494 trillion | 437.5M | | Broadcom | 3,415 | 42.41 | 2.03 | 302.62 | 93.3 billion | 27.3M | | TSMC | 3,415 | 59.01 | 8.98 | 245.60 | 35.0 billion | 10.3M | | AMD | 3,415 | 49.00 | 1.62 | 211.38 | 169.7 billion | 49.7M | | Samsung | 3,338 | 41,850.29 | 15,299.96 | 85,681.09 | 49.1 billion | 14.7M | ### What the data supports - **Samsung's prices are on a different scale.** Its average close of about 41,850 is roughly 700 to 2,000 times the others. This most likely reflects a different price unit or currency, but the evidence does not confirm that. Raw closing prices should not be compared across companies without checking it. - **Among the four similarly scaled companies, average close ranks TSMC (59.01), AMD (49.00), Broadcom (42.41), NVIDIA (21.04).** - **NVIDIA dominates volume.** Its total volume of 1.494 trillion is about 9 times AMD's (169.7 billion), the next highest. Its average daily volume of 437.5M is about 9 times AMD's 49.7M. - **Price ranges differ a lot.** From the min and max closes, NVIDIA's highest close is about 687 times its lowest, against about 149× for Broadcom, 130× for AMD and 27× for TSMC. Samsung's is about 5.6×. These ratios are my own arithmetic on the min and max values. They are not split-adjusted returns and do not say when the extremes occurred. - **Coverage is nearly the same.** Four companies have 3,415 rows each and Samsung has 3,338, so the averages rest on comparable history. ### What remains uncertain - **The other 147 companies were not examined**, and I do not know why these 5 were returned. The ranking and "most important" judgement may change with the full set. - **The units behind Samsung's scale** are unconfirmed. - **Time trends were not examined.** The yearly and monthly company tables were not queried, so I cannot say how close or volume changed over time within each company. - **Average close mixes very different periods.** The min-to-max spreads show this, so the average is not a reliable measure of a company's typical price level.