BTW this is a mischaracterization of the concept of market cap. I take from the description that you’re aiming at “monetary value” of all apples produced in a given period. This, however, has nothing to do with market cap. For one thing, production is a flow measure, while market cap is a stock measure (see here for those concepts).

I guess you’re the type who falls for (or creates examples of) that age-old clickbait trick: “This company’s market cap just beat Brazil, Canada, Italy, or every other country except the top* seven”

*countries ranked by GDP

If one were to truly attempt to measure all the apples market cap, I guess one could try to determine the total value of all apples in existence at the end of any given year, in people’s fruit baskets, in supermarkets and farmers markets, unprocessed in food processing plants, as well as those still on trees. Maybe this means something to you, but IMO is a completely meaningless question, and obviously no one, not a single researcher, not even the most curiously inclined apple grower, no country government, and certainly not the USDA, is interested in it, nor the reports referred in the description are measuring that in any way.

Perhaps one could broaden it to include the value of all apple trees and possibly even the value of the land where they’re planted, as an invested capital or liquidating value metric for countries/farmers, since that would indeed fit the motivation behind the financial concept of market cap of equity capital as the present value of all future cash flows derived from the asset in question. But I can’t find anyone reporting on that either.

@deagol it was supposed to be a joke, sorry you didn't find it funny. I clarified the description, as always if anybody feels deceived by any of my markets please reach out to me, I'll refund your losses.

@CodeandSolder I do appreciate the joke but a simple wink when linking the markets as related, and adding a question mark, like “related? ;)” would be safer without killing all the lulz.

@CodeandSolder btw that indexbox thing you now refer as a source looks very scammy. I better cash out and run. Good luck to all, and keep it fun.

@deagol yeah, the site is garbage but they are widely cited by industry publications and seem generally trusted. I clarified that it's not in fact related.

I’ve not been able to find “clear and reliable data” on market value after 2021, and what I found on that year is not reported on a “seasons” basis. The USDA reports by weight do have it in seasons more in line with the 2022/2023 style used in the criteria here, however there seems to be a window misalignment/offset issue with the question’s title.

It’s a bit of guesswork to precisely delimit the season window cutoffs, but from the note in that USDA report (screenshot below), I take that e.g. the 2022/23 season goes from July 2022 to June 2023 in Northern Hemisphere countries except US and Mexico which go August-July, and for Southern Hemisphere countries it aligns with calendar year 2023. However the question asked here is “will it go up during 2023” yet that 2023 period is then specified in the description as “the 2023/24 season” which as I explained would include the Southern Hemisphere data for CY24, not CY23.

Can you clarify if the seasons referred in the description are intended to coincide with the USDA data? In that case, I’d suggest the description should shift to asking whether it was “higher in the 2022/2023 season than it was in 2021/2022” which aligns with the title for most countries. If you instead insist that the question refers to the 2023/24 season, then I’d suggest changing the title to reflect this by asking if it’ll “go up during 2024” since that is what the resolution criteria would refer to in most countries as reported by the USDA.

Additionally, it would really help if you could provide some examples of “clear and reliable” data sources for the monetary value in 2022, and if we can expect to hear from same sources about 2023 on a timely manner. Thanks.

One more thing.™ The embedded “related market” is not at all related and will most likely confuse some traders here and there. If this was included by mistake, I’d suggest removing it, and if intentional, I’ll just note it could be considered fraudulent as per the site’s guidelines:

A fraudulently resolved market is not merely an incorrectly resolved market, but one designed to benefit the market creator (or associated users) by intentionally tricking or deceiving users.

@DavidChee