research Market Intelligence /marketintelligence/en/news-insights/research/ranking-the-world-s-100-largest-banks content
BY CONTINUING TO USE THIS SITE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO OUR USE OF COOKIES. REVIEW OUR
PRIVACY & COOKIE NOTICE

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

New User / Forgot Password


Looking for more?

Contact Us

Request a Demo

You're one step closer to unlocking our suite of comprehensive and robust tools.

Fill out the form so we can connect you to the right person.

  • First Name*
  • Last Name*
  • Business Email *
  • Phone *
  • Company Name *
  • City *

* Required

In this list

Ranking: The World's 100 Largest Banks

Energy

Power Forecast Briefing: Fleet Transformation, Under-Powered Markets, and Green Energy in 2018

Trading Of US Linear TV Advertising Shifting To Programmatic Trading

Every Industry Is Now A Technology Industry

Online Video Bolstering Consumer Home Video Spend, Spearheaded By Subscription Streaming


Ranking: The World's 100 Largest Banks

Highlights

The world's five largest banks are all based in Asia, and China-headquartered banks made up the top four, according to our latest global bank rankings.

Eighteen of the top 100 banks are headquartered in China

May. 17 2017 — The world's five largest banks are all based in Asia, and China-headquartered banks made up the top four, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence's latest global bank rankings.

China's "Big Four" — Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd., China Construction Bank Corp., Agricultural Bank of China Ltd. and Bank of China Ltd. — all maintained their rank as the four largest banks in the world with a combined $11.910 trillion in assets as of December 31, 2016. Tokyo-based Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc. retained its place as the world's fifth largest bank at $2.590 trillion in assets.

Brexit was not kind to European currencies in 2016 — the euro bought $1.055 at the end of 2016, compared to $1.086 a year earlier, while the British pound fell to $1.235 from $1.474 over the same period. The drop in the pound alone knocked $289.53 billion off of the asset value for London-based Barclays Plc, which fell two spots in the ranking to No. 17, with $1.496 trillion in assets; the bank's assets would have been $1.785 trillion if converted to U.S. dollars using the year-end 2015 exchange rate.

In the latest ranking, company total assets were adjusted for pending mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures, as well as M&A deals that closed after the end of the reporting period through March 31 on a best-efforts basis. Assets reported by non-U.S. dollar filers were converted to dollars using period-end exchange rates. The majority of banks were ranked by total assets as of December 31, 2016. In the previous ranking published April 12, 2016, most company assets were as of December 31 2015, but were not adjusted for any M&A activity.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., overtook Europe's largest bank, HSBC Holdings Plc, for the No. 6 spot with $2.491 trillion in assets. The largest U.S. bank would have ranked at No. 2 if it followed derivative accounting standards under IFRS, which allows for the gross value of derivative assets on the balance sheet, instead of U.S. GAAP, which requires only the net value. JPMorgan's assets would increase by $858.54 billion to $3.350 trillion as of year-end 2016 if it reported its gross derivative exposure.

The No. 99 and No. 100 banks from last year's ranking, Switzerland-based Raiffeisen Gruppe Switzerland and Taiwan-based Chunghwa Post Co. Ltd., dropped off this year to make way for China-based Bank of Shanghai Co. Ltd. and Bank of Jiangsu Co. Ltd., which joined the ranking at No. 89 and No. 94, respectively.

Eighteen of the top 100 banks are headquartered in China; collectively, these companies held $20.993 trillion in assets. The U.S. had the next highest number, with 12 banks holding $12.039 trillion, followed by Japan and the U.K., with eight and six banks holding $9.995 trillion and $6.806 trillion in assets, respectively.

Want to find out who else made the list? Download the complete ranking.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

Watch: Power Forecast Briefing: Fleet Transformation, Under-Powered Markets, and Green Energy in 2018

Steve Piper shares Power Forecast insights and a recap of recent events in the US power markets in Q4 of 2017. Watch our video for power generation trends and forecasts for utilities in 2018.


Technology, Media & Telecom
Trading Of US Linear TV Advertising Shifting To Programmatic Trading

Oct. 08 2018 — Both buyers and sellers of traditional linear TV advertising, not including connected TV or over-the-top video, are moving toward the adoption of programmatic trading. In 2017, Kagan estimates that $690 million or 0.9% of total linear TV spend was traded programmatically. Within the next five years, that figure is expected to climb to $9.76 billion or nearly 12% of total linear TV advertising revenue. MVPDs are forecast to trade the greatest percentage of their ad inventory programmatically in 2022 with 30% of ad revenue from programmatic trading.

Kagan defines programmatic trading as being automated and data-enhanced, not just one or the other. Trading may be through a private or open marketplace and does not have to be through an auction, which is more common in digital video advertising.

There are several issues holding participants back from programmatic trading. Unlike digital programmatic marketplaces, where there is a seemingly unending supply of ad inventory, linear TV has a finite supply. Demand for TV inventory exceeds the supply, so there is still an attitude of "If it isn't broken, don't fix it." TV ads are also bought well in advance, not immediately.

While many agencies have experimented with the programmatic trading of linear TV, not all are on board. Many of the advertisers and agencies are interacting directly with the supplier platform rather than going through a demand-side platform, or DSP, today. In their experiments, the agency needs to use separate platforms to aggregate inventory and tie it together, which is a lot of work.

The lack of inventory is one factor holding back programmatic trading. The only way it takes off is to make linear TV inventory available in some type of buyer platform that can combine the various supply platforms. It is even more complicated when the buyer wants to bring in connected TV (OTT).

Agencies do like the automation capabilities of programmatic, particularly where the process takes a lot of time. An algorithm may do better in areas such as weighting estimation, the first pass at scheduling and the negotiation process as well as postings and billings. The process of buying inventory is not difficult, but computing where a buyer will be able to find its preferred audience is. Therefore, interest in automating the planning and analysis to find an optimal audience is high.

We forecast a gradual uptake for programmatic trading with continued testing in 2018. Broadcast stations and networks, cable programmers, and MVPDs need to add more inventory to programmatic platforms before agencies begin using it in earnest. It will take time for all parties to feel comfortable transacting in a new way.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

Technology
Every Industry Is Now A Technology Industry

Highlights

And every company is now a technology company.

Sep. 28 2018 — As machine learning (ML), artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics become commonplace and enter the operations of mainstream organizations, leadership teams are finding that failure to harness and leverage AI puts them behind the competition. Repeatable tasks are carried out by bots in a fraction of the time and employees are more focused on adding value, which means companies on the forefront of technology can be more reliable, more user-friendly, and faster to market.

In this highly disruptive environment, one traditional truth of business has withstood, or has perhaps even guided, these technological advances: above all, the customer experience is king. More than ever before, businesses have effective technologies at their fingertips to quickly and effectively address customer pain points, while at the same time dramatically improving their internal operations.

At S&P Global Market Intelligence, we strive to get beyond the buzzwords and truly deliver essential insight. And second to this, we strive to adopt real operational efficiencies into our delivery that are paralleled by the workflow efficiencies we promise to our customers. To that end, we are committed to remaining on the cutting edge of emerging technologies, first through optimization, then automation.

Download a recent analysis of how we’re applying new technology like natural language processing to structure data, robotic process automation to deliver insights faster, and predictive analytics to stay ahead of the market.

You can also view this analysis in Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, and Japanese.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

Natural Language Processing – Part II: Stock Selection

Learn More

Natural Language Processing, Part I: Primer

Learn More

Technology, Media & Telecom
Online Video Bolstering Consumer Home Video Spend, Spearheaded By Subscription Streaming

Highlights

The following post comes from Kagan, a research group within S&P Global Market Intelligence.

To learn more about our TMT (Technology, Media & Telecommunications) products and/or research, please request a demo.

Sep. 20 2018 — Spending on home entertainment is rising toward levels not seen since 2004, when consumers spent $24.37 billion building massive home-video libraries of DVDs and VHS cassettes. Since then, the optical-disc market saw more than a decade of significant declines as consumers shifted to digital entertainment. By 2012, total spending on home entertainment was down to $20.13 billion, with $4.13 billion coming from online video while DVDs and Blu-ray discs accounted for $12.88 billion and multichannel PPV/VOD contributed the remaining $3.13 billion.

Fast forward to 2017 and the mix of consumer spending has changed significantly. Consumers spent a total of $22.62 billion on home entertainment from multichannel, online and disc retail/rental sources. Online spending accounted for $13.00 billion of that total while spending on discs dropped to $6.84 billion and multichannel PPV/VOD shrank to $2.79 billion.

While the data might seem like good news for traditional providers of home entertainment, a key component of the growth in digital spending is the rise of subscription video on demand. The majority of online spending is going to over-the-top services like Netflix, Hulu and Amazon Prime, which increasingly have focused on creating original programming (mainly episodic TV) rather than licensing content from Hollywood studios.

Removing subscription streaming from the consumer spending pool paints a less favorable picture for traditional content providers. In 2012, consumers spent just $1.43 billion on non-subscription online video purchase/rental, and a total of $17.44 billion excluding the SVOD component. By 2017, while consumer spending on online video overall had risen to $13.00 billion, some $10.47 of that came from streaming subscriptions versus $2.53 billion from online video purchase/rental, and total home-entertainment spending was just $12.16 billion excluding SVOD.

Spending on sell-through home video peaked in 2006 when consumers shelled out $16.53 billion for DVDs and VHS cassettes. Since then spending has declined by hundreds of millions (sometimes billions) each year. In 2017, consumers spent $6.50 billion on DVD and Blu-ray sell-through and electronic sell-through. This seems to suggest that people are becoming less and less interested in adding to their home-video libraries and are turning to the more affordable streaming options. The story is similar for the home-video rental segment, which saw consumer spending peak in 2001 at nearly $8.45 billion before dropping to $2.87 billion by the end of 2017.

This has to be a somewhat unsettling trend for the major film studios, and is likely a key factor in shifting their strategy to focus on major franchise films and low-cost genre fare. The former tend to have broad worldwide appeal and can still move enough video units to help offset their high production and distribution costs. The low-cost genre fare, on the other hand, may be more risky and not sell as well internationally, but has a fair chance to break even. If the latter films lose money, the successful franchise films typically cover the losses.

Learn more about Market Intelligence
Request Demo

US Online Video Outlook To Eclipse $15B In 2018

Learn More

DVD, Blu-ray Spending Down $1B-plus For 11th Year In A Row

Learn More