超级军网2008年世界十大银行排名，中国占据前三位
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/26 10:48:35
2008年世界十大银行排名，中国占据前三位
当前的金融危机使得世界各大银行的排名起伏跌宕，顺序大乱。从前占据排名高位的美国花旗银行、美洲银行、UBS银行等均跌到了排行榜的低处。而本来已经相当具备实力的中国一些银行则迅速攀升。根据当前的市值排名，中国工商银行、中国建设银行、中国银行荣登世界银行排行榜前三甲，而中国交通银行也名列第十位。2007 年的世界前三大银行曾为美国花旗银行、美国美洲银行、英国汇丰银行，中国工商银行当时排名第四，紧随其后。
而德国银行在世界银行排名中则与其经济实力相比逊色不少。根据Bloomberg，Thomson Reuters的统计，德意志银行排名48，尚不及中国招商银行第20位的排名。德国商业银行、邮政银行曾经是德国第二、第三大银行，因为遭遇并购，更是已经跌出世界前110位。
2007年末，中国已有三家银行--中国工商银行、中国建设银行以及中国银行跻身全球前四大银行。而受全球金融危机的影响，欧美等地的银行同期表现较为惨淡。
据报告显示，截至2007年底，北美和西欧的银行的总市值下跌了6950亿美元。而与此同时，中国、俄罗斯、印度和巴西四国的银行的总市值则上涨了7530亿美元。
受次贷危机的影响，美国和欧洲的几大主要银行纷纷遭受巨额亏损。而次贷危机也使价值数百亿美元的住房抵押贷款证券大幅贬值。
在世界经济金融危机的冲击之下，20家全球最高的上市企业眼下已“囤积”起高达5700亿美元的现金，保持着强大火力以应对经济衰退。位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，中国银行、中国工商银行和中国建设银行，三大国有商业银行赫然占据了三席，其净现金量分别为1010亿美元、890亿美元和820亿美元。
2008年上半年，中国工商银行更是以648.79亿元的利润，成为全球最赚钱的银行。
世界十大银行排名
中国工商银行 总资产13800亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的5倍
中国建设银行 总资产10770亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的4倍
中国银行 总资产 9700亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的3倍
英国汇丰银行
美国摩根大通银行
美国富国银行
西班牙国际银行
日本三菱UFJ银行
美国高盛公司
中国交通银行 总资产 2480亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值
[:a6:] 中国工商银行、中国银行好像已经开始收购海外资产了2008年世界十大银行排名，中国占据前三位
当前的金融危机使得世界各大银行的排名起伏跌宕，顺序大乱。从前占据排名高位的美国花旗银行、美洲银行、UBS银行等均跌到了排行榜的低处。而本来已经相当具备实力的中国一些银行则迅速攀升。根据当前的市值排名，中国工商银行、中国建设银行、中国银行荣登世界银行排行榜前三甲，而中国交通银行也名列第十位。2007 年的世界前三大银行曾为美国花旗银行、美国美洲银行、英国汇丰银行，中国工商银行当时排名第四，紧随其后。
而德国银行在世界银行排名中则与其经济实力相比逊色不少。根据Bloomberg，Thomson Reuters的统计，德意志银行排名48，尚不及中国招商银行第20位的排名。德国商业银行、邮政银行曾经是德国第二、第三大银行，因为遭遇并购，更是已经跌出世界前110位。
2007年末，中国已有三家银行--中国工商银行、中国建设银行以及中国银行跻身全球前四大银行。而受全球金融危机的影响，欧美等地的银行同期表现较为惨淡。
据报告显示，截至2007年底，北美和西欧的银行的总市值下跌了6950亿美元。而与此同时，中国、俄罗斯、印度和巴西四国的银行的总市值则上涨了7530亿美元。
受次贷危机的影响，美国和欧洲的几大主要银行纷纷遭受巨额亏损。而次贷危机也使价值数百亿美元的住房抵押贷款证券大幅贬值。
在世界经济金融危机的冲击之下，20家全球最高的上市企业眼下已“囤积”起高达5700亿美元的现金，保持着强大火力以应对经济衰退。位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，中国银行、中国工商银行和中国建设银行，三大国有商业银行赫然占据了三席，其净现金量分别为1010亿美元、890亿美元和820亿美元。
2008年上半年，中国工商银行更是以648.79亿元的利润，成为全球最赚钱的银行。
世界十大银行排名
中国工商银行 总资产13800亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的5倍
中国建设银行 总资产10770亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的4倍
中国银行 总资产 9700亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的3倍
英国汇丰银行
美国摩根大通银行
美国富国银行
西班牙国际银行
日本三菱UFJ银行
美国高盛公司
中国交通银行 总资产 2480亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值
[:a6:] 中国工商银行、中国银行好像已经开始收购海外资产了
当前的金融危机使得世界各大银行的排名起伏跌宕，顺序大乱。从前占据排名高位的美国花旗银行、美洲银行、UBS银行等均跌到了排行榜的低处。而本来已经相当具备实力的中国一些银行则迅速攀升。根据当前的市值排名，中国工商银行、中国建设银行、中国银行荣登世界银行排行榜前三甲，而中国交通银行也名列第十位。2007 年的世界前三大银行曾为美国花旗银行、美国美洲银行、英国汇丰银行，中国工商银行当时排名第四，紧随其后。
而德国银行在世界银行排名中则与其经济实力相比逊色不少。根据Bloomberg，Thomson Reuters的统计，德意志银行排名48，尚不及中国招商银行第20位的排名。德国商业银行、邮政银行曾经是德国第二、第三大银行，因为遭遇并购，更是已经跌出世界前110位。
2007年末，中国已有三家银行--中国工商银行、中国建设银行以及中国银行跻身全球前四大银行。而受全球金融危机的影响，欧美等地的银行同期表现较为惨淡。
据报告显示，截至2007年底，北美和西欧的银行的总市值下跌了6950亿美元。而与此同时，中国、俄罗斯、印度和巴西四国的银行的总市值则上涨了7530亿美元。
受次贷危机的影响，美国和欧洲的几大主要银行纷纷遭受巨额亏损。而次贷危机也使价值数百亿美元的住房抵押贷款证券大幅贬值。
在世界经济金融危机的冲击之下，20家全球最高的上市企业眼下已“囤积”起高达5700亿美元的现金，保持着强大火力以应对经济衰退。位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，中国银行、中国工商银行和中国建设银行，三大国有商业银行赫然占据了三席，其净现金量分别为1010亿美元、890亿美元和820亿美元。
2008年上半年，中国工商银行更是以648.79亿元的利润，成为全球最赚钱的银行。
世界十大银行排名
中国工商银行 总资产13800亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的5倍
中国建设银行 总资产10770亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的4倍
中国银行 总资产 9700亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的3倍
英国汇丰银行
美国摩根大通银行
美国富国银行
西班牙国际银行
日本三菱UFJ银行
美国高盛公司
中国交通银行 总资产 2480亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值
[:a6:] 中国工商银行、中国银行好像已经开始收购海外资产了2008年世界十大银行排名，中国占据前三位
当前的金融危机使得世界各大银行的排名起伏跌宕，顺序大乱。从前占据排名高位的美国花旗银行、美洲银行、UBS银行等均跌到了排行榜的低处。而本来已经相当具备实力的中国一些银行则迅速攀升。根据当前的市值排名，中国工商银行、中国建设银行、中国银行荣登世界银行排行榜前三甲，而中国交通银行也名列第十位。2007 年的世界前三大银行曾为美国花旗银行、美国美洲银行、英国汇丰银行，中国工商银行当时排名第四，紧随其后。
而德国银行在世界银行排名中则与其经济实力相比逊色不少。根据Bloomberg，Thomson Reuters的统计，德意志银行排名48，尚不及中国招商银行第20位的排名。德国商业银行、邮政银行曾经是德国第二、第三大银行，因为遭遇并购，更是已经跌出世界前110位。
2007年末，中国已有三家银行--中国工商银行、中国建设银行以及中国银行跻身全球前四大银行。而受全球金融危机的影响，欧美等地的银行同期表现较为惨淡。
据报告显示，截至2007年底，北美和西欧的银行的总市值下跌了6950亿美元。而与此同时，中国、俄罗斯、印度和巴西四国的银行的总市值则上涨了7530亿美元。
受次贷危机的影响，美国和欧洲的几大主要银行纷纷遭受巨额亏损。而次贷危机也使价值数百亿美元的住房抵押贷款证券大幅贬值。
在世界经济金融危机的冲击之下，20家全球最高的上市企业眼下已“囤积”起高达5700亿美元的现金，保持着强大火力以应对经济衰退。位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，位居这份名单前四位的无一例外是金融机构，中国银行、中国工商银行和中国建设银行，三大国有商业银行赫然占据了三席，其净现金量分别为1010亿美元、890亿美元和820亿美元。
2008年上半年，中国工商银行更是以648.79亿元的利润，成为全球最赚钱的银行。
世界十大银行排名
中国工商银行 总资产13800亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的5倍
中国建设银行 总资产10770亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的4倍
中国银行 总资产 9700亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值的3倍
英国汇丰银行
美国摩根大通银行
美国富国银行
西班牙国际银行
日本三菱UFJ银行
美国高盛公司
中国交通银行 总资产 2480亿美元 相当于马来西亚国民生产总值
[:a6:] 中国工商银行、中国银行好像已经开始收购海外资产了
国内金融稳定
:D
实在太夸张了，难以想象十年前中国这几大国有银行还是坏帐累累，现在居然翻身了。
而欧美金融巨头却全体趴下了。
:D
实在太夸张了，难以想象十年前中国这几大国有银行还是坏帐累累，现在居然翻身了。
而欧美金融巨头却全体趴下了。
:D
最新的消息是许多杂种国大银行，比如花旗和美洲，要国有化了。:D :D
农业银行还没上市，否则。。。。:D
:D :D
Growing Worry on Rescue Takes a Toll on Banks
Published: February 20, 2009
Once again, investors are losing confidence in the nation’s beleaguered banks — and, this time, experts say, in Washington’s ever-changing plans to rescue the banks as well.
Despite somber assurances from the White House that the industry is sound, shares of bank companies plunged to new lows Friday on fears that some of the nation’s largest banks, including Citigroup and Bank of America, eventually could be nationalized.
Though both companies said that was not the case, investors pointed to a seemingly offhand remark by Senator Christopher J. Dodd — to the effect that the administration might assume ownership of certain banks for a short time — as cause for concern.
The decline, which had been building for days, underscored the growing anxiety on Wall Street about what the government would do next. The Obama administration has provided few details about its plans to shore up troubled lenders, sowing confusion in the markets and inside the banks about its intentions.
With so much uncertainty, some investors are abandoning banking shares, fearing shareholders will be wiped out if the government seizes control. The worry, investors say, is that Washington is running out of time and options.
“Banks live on confidence, and there is precious little coming from the new Treasury secretary,” said Gary B. Townsend, a former federal banking regulator who runs his own investment firm, referring to Timothy F. Geithner. “We are getting only confusion.”
Bank of America and Citigroup, both of which have received tens of billions of dollars in government aid, bore the brunt of the selling on Friday. Bank of America sank 14 cents, to $3.79, while Citigroup fell 56 cents, to $1.95, although both rallied in after-hours trading. The decline capped the stock market’s worst week since November, when Citigroup confronted a crisis of confidence that eventually compelled it to reach for a second financial lifeline from Washington. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 100.28 points, to 7,365.67 Friday.
Bankers were hoping the government would clarify its intentions. But several said that senior administration officials with whom they had been in regular contact had not spoken to them in days. Others fear a further, rapid market decline might force the government to act, although banking regulators insist the daily gyrations of the stock market will not force their hand. Instead, officials are focusing on whether bank customers are withdrawing money or lenders are struggling to finance themselves with short-term borrowing. So far, there have been no such warning signs.
One piece of the administration’s plan — a new “stress test” for the nation’s banks — could become clearer next week. Regulators are preparing to apply the test to assess the health of 20 or so large banks, and are expected to provide more details about the process on Wednesday.
“The financial stability plan outlined last week ensures that there is capital available where it is needed, and that it is provided in a way that will facilitate the replacement of public support with private capital,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Geithner, Stephanie Cutter.
Banking shares began to plunge Friday morning after Senator Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the banking committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was concerned the government might end up nationalizing some lenders “at least for a short time.” Several other prominent policy makers — including Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — have echoed that view recently.
As the decline gathered speed Friday afternoon, the White House and several banks moved to allay concerns of investors.
“This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. “That’s been our belief for quite some time, and we continue to have that.”
Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, dismissed talk of nationalization as uninformed speculation. “We see no reason why a company that is profitable, with strong levels of capital and liquidity, and that continues to lend actively should be considered for nationalization,” he said in a statement.
Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman, did not address whether the government would need to take a larger ownership stake but said that the bank was focused on improving its financial condition.
Even so, investors worry that many banks will need big infusions of capital. Raising capital, however, would dilute existing shareholders. And the more bank shares fall, the more likely it is that the government will end up owning large stakes in banks.
That fear, analysts say, is creating a vicious circle, in which investors keep selling more shares.
“People are getting spooked,” Mr. Townsend said. “When you have the government coming out and saying that they are not thinking about nationalization, I think it falls on deaf ears.”
Growing Worry on Rescue Takes a Toll on Banks
Published: February 20, 2009
Once again, investors are losing confidence in the nation’s beleaguered banks — and, this time, experts say, in Washington’s ever-changing plans to rescue the banks as well.
Despite somber assurances from the White House that the industry is sound, shares of bank companies plunged to new lows Friday on fears that some of the nation’s largest banks, including Citigroup and Bank of America, eventually could be nationalized.
Though both companies said that was not the case, investors pointed to a seemingly offhand remark by Senator Christopher J. Dodd — to the effect that the administration might assume ownership of certain banks for a short time — as cause for concern.
The decline, which had been building for days, underscored the growing anxiety on Wall Street about what the government would do next. The Obama administration has provided few details about its plans to shore up troubled lenders, sowing confusion in the markets and inside the banks about its intentions.
With so much uncertainty, some investors are abandoning banking shares, fearing shareholders will be wiped out if the government seizes control. The worry, investors say, is that Washington is running out of time and options.
“Banks live on confidence, and there is precious little coming from the new Treasury secretary,” said Gary B. Townsend, a former federal banking regulator who runs his own investment firm, referring to Timothy F. Geithner. “We are getting only confusion.”
Bank of America and Citigroup, both of which have received tens of billions of dollars in government aid, bore the brunt of the selling on Friday. Bank of America sank 14 cents, to $3.79, while Citigroup fell 56 cents, to $1.95, although both rallied in after-hours trading. The decline capped the stock market’s worst week since November, when Citigroup confronted a crisis of confidence that eventually compelled it to reach for a second financial lifeline from Washington. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 100.28 points, to 7,365.67 Friday.
Bankers were hoping the government would clarify its intentions. But several said that senior administration officials with whom they had been in regular contact had not spoken to them in days. Others fear a further, rapid market decline might force the government to act, although banking regulators insist the daily gyrations of the stock market will not force their hand. Instead, officials are focusing on whether bank customers are withdrawing money or lenders are struggling to finance themselves with short-term borrowing. So far, there have been no such warning signs.
One piece of the administration’s plan — a new “stress test” for the nation’s banks — could become clearer next week. Regulators are preparing to apply the test to assess the health of 20 or so large banks, and are expected to provide more details about the process on Wednesday.
“The financial stability plan outlined last week ensures that there is capital available where it is needed, and that it is provided in a way that will facilitate the replacement of public support with private capital,” said a spokeswoman for Mr. Geithner, Stephanie Cutter.
Banking shares began to plunge Friday morning after Senator Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who is chairman of the banking committee, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was concerned the government might end up nationalizing some lenders “at least for a short time.” Several other prominent policy makers — including Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, and Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — have echoed that view recently.
As the decline gathered speed Friday afternoon, the White House and several banks moved to allay concerns of investors.
“This administration continues to strongly believe that a privately held banking system is the correct way to go,” said Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman. “That’s been our belief for quite some time, and we continue to have that.”
Kenneth D. Lewis, the chief executive of Bank of America, dismissed talk of nationalization as uninformed speculation. “We see no reason why a company that is profitable, with strong levels of capital and liquidity, and that continues to lend actively should be considered for nationalization,” he said in a statement.
Jon Diat, a Citigroup spokesman, did not address whether the government would need to take a larger ownership stake but said that the bank was focused on improving its financial condition.
Even so, investors worry that many banks will need big infusions of capital. Raising capital, however, would dilute existing shareholders. And the more bank shares fall, the more likely it is that the government will end up owning large stakes in banks.
That fear, analysts say, is creating a vicious circle, in which investors keep selling more shares.
“People are getting spooked,” Mr. Townsend said. “When you have the government coming out and saying that they are not thinking about nationalization, I think it falls on deaf ears.”
:D
我记得原来好像是鬼子的三菱UFJ银行排名世界第一吧？怎么一下子缩水得这么厉害？
:D
我记得原来好像是鬼子的三菱UFJ银行排名世界第一吧？怎么一下子缩水得这么厉害？
:D
楼主的排名已经过时了吧？是2008底的排名吗？估计2009.2的排名没有杂种国什么事了。:D
:Q
还有更新的资料？发来看看
还有更新的资料？发来看看
不知道欢从何来。
原帖由 锋利的灵魂 于 2009-2-21 17:17 发表
:D
实在太夸张了，难以想象十年前中国这几大国有银行还是坏帐累累，现在居然翻身了。
而欧美金融巨头却全体趴下了。
:D
还是不要忘了当年国有银行股份制时候的惊险一搏，总理在记者招待会上的那番话印象太深了，公开表示了不乐观的态度呀。
霸权三支柱中最重要的一根倒了。:D
原帖由 锋利的灵魂 于 2009-2-21 17:17 发表
:D
实在太夸张了，难以想象十年前中国这几大国有银行还是坏帐累累，现在居然翻身了。
而欧美金融巨头却全体趴下了。
:D
你补上名单上三家霉国银行的资产，我看是不是已经过时了。记住，咱们的银行虽然服务、产品不咋地但资产一直在增加，而霉国的宝贝每一刻在瘦身。:D
:Q
没有霉国、鬼子的数据
没有霉国、鬼子的数据
这个好像就是日本排的。。。另外亚洲大公司什么的。。基本都是中国的。。邪恶啊
原帖由 人非人鬼非鬼 于 2009-2-21 17:23 发表
最新的消息是许多杂种国大银行，比如花旗和美洲，要国有化了。:D :D
:@ 美国人民现在也是经常被欺负，这帮资本寡头挣钱的时候是自己的，亏钱的时候是国家（纳税民众）兜着，等危机一过，肯定又廉价的变回私人拥有（甚至白白出资，连国有化-私有化的倒手都省掉了），然后继续海赚...
今天在图书馆看在之，美国新闻周刊已经吧胡总排为全球最有权势第二名了，第一名师奥巴马。:D :D
按郎阴毛教授的看法, 这绝对是个大阴毛.;P
也不必太高兴了
这只是市值排名，并不能完全反映一个银行的全面盈利能力和真正规模。
而且既然人家的银行可能因为股票狂跌而迅速缩水，那么我们的也可能这样。
所以这个排名就不必看得太重了。
这只是市值排名，并不能完全反映一个银行的全面盈利能力和真正规模。
而且既然人家的银行可能因为股票狂跌而迅速缩水，那么我们的也可能这样。
所以这个排名就不必看得太重了。
原帖由 wang2bin10 于 2009-2-21 21:52 发表
也不必太高兴了
这只是市值排名，并不能完全反映一个银行的全面盈利能力和真正规模。
而且既然人家的银行可能因为股票狂跌而迅速缩水，那么我们的也可能这样。
所以这个排名就不必看得太重了。
貌似工商银行也是世界上盈利最高的银行。
我们银行的股票本来就不高，还能缩水到什么份上
另外，国内的银行金融业务相比国外还是非常有限的
另外，国内的银行金融业务相比国外还是非常有限的
确实跟股票价值的浮动有关，但我相信这绝对是个好兆头．
四大行统统玩去，招行粉丝在此！
难怪漫画里中国多是钱柜形象;P
说得对，而且这几个国有银行垃圾得很
最赚钱的民间放贷还没贴呢。;P
原帖由 淹死的鱼 于 2009-2-21 23:31 发表
最赚钱的民间放贷还没贴呢。;P
总觉得不安稳，赚钱是赚钱，就怕一下没了:D
这种事情做个两三年赚点就可以了。
原帖由 江山我有 于 2009-2-21 23:00 发表
说得对，而且这几个国有银行垃圾得很
举几个不垃圾的银行例子
晕,在本镇,工商银行就一个支行
而农行至少五个营业厅,
其中有四个的距离都在一公里的范围内,
也就是说从第一家走到最后一家,不超过20分钟.
而农行至少五个营业厅,
其中有四个的距离都在一公里的范围内,
也就是说从第一家走到最后一家,不超过20分钟.
原帖由 江山我有 于 2009-2-21 23:00 发表
说得对，而且这几个国有银行垃圾得很
:美国银行倒闭潮进行时中，这个怎么说:D
服务垃圾，谁都不会反对吧
人民网排的还是日本排的？给个国外的报道。
原帖由 江山我有 于 2009-2-21 23:46 发表
服务垃圾，谁都不会反对吧
数额到位呵呵，一对一的服务就不垃圾了
[:a10:] 农行？
原帖由 江山我有 于 2009-2-21 23:46 发表
服务垃圾，谁都不会反对吧
服务不好和资金安全可是有实质性的差别
资金安全最重要:b
[:a10:] 今天新闻里不是说中央出台了“只贷不存的民间融资新规定？”
赚钱了大资本家收益，亏了全国百姓买单。
美国是典型的经济流氓主义国家
美国是典型的经济流氓主义国家
原帖由 江山我有 于 2009-2-21 23:46 发表
服务垃圾，谁都不会反对吧
以本菜在英国的经历，没感觉英国rbs或者汇丰的分支机构的服务和国内有啥区别。
原帖由 天堂风暴 于 2009-2-22 01:47 发表
以本菜在英国的经历，没感觉英国rbs或者汇丰的分支机构的服务和国内有啥区别。
VIP服务和普通服务就是很大区别。
国内的VIP一对一服务一样让你感觉到什么叫做上帝。
原帖由 天堂风暴 于 2009-2-22 01:47 发表
以本菜在英国的经历，没感觉英国rbs或者汇丰的分支机构的服务和国内有啥区别。
以我在英国的经历，国内银行除了排队讨厌别的基本都比英国好。。。请让我bs下英国人的工作效率