147 companies control 40% of the global economy

[Kermit power]

Well, according to a study covered in the New Scientist they do, anyway.

Interesting that despite the huge rise of China, India and Brazil in particular, the overwhelming representation amongst the top 50 remains American, British, French or German.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this really. Whenever we see a UK company taken over by a foreign entity, people bemoan the lack of protectionism, yet with 8 British companies in the top 40 listed, should we just be happier to consider who owns the foreign entities doing the acquiring?

[cazzer]

And you have to get down to number 50 before you reach a company that actually produces some sort of actual physical product.

[thinfourth2]

cazzer said:

And you have to get down to number 50 before you reach a company that actually produces some sort of actual physical product.

No 22 Mitsubishi who make stuff


fk knows how barclays got to no.1

[cazzer]

thinfourth2 said:

cazzer said:

And you have to get down to number 50 before you reach a company that actually produces some sort of actual physical product.

No 22 Mitsubishi who make stuff

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

[aizvara]

cazzer said:

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

Its Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc; some sort of merged bank, not much to do with the car manufacturer.

[bigandclever]

aizvara said:

cazzer said:

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

Its Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc; some sort of merged bank, not much to do with the car manufacturer.

Correct, the only none 'financial sector' companies are

8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415
33 DODGE & COX US 7415
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414

The 4 digit code is a NACE industry sector code.

[Fittster]

bigandclever said:

aizvara said:

cazzer said:

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

Its Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc; some sort of merged bank, not much to do with the car manufacturer.

Correct, the only none 'financial sector' companies are

8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415
33 DODGE & COX US 7415
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414

The 4 digit code is a NACE industry sector code.

Vanguard's mission is to help clients reach their financial goals by being the world's highest-value provider of investment products and services.

[Kermit power]

Fittster said:

bigandclever said:

aizvara said:

cazzer said:

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

Its Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc; some sort of merged bank, not much to do with the car manufacturer.

Correct, the only none 'financial sector' companies are

8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE US 7415
15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923
28 ALLIANZ SE DE 7415
33 DODGE & COX US 7415
49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC. US 7414

The 4 digit code is a NACE industry sector code.

Vanguard's mission is to help clients reach their financial goals by being the world's highest-value provider of investment products and services.

The only one of those which isn't part of the financial sector is Walton Enterprises, and even then that's the investment vehicle for the Waltons as opposed to actual Walmart.

Remember, though, this report isn't about who manufactures what. It's about who owns what. If you look at the Forbes Global 500 which ranks companies by turnover, then you get down to AXA in 14th before you reach a financial sector company. To get that big, the chances are you're no longer a privately held company, therefore someone owns your shares, which is what produces the first list. Where it gets really complex is in the likes of Barclays holding shares not only in, say, BP, but also in various other financial institutions who also hold shares in BP.



Who would've thought though that the Japanese Post Office would rank in the top 10 of the Forbes ranking though?

[Bing o]

I think that the JPO might hold savings deposits, which the Japanese have a lot of. It's a bit like the Singapore sovereign wealth fund, GIC...

ETA, I was right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Post

Japan Post ran the world's largest postal savings system and was often said to be the largest holder of personal savings in the world: with ¥224 trillion ($2.1 trillion) of household assets in its yū-cho savings accounts and ¥126 trillion ($1.2 trillion) of household assets in its kampo life insurance services, its holdings account for 25 percent of household assets in Japan. Japan Post also held about ¥140 trillion (one fifth) of the Japanese national debt in the form of government bonds.

Edited by Bing o on Tuesday 25th October 06:37

[0a]

I read this earlier today. Should I be disgusted?

I'm not sure I understand the methodology.

[Beardy10]

FFS I mean of course banks are going to have the most "influence/cennection"....every company and pretty much every person in the developed world needs a bank account so guess what banks have relationships with a lot of people. And then guess what fund managers that own shares in any company that is listed on a stock exchange are also going to.

What a total piece of ste research/journalism.

A class of 12 year olds could probably have come to the same conclusion in about 10 minutes.

[Kermit power]

Beardy10 said:

What a total piece of ste research/journalism.

A class of 12 year olds could probably have come to the same conclusion in about 10 minutes.

Could you do a breakdown of what you think is wrong with it then?

I got confused by all the complex formulas, so a layman's explanation from someone who understands the maths would be welcome.

Yes, it's pretty obvious there would be lots of banks in there, but could you explain how they've calculated the relative positions, and why you think it's flawed?

[BMWBen]

aizvara said:

cazzer said:

Indeed...sorry,missed that one.

Its Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Inc; some sort of merged bank, not much to do with the car manufacturer.

Indeed - it's one of the largest deposit banks in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_UFJ_Financ...

Edited by BMWBen on Monday 24th October 21:49

[BMWBen]

cazzer said:

And you have to get down to number 50 before you reach a company that actually produces some sort of actual physical product.

Not surprising though is it... The world needs lots of little individual physical products, but only one financial system. So which is going to have a few big companies and which lots of smaller companies?

[AJS-]

They're pretty much all banks, and when you think that most of the world, private and corporate deposit their money in a bank one way or another it's not really surprising that they should have a lot of money.

Can I get paid to come out with one of these studies?

[rand hobart]

40%?
I think 100% is controled by one family.
Rothchild

[Beardy10]

Kermit power said:

Beardy10 said:

What a total piece of ste research/journalism.

A class of 12 year olds could probably have come to the same conclusion in about 10 minutes.

Could you do a breakdown of what you think is wrong with it then?

I got confused by all the complex formulas, so a layman's explanation from someone who understands the maths would be welcome.

Yes, it's pretty obvious there would be lots of banks in there, but could you explain how they've calculated the relative positions, and why you think it's flawed?

They've spent an inordinate amount of time doing research and building a model which intuitively anyone with half a brain could have got results to within 90% of. As a piece or research or journalism it tells us absolutely nothing useful....do we really care whether Barclays is No 1 or UBS is NO 10 ? How is that information actually useful ? As was pointed out in the write up it's already out of date as Barclays has since sold BGI.

You could quite simply have looked at the size of any banks balance sheet and taken that as a proxy for it's influence. That takes about two minutes...then add in if they own any other businesses like asset managers or insurance companies.

Utter nonsense.

Why do you think it's so interesting or valuable?

[toast boy]

I think I've either misunderstood the significance of the results or that there is nothing to be concerned about here?

It looks to me like what this means is that the companies in the global economy which have the greatest interconnection and financial links to other companies are the multinational banks. Surely this is not surprising given that all of the other producing companies will most likely conduct their own personal banking with a multinational bank and they may be part owned through shares by a bank/pension fund/financial organisation?

Or am I missing something glaringly obvious?

[elster]

Shock horror, banks lend money.

I am truly surprised that a production company doesn't do the same...

[maix27]

Just proves the point that that the top companies stumble and everyone else suffers. IT's like a monopoly, and it fks everyone when it goes wrong because such a small number hold so much sway.

I think that's what they're trying to say.