## Figure 1.7. Global Systemically Important Banks’ International Activity

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Figure 1.7. Global Systemically Important Banks’ International Activity](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/gfsr/2017/october/chapter-1/pdf-data/figure1-7.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/gfsr/2017/october/chapter-1/pdf-data/figure1-7.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/gfsr/2017/october/chapter-1/pdf-data/figure1-7.pdf.json)

---

### Degree of Internationality, 2010 and 2016
- Index scaled (1 to 100) of relative exposures across the 30 GSIBs over 2010 to 2016.
- Each exposure is based on an average of:
  - (1) percent of revenue from nonhome regions;
  - (2) international loans divided by total loans (or international assets divided by total assets);
  - (3) foreign deposits divided by total deposits.
- Axis/scale values shown: 0.0, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5
- Caption conclusion: GSIBs’ international activity has remained stable overall.

### Panel 1 — Bank identifiers (order shown)
- CCB
- ABC
- BOC
- ICBC
- SMFG
- MUFG
- MFG
- HSBC
- STAN
- BARC
- RBS
- ING
- CA
- UCG
- BPCE
- SG
- SAN
- BNP
- NDA
- DB
- CS
- UBS
- BNY
- WFC
- STT
- BOA
- CITI
- JPM
- MS
- GS

### International Loans
- Title: International Loans (Trillions of US dollars)
- Axis/scale values shown: 0 20 40 60 80 100
- Time markers indicated: 2010 2016
- Caption conclusion: GSIBs are increasing their share in international lending despite an overall reduction.

### GSIBs by Home Region: Average Return on Assets, Domestic and Foreign Banking Subsidiaries, 2014–16 Average
- Title: Average Return on Assets, Domestic and Foreign Banking Subsidiaries, 2014–16 Average (Percent)
- Region labels shown: China, Japan, Continental Europe, United Kingdom, United States
- Two-group comparison indicated: From GSIBs / From non-GSIBs and Domestic / Foreign
- Time markers or sample labels shown: 2011–13 averages, 2014–16 averages
- Caption conclusion: Foreign banking operations are more profitable than domestic entities for many banks.
- Note: Subsidiary return on assets are based on reported earnings. The reported earnings of subsidiaries in the United Kingdom and the United States may be understated due to the booking of conduct charges in those jurisdictions.

### GSIBs by Home Region: Overseas Subsidiaries’ Deposits as Percent of Total Liabilities, 2011–13 and 2014–16 Averages
- Title: Overseas Subsidiaries’ Deposits as Percent of Total Liabilities, 2011–13 and 2014–16 Averages (Percent)
- Axis/scale values shown: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
- Time markers shown in sequence: 2006 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (displayed as a continuous run with 1516 highlighted)
- Region labels shown: United States, Continental Europe, United Kingdom, Japan, China
- Caption conclusion: Subsidiaries of European and US GSIBs have increased their funding through local deposits.

### Notes and Data Sources (as presented)
- Sources: Bank financial statements; Basel Committee for Banking Supervision; Bloomberg Finance L.P.; European Central Bank; Federal Reserve Board; S&P Capital IQ; SNL Financial; and IMF staff estimates and analysis.
- Additional note: For panel 2, see notes in Figure 1.6 for sample descriptions.
- Abbreviation: GSIBs = global systemically important banks.

*Figure 1.7. Global Systemically Important Banks’ International Activity*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/gfsr/2017/october/chapter-1/pdf-data/figure1-7.pdf_