Can’t you just list them here?
seconded, bundles tatizo
[ATTACH=full]175047[/ATTACH]
Watu wa summary.
Some people like a little bit more info with their lists, lakini @WuTang amewawekea
Utapatia @patco High Blood Pressure bure. :D:D:D
Blood pressure gani na ICBC inaongoza money laundering. Sio wizi ya technology hadi banking sector ya China ni wizi tu.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/icbc-spain/
China's ICBC Ordered by Fed to Boost Money-Laundering Safeguards - Bloomberg
Haya, kama kawaida rather than admit the obvious truth you and your friends here stroke, brainwashed Chinese lackeys mtasema ni fake news. Kisha you’ll spend the whole day looking for all the articles on American banks and all their evils. America being an open society and with a robust investigative media najua utapata articles milioni. Kisha ujaze thread na charts na meme za ujinga ati mmeshinda…
And you don’t pause to ask why are the likes of uhuru and wanjigi so happy to engage Chinese banks? Who is really enriching these banks especially the construction banks? As usual it’s the African idiot. But cheer on team China.
Wow, you tried. Atleast no 5,000 word essay this time. You’re getting there. Kudos.
hehe ati mliamua hamtakuwa mnaniongelesha juu niliwatukana?
What an emotional bunch of cry babies. You are a product of brain drain I ain’t taking that back. And a big idiot if you don’t recognise that much.
Na China bado ni 3rd world country, trillion dollar gdp or not. Same with India.
Having the biggest banks on earth doesn’t mean you are a successful country. It is how equitably the national cake is distributed. Sio ati xi jinping can afford the Best healthcare on earth whereas a terminally sick Chinese factory worker can’t afford chemo. Now do the word count on that essay and go fuck yourself!!
What would the world do without patco’s exceptional genius? Kudos boss. We can only learn from you.
Big/large is relative. You need to specify your parameter(s)…market share/size, revenues, profitability, market value, capital outlay…
Amazon, ExxonMobil, Gazprom, Saudi Aramco, Walmart, GM, Alphabet…all can easily make it to top 10 if considering only one or two of the above parameters.
Those parameters are there, unless you didn’t watch the video. The four parameters are sales, assets, profit and market value. Alphabet is no. 23, Walmart 24, ExxonMobil 13…full list ndio hii hapa.
I appreciate the formula Forbes applies to award each contender a weighted score, basing on which the companies are then ranked. However, I find it hard to agree that these ‘weighted scores’ should be used to determine a company’s size/largeness for this methodology is considerably lacking in objectivity. I prefer considering a company’s ‘size’ applying one metric at a time, kind of ‘digesting the data/information in smaller, manageable bits…’
Under market capitalization, for example, Apple ranks 1st at $926.9bn, roughly 3 times the value of ICBC, which tops the list when the weighted score is applied. But at $311bn, the latter can hardly make it to the list of top 10 most valuable companies in the world.
So, is it outright prudent to comfortably claim that ICBC is ‘larger’ than Apple?
My answer lies in my earier position; big/large is relative.
Market value to me seems more of the industry “opinion” or perception than a reliable indicator of a company’s worth. In my opinion, it should not even play a part in the calculation. The others, Sales, profit and assets are most reliable because they can be quantified. With market value for example, if the CEO of Apple falls sick and the stock goes down say 5 dollars, which wipes off say 50 billion dollars off the company’s value within hours, is that really a good indicator? But with sales. profits and assets, we know for sure that the value is correct and stable.
True.
Market cap. is a useless indicator because of stock market overvaluation or undervaluation.
Also, multinational corporations derive a significant portion of revenue overseas and domestic market cap. may not take this into consideration.
Exactly my argument.
Apply one parameter at a time and we can have a sober and objectivity-driven discussion about the ‘largeness’ of a company. This way one can confidently put forward an argument and convincingly defend it.
Mash up indicators and you run into many unwarranted problems with everyone, chief one being you’ll be at pains trying to justify your ‘weighted average formula.’ You and @Charley Flani, for example, don’t agree that market capitalization should inform the decision on how large a company is. Forbes does (I do, too) and factors this parameter in ‘the formula.’
If you ask me, the methodology of applying a weighted score to determine the largeness of companies and to rank them accordingly is better left to classroom discussions, rather than being used to generate information meant for public consumption.
Oh come on. You were the one who was saying ranking should be on the basis of market value.
Your current point makes me doubt whether you’re aware of any of the basic principles of accounting.