The World’s Top 10 Banks in 2025: Power, Risk, and the New Financial Order

China’s trillion-dollar banking giants dominate global finance—but their real estate exposure could reshape the entire system

The global banking landscape has reached an inflection point. As we close 2025, the world’s 100 largest banks control $95.5 trillion in assets—a figure that eclipses the GDP of most nations combined. Yet beneath this staggering concentration of financial power lies a paradox that should concern policymakers and investors alike: the banks with the biggest balance sheets may not be the most resilient.

Four Chinese state-owned institutions—Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, Agricultural Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and Bank of China—occupy the top spots in the global rankings by total assets. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase, the largest U.S. bank and fifth globally, commands the highest market capitalization at nearly $788 billion, signaling that investors value American banking efficiency over sheer size.

This divergence tells us something critical: in 2025’s banking world, scale and strength are no longer synonymous.

The Rankings: Size Doesn’t Equal Safety

Based on the latest data from S&P Global Market Intelligence and financial reports through Q4 2024, here are the world’s ten largest banks by total assets:

1. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) – $6.6 trillion in assets. The world’s largest bank by assets continues to benefit from Beijing’s infrastructure spending and state support, operating over 16,000 branches globally. Yet non-performing loan ratios are forecast to rise to 5.4-5.8% in 2025-2027, up from 5.1% in 2024, driven primarily by real estate exposure.

2. Agricultural Bank of China – Approximately $5.8 trillion. Deeply embedded in rural China’s financial system, ABC faces similar real estate headwinds while supporting Beijing’s rural development priorities.

3. China Construction Bank – Around $5.6 trillion. As its name suggests, CCB’s fortunes are intimately tied to China’s construction sector, making it particularly vulnerable to the ongoing property crisis.

4. Bank of China – Approximately $4.8 trillion. The most internationally oriented of China’s “Big Four,” with significant foreign operations, yet still carrying substantial domestic real estate exposure.

5. JPMorgan Chase – $4.0 trillion in assets. The most profitable large bank globally, JPMorgan’s return on equity reached 18% in 2024, demonstrating that American banks achieve more with less. With 5,021 domestic branches and sophisticated digital platforms, JPMorgan exemplifies the “smaller but mightier” model.

6. Bank of America – $2.65 trillion. The second-largest U.S. bank maintains 3,624 domestic branches and has aggressively invested in digital banking, serving millions through its AI-powered virtual assistant Erica.

7. HSBC Holdings – $3.0 trillion. Europe’s largest bank by assets, HSBC is navigating a strategic pivot toward Asia while managing legacy exposures across its global footprint.

8. BNP Paribas – Approximately $2.9 trillion. France’s largest bank and a European leader in investment banking and corporate finance.

9. Crédit Agricole – Around $2.6 trillion. Another French banking giant with significant retail and corporate banking operations across Europe.

10. Citigroup – $1.84 trillion. Once the world’s largest bank, Citi has streamlined operations but maintains an unparalleled global presence with operations in 109 foreign branches.

The Elephant in the Boardroom: China’s Real Estate Time Bomb

Here’s what the asset rankings don’t show: Chinese banks’ exposure to real estate loans has created systemic vulnerabilities, with non-performing asset ratios for property development loans potentially reaching 7% by 2027 if markets stabilize—and much worse if they don’t.

Walk through any major Chinese city today and you’ll see the problem in concrete and steel: unfinished apartment towers, silent construction sites, and the ghostly remains of a $52 trillion property bubble that’s now deflating. Chinese policymakers removed price caps on housing in 2024, allowing eligible families to buy unlimited homes in suburban areas, a desperate attempt to revive demand that has largely failed.

The human cost is staggering. Mid-2025 data shows mortgage non-performing loan rates at listed banks rising overall, with some banks up more than 20 basis points. Millions of Chinese homeowners now hold “underwater” mortgages—properties worth less than their outstanding loans. Some have lost both their homes and down payments yet still owe banks hundreds of thousands of yuan.

For the Big Four Chinese banks, this isn’t just a loan quality issue—it’s an existential question. Banks’ exposure to housing and local government debt declined to 20.7% in Q4 2024 from 22.2% a year earlier, but that still represents trillions in potentially troubled assets. Beijing’s response? Issuing 500 billion yuan in special treasury bonds in 2025 to support bank recapitalization.

Think about that for a moment. The government that owns these banks is now having to inject capital into them to cover losses from lending that the government itself encouraged. It’s a circular firing squad of state capitalism.

American Excellence: Smaller, Smarter, More Profitable

Cross the Pacific and the banking model looks radically different. JPMorgan Chase’s annualized return on equity for Q2 2025 was 16.93%, a performance Chinese banks can only dream of. With roughly $4 trillion in assets—a third of ICBC’s size—JPMorgan generated comparable or superior profits through better risk management, superior technology, and diversified revenue streams.

American banks aren’t perfect. They face their own challenges: rising commercial real estate defaults, regulatory uncertainty around the Basel III endgame rules, and fierce competition from fintech disruptors. Yet their fundamental business model—strict capital requirements, transparent accounting, and market discipline—creates resilience.

The regulatory framework matters enormously. Basel III requires banks to maintain a minimum Common Equity Tier 1 ratio at all times, plus a mandatory capital conservation buffer equivalent to at least 2.5% of risk-weighted assets. U.S. implementation has been stricter than in many jurisdictions, forcing American banks to hold more capital but also making them genuinely safer.

Compare this to China, where banks have remained cautious about new property exposure, transferring housing risks to non-bank financial institutions. That’s not risk management—that’s risk concealment. The leverage doesn’t disappear; it just moves to less regulated corners of the financial system.

The Digital Divide: Innovation as the New Moat

Size and capital strength matter, but in 2025, technological sophistication increasingly separates winners from also-rans. DBS Bank’s AI investments are projected to reach 750 million Singapore dollars (about $577 million) in 2024 and surpass SG$1 billion in 2025. The Singapore-based bank has deployed over 1,500 AI and machine learning models across 370 use cases, from corporate risk assessment to customer service.

JPMorgan and Bank of America aren’t far behind. BofA’s Erica virtual assistant has handled billions of customer interactions, while JPMorgan uses AI for everything from fraud detection to trading strategies. Only 8% of banks were developing generative AI systematically in 2024, with 78% taking a tactical approach, but that’s changing rapidly.

The Chinese banks? They’re investing heavily in digital infrastructure, to be sure. Yet their technology serves a fundamentally different purpose: facilitating state-directed lending, monitoring transactions for political purposes, and supporting Beijing’s social credit systems. Innovation, yes—but innovation in service of control rather than customer value.

European banks occupy an uncomfortable middle ground. BBVA’s expansion of its OpenAI collaboration will see ChatGPT Enterprise rolled out to all 120,000 global employees, signaling serious AI ambitions. Yet European banks collectively lag their American and Asian peers in both investment and implementation.

Basel III Endgame: The Regulatory Reckoning

Speaking of uncomfortable positions, let’s address the regulatory elephant: the Basel III endgame. Under the original proposal, large banks would begin transitioning to the new framework on July 1, 2025, with full compliance starting July 1, 2028. The proposal would have resulted in an aggregate 16% increase in common equity tier 1 capital requirements for affected bank holding companies.

But here’s the twist: US regulators recently proposed to reduce capital requirements on the largest banks, bowing to intense industry lobbying and political pressure. The revised proposal now calls for only a 9% increase for global systemically important banks—still significant, but less onerous than originally planned.

This compromise may prove disastrous. The average leverage ratio of US global systemically important banks declined from a 2016 peak of 9% to about 7% in 2023 and has remained there. Banks have been gaming the system, increasing risk exposure while maintaining superficially healthy risk-weighted capital ratios.

Meanwhile, the European Central Bank and Bank of England have delayed their Basel III implementation, citing US inaction. We’re witnessing a potential regulatory race to the bottom—exactly what the Basel framework was designed to prevent.

The Geopolitical Wildcard: Trade, Tariffs, and Banking Stress

Banking doesn’t happen in a vacuum. International trade disputes and changes in tariffs are expected to influence the performance of banks, impacting asset quality and growth potential. If U.S.-China trade tensions escalate further—a real possibility given recent political developments—Chinese banks will feel the pain first and hardest.

Reciprocal tariffs between the US and China are exerting pressure on Chinese banks, particularly due to declining demand from export-oriented manufacturers. When factories close or cut production, loan defaults follow. It’s Economics 101, but at a scale that could destabilize the entire Chinese banking system.

American banks have their own trade exposure, of course, but it’s more diversified and often hedged. JPMorgan operates in over 100 countries. Citi, despite its shrinking footprint, remains the most truly global bank. They have options. Chinese banks, despite their size, remain heavily dependent on the domestic economy.

What This Means for 2026 and Beyond

So where does this leave us? Here’s my take, informed by twenty years covering this beat:

First, asset size is an increasingly misleading metric. ICBC’s $6.6 trillion balance sheet looks impressive until you examine what’s actually on it. Quality trumps quantity, and American banks demonstrate this daily through superior profitability and resilience.

Second, the Chinese banking system faces a reckoning. It’s not a matter of if, but when and how severe. Chinese banks were sitting on 3.2 trillion yuan ($440 billion) worth of bad loans by the end of September—a 33% increase from pre-Covid times. These numbers, from the banks themselves, are almost certainly understated.

Third, technology is creating a two-tier banking world. Banks that aggressively adopt AI, blockchain, and advanced analytics will dominate. Those that don’t will become utilities—low-margin, heavily regulated, and perpetually vulnerable to disruption.

Fourth, regulatory arbitrage is back with a vengeance. The Basel III endgame was supposed to eliminate it. Instead, we’re seeing regulators water down requirements in response to bank lobbying. This should terrify anyone who remembers 2008.

Finally, geopolitics increasingly dictates banking success. In an era of great power competition, owning a bank in Shanghai or New York means different things. Chinese banks serve the state; American banks serve shareholders (at least theoretically). European banks are caught in between, trying to navigate relationships with both powers while maintaining independence.

The Billion-Dollar Question

Here’s what keeps me up at night: We’ve seen this movie before. Massive banks, seemingly too big to fail, carrying hidden risks that regulators either can’t see or choose to ignore. Policymakers convinced that “this time is different” because of better capital rules, smarter supervision, or more sophisticated risk management.

It never is.

The difference in 2025 is that the risks are concentrated in banks that operate under fundamentally different rules. When—not if—the Chinese property crisis forces Beijing to choose between bank bailouts and economic growth, the ripples will reach far beyond Asia.

The world’s largest 100 banks account for $95.5 trillion in assets, up 3% year over year. That’s growth, yes, but it’s also concentration. Too much power, in too few hands, making too many bets on too few assumptions.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, likes to say his bank could survive another 2008-style crisis. He’s probably right—JPMorgan is genuinely well-capitalized and well-managed. But could the global financial system survive a crisis originating in China’s $6 trillion banking sector?

That’s the question that should haunt every central banker and finance minister. Because in 2025, we’re not just worried about banks that are too big to fail. We’re worried about banks that are too big, too opaque, and too politically connected for anyone to fully understand the risks they carry.

The world’s top ten banks in 2025 aren’t just financial institutions. They’re nodes in a global system where everyone’s connected to everyone else through invisible chains of credit, derivatives, and counterparty risk. Pull one thread, and you might unravel the whole sweater.

Sleep tight.

---

The author is a Senior Opinion Columnist specializing in global finance and policy. Views expressed are personal.