2015 Brand Finance Global 500: China comes of age in the branding world

Strong stock markets in China and Asia contrast with stagnant or falling markets in continental Europe. US and UK markets are consolidating gains and reigniting a boom in IPO and M&A activity, led by iconic branded businesses from China

37979.jpg

During 2014, stock markets in Russia, Ukraine, Eastern Europe and Africa suffered, while China, Philippines and other Asian markets rebounded strongly.

Meanwhile, the United States and the United Kingdom maintained strong stock market performances, driven by quantitative easing, successful austerity measures, low inflation and interest rates and effective economic growth policies, which they have been vigorously pursuing since 2009.

Overall, the value of all quoted companies on 55 major stock markets worldwide hit $71 trillion, an 11% value increase on 2014. This set the stage for exciting increases in value among increasingly self-confident brands which have put the global crisis and economic downturn firmly behind them.

Figure 1: Fastest-rising stock markets

36363.jpg

Figure 2: Fastest-falling stock markets

36845.jpg

Figure 3: Global surge in enterprise values

36881.jpg

Within this robust overall enterprise value growth, the performance of intangible asset values as a proportion of enterprise value remained stable at 53%. At the height of the last boom, this proportion reached 65% of total enterprise value, suggesting that intangible asset values still have some way to go in current market conditions before peaking.

The absolute numbers indicate that $3 trillion of net tangible asset investment occurred in 2014, while intangible asset values grew by $4 trillion. Corporate confidence – along with increased bank liquidity – fuelled investment in tangible assets, while growing shareholder confidence drove the rise in the intangible value of companies.

If the enterprise value to intangible asset value ratio returned to its 2007 peak, this would imply an increase of between 20% and 25% in global intangible asset value, or another $8 trillion to $9 trillion. Last year I suggested that if the recovery in asset values continued, total enterprise value would break the $80 trillion mark. Geopolitical disruption, notably in the Middle East and Russia, has held this back during 2014, but it may well rebound in 2015.

There has been a resurgence of initial public offering (IPO) and M&A activity in the United States and the United Kingdom. Sentiment is being driven by future prospects and potential intangible value accretion, indicating that despite various local political difficulties – mainly in the Middle East and Russia – global confidence has largely returned.

Banks are lending, investors are investing and in certain mature markets the asset booms of 2000 and 2007 are definitely back. Overall stock market values are now significantly higher than the pre-crisis year of 2007, apparently with the slack to grow further in 2015.

World’s most valuable brands

Against this positive macro-economic background, the aggregate brand value of the top 500 brands in the world rose by 4.7%, increasing by almost $200 billion to $4.567 trillion. The ranking of the top 10 brands remained largely stable, although one or two significant trends are beginning to appear among the top players.

Apple remains the world’s most valuable brand, followed by Samsung, which is one of only two non-US brands to be found in the top 10 most valuable brands in the world.

However, whereas in 2014 it appeared that Apple was flagging and that the surging Samsung brand might catch up with it, the former has reasserted its authority at the top of the table (see Table 1). Apple has achieved this by bringing new devices to market (eg, iPhone 6, iPad Air and Apple Watch), by maintaining its premium pricing and, above all, by breaking into the massive Chinese market, after striking a distribution deal with China Mobile.

Table 1: The top 10 most valuable brands

Rank 2015

Rank 2014

Brand

Brand value 2015

Brand rating 2015

Enterprise value

Brand value /enterprise value (%)

BV change

1

1

Apple

128,303

AAA

438,990

29%

23%

2

2

Samsung

81,716

AAA-

259,004

32%

4%

3

3

Google

76,683

AAA

306,226

25%

12%

4

4

Microsoft

67,060

AAA

260,407

26%

7%

5

5

Verizon

59,843

AAA-

310,379

19%

12%

6

7

AT&T

58,820

AA+

255,529

23%

30%

7

8

Amazon.com

56,124

AAA-

139,746

40%

24%

8

6

General Electric

48,019

AA+

415,459

12%

-9%

9

13

China Mobile

47,916

AAA-

171,412

28%

50%

10

9

Walmart

46,737

AA+

238,344

20%

4%

As a result, Apple’s brand value has grown from $104 billion to $128 billion, a robust 23% rise. Meanwhile, Samsung, with its complex product range and lower price points, grew from $79 billion to only $82 billion, a 4% change. Tim Cook has convincingly demonstrated that Apple’s new product pipeline and brand can dominate despite Steve Jobs’ passing.

The top 10 (remains dominated by the United States and by technology brands, with Google, Microsoft and Verizon leading the pack. Within this peloton, GE dropped back from sixth to eighth place, while AT&T and Amazon have moved up to sixth and seventh places respectively.

However, US dominance of the top 10 brands is beginning to weaken. For the first time, IBM has dropped out of the Brand Finance top 10 most valuable brands in the world, to be replaced by China Mobile, which leapt from 13th to ninth place. Ironically, Lenovo, the Chinese technology brand that acquired IBM’s PC business in 2005, grew by 35% during 2014 (from $3.9 billion to $5.3 billion).

The outstandingly successful collaboration between an old-world and a new-world brand could be a harbinger of things to come

China Mobile’s brand value has increased by a staggering 50%, from $32 billion to $48 billion, in just one year. It is perhaps no coincidence that Apple’s partner in China has surged in value, benefiting from the strategic tie-up between the two brands. Across the whole Global 500 study, Chinese brands are forging ahead, but the outstandingly successful collaboration between an old-world and a new-world brand could be a harbinger of things to come in other industries.

Interestingly, Amazon ($56 billion) – the world’s mightiest online retail brand, which attracted controversy during 2014 because of its business and tax practices – has powered ahead of its bricks and mortar rival Walmart ($46 billion). Amazon’s brand value grew by 24%, while Walmart’s brand value grew by only 4%.

However, there is no room for complacency at Amazon. It is now threatened by its Chinese rival Alibaba, which clocked up the largest IPO of all time in 2014. The Alibaba Group now has a significantly higher enterprise value than Amazon, but runs a multi-brand strategy, meaning that the monolithic Amazon brand ($56 billion) remains ahead of the Alibaba brand ($11.4 billion). Alibaba Group’s business-to-business (B2B) portal is branded Alibaba, while it also operates various other brands including Taobao, China’s largest consumer-to-consumer portal. Can Amazon resist the development of a monolithic Alibaba brand worldwide, funded by $25 billion of new capital from the IPO?

The biggest individual winners are again to be found in the telecoms and hi-tech industries, with Apple increasing its brand value by $24 billion in 2014. Facebook defied its critics by increasing its brand value by $14.4 billion, closely followed by AT&T ($13.4 billion) and Amazon ($11 billion).

One of the noteworthy trends this year is the charge of Chinese brands led by China Mobile, which grew its brand value by $16 billion alone. It was joined in the top 20 winners by seven other Chinese brands, which collectively grew their brand value by an impressive $38 billion: Baidu ($8.2 billion), China Construction Bank ($7.5 billion), Alibaba ($5.7 billion), Agricultural Bank of China ($5 billion), ICBC ($4.6 billion), Sinopec ($3.8 billion) and Bank of China ($3.7 billion). Chinese brands are finally flexing their muscles on the world stage.

Table 2: Individual winners – largest rises in brand value

1

Apple

Technology

23,623

2

China Mobile

Telecoms operator

16,071

3

Facebook

Technology

14,361

4

AT&T

Telecoms operator

13,409

5

Amazon.com

Technology

10,977

6

Baidu

Technology

8,192

7

Google

Technology

8,063

8

China Construction Bank

Bank

7,463

9

Walt Disney

Media

7,117

10

Verizon

Telecoms operator

6,377

11

Alibaba

Technology

5,377

12

Agricultural Bank Of China

Bank

4,931

13

Wells Fargo

Bank

4,683

14

ICBC

Bank

4,656

15

Microsoft

Technology

4,278

16

Boeing

Aerospace/defence

4,256

17

BMW

Automobiles

4,118

18

Volkswagen

Automobiles

3,963

19

Sinopec

Oil & gas

3,779

20

Bank of China

Bank

3,666

This year, brands losing value come from an eclectic mix of sectors, including technology, telecoms, conglomerates, auto, banking and retail. Each suffering brand has its own story, but if there is a consistent theme it is that old-world brands are losing out at the hands of upstart new brands, particularly from the Internet and Asia.

The biggest individual loser (at $6.6 billion) was Tesco, which replaced its chief executive, retreated from its imperial ambitions abroad, was battered in its UK home market by price discounters and internet players, and lost its reputation with stakeholders on brand relevance, quality of service issues and a massive accounting scandal. Warren Buffett, who had invested heavily in Tesco, humiliated the supermarket giant by admitting he had made a huge mistake and selling his shares.

Walmart, which in past years appeared to be in Tesco’s sights, increased its brand value from $44.7 billion to $46.7 billion. It may be an old-fashioned bricks and clicks retailer, but over a 10-year period it has made itself relevant to a new generation. Meanwhile, Target – another large US retailer – fell from $18.1 billion to $15.4 billion. The big question in global retail is whether the old model of retail stores will be decimated by online retailers such as Amazon and Alibaba, or whether they can find a new modus operandi including bricks and clicks. The jury is still out on that one.

Other US retail brands with old-fashioned concepts and business models which came under pressure in 2014 were McDonald’s, whose brand value dropped from $26 billion to $22 billion. Despite a concerted campaign to reinvent its product, service and brand proposition over the last decade, the US approach to fast food appears to be losing traction worldwide. Burgers and colas are increasingly being replaced by healthier and more localised food and drink choices.

Avon is another US mass market brand that is struggling to find relevance in a new world order. While the mass luxury L’Oreal brand increased its appeal to global, particularly Asian, mass affluent consumers (increasing its brand value from $10.8 billion to $12.5 billion), the Avon brand, with a business model and brand proposition stuck in 1950s America, saw its value fall from $6.4 billion to $3.9 billion – a 39% drop. In B2B and durable goods, US brands also suffered. IBM ignominiously dropped out of the top 10 brands and lost $6.1 billion in brand value. It was joined by GE, which lost $4.5 billion in brand value; and General Motors, which lost $2.5 billion.

It seems that the madmen of Madison Avenue – who created a range of iconic brands in the 1950s and 1960s – are in retreat

It seems that the madmen of Madison Avenue – who created a wide range of iconic US cultural brands in the 1950s and 1960s, which went on to dominate the world for decades – are finally in retreat. Even the Mad Men TV phenomenon has reached the end of its run.

Another former powerhouse brand nation is also in retreat under the onslaught of challenger brands. While Chinese and Korean brands continued to thrive in 2014, many once-mighty Japanese brands are declining. Hitachi, Toshiba, Sony, Mitsubishi, Nissan and MUFG collectively lost $24.3 billion in brand value. A flat Japanese economy and vibrant new challenger brands in Asia have taken their toll on the once-unstoppable Japanese.

The final trend apparent in the table of brand losers (Table 3) this year is the pressure on brands which largely rely on old Europe for their base. BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, Phillips, SAP, Vivendi, Vodafone and Daimler – all major players in EU markets – collectively lost $22 billion in brand value.

Table 3: Individual losers – largest falls in brand value

1

Tesco

Retail

(6,607)

2

IBM

IT services

(6,086)

3

Hitachi

Conglomerate

(5,630)

4

BNP Paribas

Bank

(5,268)

5

Toshiba

Technology

(4,645)

6

General Electric

Technology

(4,514)

7

Sony

Technology

(4,502)

8

McDonald's

Restaurants

(4,006)

9

Vivendi

Telecoms operator

(3,752)

10

Mitsubishi

Conglomerate

(3,466)

11

Nissan

Automobiles

(3,109)

12

MUFG

Bank

(3,049)

13

Philips

Technology

(2,947)

14

SAP

Technology

(2,915)

15

Target

Retail

(2,703)

16

General Motors

Automobiles

(2,565)

17

Deutsche Bank

Bank

(2,498)

18

Avon

Cosmetics

(2,487)

19

Vodafone

Telecoms operator

(2,325)

20

Daimler

Automobiles

(2,313)

4.7%

Increase in aggregate brand value of the top 500 brands

World’s most powerful brands

While the primary focus of the Brand Finance Global 500 is a ranking based on the absolute value of brands, each brand in the table is accorded a brand strength rating, expressed on a scale from D (very weak) to AAA+ (very strong). The rating process is based on a wide variety of benchmarked data covering inputs, intermediate and output measures across all key stakeholder groups in the specific sector in which the brands operate. Brands are rated against their sector peers and the relative results produce a rating which is relevant to their competitive position within their own sector.

In 2015 the number of Global 500 brands in each rating category is as follows.

Table 4: Number of brands in each rating category

Ratings

Number of brands

AAA+

12

AAA

25

AAA-

85

AA+

148

AA

149

AA-

61

A+

17

A

2

A-

1

 

500

It is exceptionally hard to achieve any of the AAA ratings and the bulk of brands in our study only manage AA status.

After careful consideration, we have determined that Ferrari – the world’s most powerful brand for the last two years running – has been overtaken by Lego, a new entrant to our study this year. In fact, as a result of poor on-track performance, uncertainty over its model range, extension strategy, corporate ownership changes and management dislocation, Ferrari has dropped from first to eighth strongest brand in the world. Lego has revitalised an apparently moribund conventional toy category and successfully launched itself into film and new media. They say that there are 86 Lego bricks for every person on the planet. Every parent has experienced the pain of treading on them in bare feet and trying to fix broken Lego models. Now they cannot even turn on a television without Lego popping up. The success of the Lego movie and effective marketing communications has made it a genuine breakthrough brand.

Lego is closely followed by Red Bull, which is a dominant player both in the energy drinks sector and increasingly in F1 and extreme sports. It is a vibrant brand, constantly pushing the boundaries to excite consumers and fans.

In the B2B space we have determined that once again PwC and McKinsey are the standout brands worldwide. They give businesspeople a level of reassurance and an aspirational glow which powers high business volume and pricing.

Brand finance brand ratings are equivalent to credit ratings, but for brands, and are used to determine the level of future revenue growth and risk which is factored into our brand valuations. Brand Finance has conducted such brand ratings continuously since 1996 and they are now widely used by investors as an indicator of future or potential brand and business value. In the case of Coca-Cola or Disney, a high brand rating underpins high existing consumer brand value. In the case of Hermès or Rolex, a high brand rating reflects dominance of a niche luxury category. In the case of Google or Red Bull, it predicts high future demand growth. In the case of PwC and McKinsey, it reflects dominance in a highly competitive professional business.

Table 5: The world’s most powerful brands

 

Rank 2015

Rank 2014

Brand

Brand value 2015

Brand rating 2015

Benchmarking 2015

1

358

New

Lego

3,890

AAA+

95.69

2

59

63

PwC

17,330

AAA+

91.78

3

165

203

Red Bull

7,389

AAA+

91.15

4

351

368

McKinsey

4,127

AAA+

90.08

5

282

238

Unilever

4,844

AAA+

90.07

6

92

110

L'Oréal

12,480

AAA+

89.74

7

306

323

Burberry

4,612

AAA+

89.73

8

251

265

Rolex

5,493

AAA+

89.65

9

295

350

Ferrari

4,747

AAA+

89.65

10

31

35

Nike

24,118

AAA+

89.59

11

11

12

Coca-Cola

35,797

AAA+

89.56

12

19

27

Walt Disney

30,698

AAA+

89.52

13

430

409

Johnson's

3,591

AAA

89.37

14

3

3

Google

76,683

AAA

89.07

15

217

220

Louis Vuitton

6,132

AAA

88.50

16

21

26

Mercedes-Benz

27,328

AAA

88.36

17

23

20

HSBC

27,280

AAA

88.26

18

135

138

Gillette

8,988

AAA

87.65

19

174

156

Johnson & Johnson

7,033

AAA

87.59

20

181

181

Hermès

6,914

AAA

88

Conclusion

It is increasingly recognised that intangible assets are the main drivers of economic value growth, at a company, industry and country level. Intangible assets are truly the wealth of nations. As a result of this growing recognition, many countries are developing policies to create, maintain and protect value-enhancing intellectual property. None is more active in this than China.

President Xi Jinping of China, speaking at the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China in November 2012, stated that in future he wanted Chinese products to be created in China, not just made in China. He wanted Chinese companies to focus on quality rather than price. Finally, he made it clear that he wanted China to produce brands, not just products. His seminal speech led to a huge upsurge in brand-related activity in China.

The most obvious manifestation of this newfound zeal is Chinese sponsorship of ISO Technical Committee 289 on Brand Evaluation. A previous ISO technical committee, reporting in 2010, created the ISO 10668 standard for monetary brand valuation. The new technical committee takes this one stage further into the area of brand evaluation and best practice brand management.

The first meeting of TC 289 was convened in Beijing on September 25 and 26 2014 – I was privileged to chair the UK delegation. The committee concluded that, due to its leading role in all aspects of brand creation, management, measurement and valuation, it would meet next in London on June 9 and 10 2015.

We are currently planning the agenda for that event. Given the rapid growth of Chinese brands, the rapid growth of the Chinese economy and its leader’s strong support for brands, the June meeting will be important. Additions to membership or the work programme of the UK shadow committee from readers of World Trademark Review are warmly welcomed. Brand practitioners who would like to get involved can contact me at [email protected]

Everyone in China now recognises the importance of brands to their economy. Chinese tourists are huge buyers of high-quality brands, Chinese companies are both buying and developing great brands and the Chinese government is now fully behind all aspects of brand creation. As with many things in China, when they decide that something is important and should be done thoroughly, they do not prevaricate.

While many companies in the developed world – often dominated by accountants, engineers or actuaries – have still to accept the central importance of brands in a modern business or economy, and usually penny pinch on them, Chinese business has now been mandated to get out there and invest in all areas of branding.

There is no doubt that 10 years from now, a large number of the brands in our annual study will be either home-grown Chinese brands or foreign brands now owned by Chinese companies and investors. Strong and valuable brands are drivers of economic growth and recovery. China is putting its money where its mouth is.

A couple of simple facts illustrate the point. At the last count, China had 1.5 million millionaires and 250 billionaires out of a population of 1.4 billion people – that is 19% of all people in the world today. The number of millionaires and billionaires increases rapidly every year. These people are increasingly the most brand-aware people in the world. They are increasingly buying brands in the shops, acquiring brands in the market, floating their own brands on world stock markets and creating processes and standards to increase the value of their investments. Everyone involved in the branding industry should applaud this.

Table 6: The 100 most valuable brands

Rank 2015

Rank 2014

Brand

Industry group

Domicile

Brand value 2015

Brand rating 2015

BV change

EV change

1

1

Apple

Technology

United States

128,303

AAA

23%

23%

2

2

Samsung

Conglomerate

South Korea

81,716

AAA-

4%

6%

3

3

Google

Technology

United States

76,683

AAA

12%

42%

4

4

Microsoft

Technology

United States

67,060

AAA

7%

44%

5

5

Verizon

Telecoms operator

United States

59,843

AAA-

12%

31%

6

7

AT&T

Telecoms operator

United States

58,820

AA+

30%

-1%

7

8

Amazon.com

Technology

United States

56,124

AAA-

24%

11%

8

6

General Electric

Technology

United States

48,019

AA+

-9%

-21%

9

13

China Mobile

Telecoms operator

China

47,916

AAA-

50%

27%

10

9

Walmart

Retail

United States

46,737

AA+

4%

19%

11

12

Coca-Cola

Beverages

United States

35,797

AAA+

6%

17%

12

10

IBM

IT services

United States

35,428

AA+

-15%

1%

13

11

Toyota

Automobiles

Japan

35,017

AAA-

0%

0%

14

15

Wells Fargo

Banking

United States

34,925

AAA-

15%

20%

15

17

BMW

Automobiles

Germany

33,079

AAA

14%

11%

16

14

T (Deutsche Telekom in Germany)

Telecoms operator

Germany

31,108

AA+

2%

2%

17

19

Volkswagen

Automobiles

Germany

31,025

AAA-

15%

10%

18

18

Shell

Oil & gas

Netherlands

30,716

AAA-

7%

5%

19

27

Walt Disney

Media

United States

30,698

AAA+

30%

38%

20 30

ICBC

Banking

China 27,459 AA+ 20% 15%
21 26

Mercedes-Benz

Automobiles Germany 27,328 AAA 13% 11%
22 16

Vodafone

Telecoms operator United Kingdom 27,287 AA+ -8% -41%
23 20

HSBC

Banking

United Kingdom 27,280 AAA 2% -6%
24 51

China Construction Bank

Banking

China 26,417 AAA- 39% 6%
25 24

Citi

Banking

United States 26,210 AA+ 7% 8%
26 21

Bank of America

Banking

United States 25,713 AA+ -4% 10%
27 29

Intel

Technology

United States 25,011 AAA- 9% 58%
28 28

Chase

Banking

United States 24,819 AA 7% 4%
29 25

Home Depot

Retail

United States 24,471 AA+ 1% 17%
30 122

Facebook

Technology

United States 24,180 AAA- 146% 112%
31 35

Nike

Apparel

United States 24,118 AAA+ 16% 9%
32 36

Cisco

Telecoms infrastructure

United States 23,217 AAA- 12% 27%
33 37

Oracle

IT services

United States 22,888 AA+ 11% 21%
34 58

Agricultural Bank Of China

Banking

China 22,714 AA+ 28% 22%
35 22

Mitsubishi

Conglomerate

Japan 22,679 AA -13% -15%
36 31

Honda

Automobiles

Japan 22,424 AAA- 1% -8%
37 23

McDonald's

Restaurants

United States 22,040 AAA- -15% -1%
38 47

Pepsi

Beverages

United States 21,379 AAA- 10% 17%
39 33

American Express

Credit cards

United States 21,379 AA+ 1% 3%
40 40

Nestlé

Food

Switzerland 21,225 AAA 5% 4%
41 38

Allianz

Insurance

Germany 20,937 AA+ 3% 2%
42 39

Siemens

Technology

Germany 20,508 AA+ 1% 2%
43 61

Bank of China

Banking

China 20,392 AAA- 22% 25%
44 41

Ford

Automobiles

United States 20,315 AA+ 0% -25%
45 54

CVS Caremark

Retail

United States 20,267 AA+ 11% 25%
46 44

Orange

Telecoms operator

France 19,867 AA+ 0% 9%
47 48

UPS

Logistics

United States 19,537 AA+ 1% 22%
48 50

Axa

Insurance

France 19,529 AA 2% 0%
49 52

Hyundai

Conglomerate

South Korea 19,357 AAA- 3% -25%
50 43

Santander

Banking

Spain 18,700 AAA- -7% 12%
51 53

IKEA

Retail

Sweden 18,540 AA- 0%
52 62

ExxonMobil

Oil & gas

United States 18,242 AA+ 9% 2%
53 49

Chevron

Oil & gas

United States 18,163 AA+ -5% -3%
54 32

Nissan

Automobiles

Japan 18,085 AA+ -15% -1%
55 46

HP

Technology

United States 18,068 AA- -9% 16%
56 45

Mitsui

Conglomerate

Japan 17,596 AA- -11% 29%
57 64

PetroChina

Oil & gas

China 17,521 AA 6% 0%
58 69

Comcast

Media

United States 17,514 AA+ 14% 24%
59 63

PwC

Accounting services

United States 17,330 AAA+ 4% 6%
60 70

BT

Telecoms operator

United Kingdom 16,175 AAA- 6% 3%
61 68

Walgreens

Retail

United States 16,157 AA+ 5% 14%
62 92

Sinopec

Oil & gas

China 16,135 AA 31% 18%
63 57

SoftBank

Telecoms operator

Japan 16,039 AA -11% -40%
64 56

Target

Retail

United States 15,381 AA -15% 12%
65 70*

Tata

Conglomerate

India 15,378 AA 4% -7%
66 72

Total

Oil & gas

France 15,203 AA 5% 4%
67 107

Boeing

Aerospace/defence

United States 15,199 AAA 39% 27%
68 42

BNP Paribas

Banking

France 14,939 AA -26% -17%
69 89

BP

Oil & gas

United Kingdom 14,743 AA 16% -4%
70 67

NTT

Telecoms operator

Japan 14,734 AA -6% 15%
71 96

H&M

Retail

Sweden 14,715 AA 26% -9%
72 76

Deloitte

Accounting services

United States 14,694 AAA 7% 6%
73 60

MUFG

Banking

Japan 14,511 AA -17% -9%
74 85

Fox

Media

United States 14,503 AAA- 10% 54%
75 79

Sam's Club

Retail

United States 14,453 AA 6% 9%
76 65

GDF Suez

Utilities

France 14,331 AA+ -13% -13%
77 87

ALDI

Retail

Germany 14,301 AA- 11%
78 73

Barclays

Banking

United Kingdom 14,179 AA 0% -9%
79 83

eBay

Technology

United States 14,070 AA+ 5% -1%
80 75

China Telecom

Telecoms operator

China 14,064 AA+ 1% 11%
81 66

China Unicom

Telecoms operator

China 13,791 AA+ -13% -1%
82 82

FedEx

Logistics

United States 13,672 AA+ 2% 62%
83 78

ING

Diversified financial services Netherlands 13,415 AA+ -2% 15%
84 261

Baidu

Technology

China 13,284 AA+ 161% 65%
85 81*

Marlboro

Tobacco

United States 13,112 AAA- -3% 18%
86 86

Generali Group

Insurance

Italy 13,002 AA- -1% -6%
87 91

Lowe's

Retail

United States 12,790 AA 1% 21%
88 71

Airbus

Aerospace/defence

Netherlands 12,744 AAA- -12% 4%
89 113

au

Telecoms operator

Japan 12,677 AA+ 21% 0%
90 New

NTT Docomo

Telecoms operator

Japan 12,641 AA+
91 55

Hitachi

Conglomerate

Japan 12,612 AA- -31% -6%
92 110

L'Oréal

Cosmetics

France 12,480 AAA+ 16% -14%
93 102

Royal Bank Of Canada

Banking

Canada 12,473 AA 13% 6%
94 112

Bradesco

Banking

Brazil 12,385 AAA- 17% 8%
95 97

KPMG

Accounting services

Netherlands 12,332 AAA- 6% 2%
96 136*

Subway

Restaurants

United States 12,246 AAA- 41%
97 94

3M

Technology

United States 12,212 AAA- 0% 31%
98 90

LG

Conglomerate

South Korea 12,112 AA 4% 17%
99 137

NBC

Media

United States 12,004 AAA- 43% 24%
100 74

JP Morgan

Banking

United States 11,958 AA -15% 11%

David Haigh is chief executive of Brand Finance plc [email protected]

Get unlimited access to all WTR content