达到逃逸速度：2024年全球银行业年度评价报告
velocity
This report is a collaborative effort by Asheet Mehta,Karim Thomas, Klaus Dallerup, Luca Pancaldi,Miklos Dietz, Pradip Patiath, Valeria Laszlo, andVik Sohoni, representing views from McKinsey’sFinancial Services Practice.
Contents
Attaining escape velocity12
13
How to win (execution)18
‘Management quotient’ as21a differentiator
Executive summary
Looking at banks that outperformed over the pastfive to ten years could hold the answer to how banksmight achieve escape velocity. We identified thesewinners through multiple analytical lenses. What wefound is that they win through a combination ofsmart moves on three structural dimensions (selectingsegments carefully, finding scale where it canmatter, and strategically locating themselves,whether geographically or in the value chain) andrigorous operational execution across a rangeof capabilities (for example, analytics, marketingeffectiveness, operating model, and tech). For somecontexts where we modeled the relative effects,execution had two times the impact of structure,though both were important. No bank we foundamong the winners appeared to be outperformingwith only an average structural context nor beingpropelled solely by its structural position.
The past two yearshave been the best for bankingsince before the global financial crisis (GFC) of2007–09, with healthy profitability, capital, andliquidity. But even though banking is the singlelargest profit-generating sector in the world, themarket is skeptical of long-term value creationand ranks banking dead last among sectors onprice-to-book multiples.
In addition to a mix of macroeconomic factors, thereare also some industry-specific ones:
—Labor productivity growth in banking has beenmixed, even though banks spend the highestproportion of revenues across sectors on tech.
—Regulatory changes around the world continueto require investment.
The good news for the rest of the industry is thatthings can be improved. Indeed, about 10 percent ofthe industry improved as much as five deciles ofreturn on tangible equity over the past five years(though conversely, roughly two-thirds of the industrystayed within two deciles of their prior performance).For banking to recover its multiple, managementteams will need to conjure the dynamism of thesewinners. We believe this “management quotient” willbe what makes the real difference in the remainingyears of the 2020s.
—The more profitable pools in banking arewitnessing competition from focusedattackers (including private credit, payments,and wealth management).
—The recent lift in performance has largely beenbuoyed by rising interest rates.
—Despite the recent value creation, over the pastdecade, the sector has eroded economic valuewhen measured against cost of capital.
So will the liftoff in overall industry results achievedin 2023 give way to the gravitational pull ofthe industry’s recent history, as questions aboutbanking fundamentals persist?
The industry
Everything is going to be fine in the end. If it’s not fine, it’s not the end.
—Unknown (often attributed to Oscar Wilde)
There’s some solace in the witticism about it notbeing the end if it’s not fine. But recently, thingshave been fine indeed for banking, so what doesthat say about the endgame? In fact, the pasttwo years have been the best for banking sincebefore the Great Recession. Globally, banksgenerated $7 trillion in revenue (Exhibit 1) and$1.1 trillion in net income, with return on
tangible equity (ROTE) reaching 11.7 percent(Exhibit 2). Banks have returned to healthy levelsof capital (12.8 percent common equity tier onecapital divided by risk-weighted assets) and liquidity(77.2 percent), which both improved over 2022. Infact, banking generated more total profit than anyother sector around the world (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 1
