The Story of S&P Global

Introduction

S&P Global (SPGI) occupies a position in financial markets that few companies in any industry can claim: its products are not merely useful but structurally required. Credit ratings from S&P are embedded in regulations, investment mandates, and contractual covenants worldwide. The S&P 500 index is the single most referenced benchmark in global investing. Market Intelligence terminals sit on the desks of financial professionals who cannot easily do their work without them. These are not products that compete on features. They are infrastructure that persists through inertia, regulation, and accumulated entrenchment.

The company's evolution from a nineteenth-century publishing house to a modern financial data and analytics platform traces a pattern of accumulating structural positions—each individually defensible, collectively formidable. The 2022 merger with IHS Markit accelerated this accumulation, combining complementary data assets and workflow tools into a platform whose breadth and depth create switching costs that compound with each integration into customer operations.

Understanding S&P Global's structure reveals a company whose value derives not from innovation or operational excellence in the conventional sense but from positional advantage—from being embedded so deeply in how financial markets function that displacement would require restructuring the markets themselves. This is infrastructure economics applied to information.

The Long-Term Arc

S&P Global's history spans more than a century, but its structural significance emerged through a series of transitions that progressively concentrated the company around businesses with infrastructure-like characteristics.

How did S&P Global grow from a publisher into financial information?

The company's origins trace to Henry Varnum Poor's 1860 publication of the "History of Railroads and Canals in the United States"—an early attempt to bring transparency to capital markets by providing investors with systematic information about railroad companies. Standard Statistics Company, founded separately, began publishing financial data and ratings in the early 1900s. The 1941 merger of Standard Statistics and Poor's Publishing created Standard & Poor's, establishing the foundation for what would become one of the world's most recognized financial brands.

For much of the twentieth century, Standard & Poor's operated as a division of McGraw-Hill, a diversified publishing company. The ratings business grew steadily as bond markets expanded and regulatory frameworks increasingly referenced credit ratings in determining investment eligibility, capital requirements, and risk classification. This regulatory embedding—which accelerated through the latter half of the twentieth century—transformed credit ratings from an informational product into a structural requirement. Issuers needed ratings not because investors demanded them but because regulations mandated them.

Why did McGraw-Hill divest its other businesses to become S&P Global?

McGraw-Hill's transformation into a focused financial information company accelerated in the 2010s. The company divested its education business in 2013 and renamed itself McGraw Hill Financial, then S&P Global in 2016. These were not merely branding exercises but structural decisions to concentrate capital and management attention on businesses with the strongest competitive positions and highest returns on capital—ratings, indices, market intelligence, and commodities data.

The defining structural event of S&P Global's modern era was the 2022 merger with IHS Markit, a transaction valued at approximately forty-four billion dollars. IHS Markit brought complementary data assets—energy and commodity information, financial services workflow tools, transportation data—that extended S&P Global's reach into adjacent markets while deepening its integration into customer workflows. The combined entity controlled an extraordinary breadth of financial and economic data, delivered through platforms that customers embedded into daily operations. The merger was not about revenue synergies in the traditional sense but about constructing a data and analytics platform whose scope and integration would make it progressively harder for customers to disentangle.

What infrastructure-like traits do S&P Global's four segments share?

In its current form, S&P Global operates across four major segments: Ratings, Market Intelligence, S&P Dow Jones Indices, and Commodity Insights. Each segment exhibits infrastructure-like characteristics—high barriers to entry, recurring revenue, low marginal costs, and deep customer entrenchment—but the structural mechanisms differ across segments. The ratings business benefits from regulatory mandate. The indices business benefits from the secular shift to passive investing. Market Intelligence benefits from workflow embedding. Commodity Insights benefits from being the reference standard for pricing in energy and raw materials markets.

The combination of these structurally distinct but complementary businesses creates a company that is more resilient than any individual segment. Ratings revenue correlates with debt issuance cycles. Index revenue correlates with asset levels in passive funds. Market Intelligence revenue correlates with financial industry headcount and technology spending. Commodity Insights revenue correlates with energy market activity. These different drivers provide diversification not through unrelated businesses but through positions in different structural layers of the same financial system. S&P Global is not a conglomerate. It is a portfolio of infrastructure positions in capital markets.

Structural Patterns

Regulatory Mandate as Moat — S&P Ratings operates as one of only three Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations in the United States. Regulations across banking, insurance, and investment management reference credit ratings in ways that make them structurally required rather than merely useful. This regulatory embedding creates demand that persists independent of customer preference.
Toll-Booth Economics on Passive Investing — S&P Dow Jones Indices licenses its benchmarks—including the S&P 500—to fund managers, ETF providers, and derivatives exchanges. As assets in passive funds grow, licensing revenue grows proportionally with near-zero marginal cost. The shift from active to passive investing is a secular trend that compounds the value of index ownership over time.
Workflow Embedding Creates Switching Costs — Market Intelligence platforms are integrated into the daily operations of financial professionals—analysts, bankers, portfolio managers. Switching to an alternative would require retraining staff, rebuilding models, and migrating data integrations. These operational switching costs accumulate as customers build more processes around the platform.
Data Assets with Low Marginal Cost — Financial data, once collected, organized, and validated, can be distributed to additional customers at negligible incremental cost. This economic structure—high fixed costs of data creation, near-zero marginal costs of distribution—creates operating leverage that improves margins as revenue scales.
Network Effects in Reference Standards — When a benchmark like the S&P 500 becomes the default reference for an entire market, its value increases with each additional user who references it. Contracts, performance comparisons, derivative products, and regulatory frameworks all reference the same index, creating self-reinforcing adoption that alternatives cannot easily displace.
Issuer-Pays Model in Ratings — The structural design where debt issuers pay for their own ratings creates a business model where revenue scales with debt issuance volume. While this model carries conflicts of interest that surfaced during the 2008 financial crisis, it remains structurally entrenched because alternative models have not achieved comparable scale or regulatory acceptance.

Key Turning Points

The progressive embedding of credit ratings into financial regulation throughout the twentieth century was the foundational structural event—not a single decision but a cumulative process that transformed ratings from opinions into requirements. Each regulation that referenced credit ratings in determining capital adequacy, investment eligibility, or risk classification added another layer of structural demand. By the time the 2008 financial crisis exposed serious flaws in the ratings process, the regulatory framework was so dependent on ratings that reform focused on improving the process rather than eliminating the structural role. The crisis damaged reputations but did not dismantle the regulatory moat.

The strategic decision to divest non-financial businesses and concentrate on financial information—culminating in the S&P Global rebranding in 2016—represented a deliberate choice to optimize portfolio composition around structural advantage rather than diversification. By shedding education and other publishing businesses, the company concentrated capital and management focus on segments where competitive positions were strongest and returns on capital were highest. This focus enabled the acquisitions and investments that strengthened each segment's competitive position.

The IHS Markit merger in 2022 was the structural capstone—a transaction that combined two companies whose data assets and workflow tools were largely complementary rather than overlapping. The merger created a platform whose breadth across financial data, commodity pricing, and analytics made it progressively harder for customers to find equivalent alternatives. Each data set integrated into a customer's workflow added incremental switching costs, creating an entrenchment that deepens over time rather than depreciating. The merger's structural significance lies not in the revenue synergies but in the compounding of switching costs across a broader platform.

Risks and Fragilities

Regulatory risk operates in both directions for S&P Global. The same regulatory framework that creates structural demand for credit ratings could be reformed in ways that reduce dependence on the incumbent agencies. Post-2008 reforms have already introduced modest competition through European regulatory initiatives, and further changes—particularly driven by political responses to future credit events—could erode the oligopolistic structure of the ratings market. The regulatory moat is durable but ultimately depends on political and regulatory decisions that the company does not control.

The concentration of market power in financial data and analytics invites antitrust scrutiny. The IHS Markit merger required significant divestitures to satisfy regulatory concerns, and further consolidation in financial data markets may face increasing resistance from competition authorities. As S&P Global's platform becomes more comprehensive and more deeply embedded in customer operations, regulators may view the resulting market power as warranting intervention—particularly if pricing reflects the switching costs that make displacement difficult.

The secular shift toward passive investing, while a powerful tailwind for the indices business, could slow or partially reverse. Active management strategies may regain share during periods of market dislocation or if passive concentration creates indexing-related market distortions that regulators choose to address. More specifically, competition in index construction from exchanges, asset managers, and data providers who create alternative benchmarks could pressure licensing fees over time. The S&P 500's dominance is structural, but the broader index licensing market is becoming more competitive as participants recognize the economics involved.

What Investors Can Learn

Regulatory embedding creates demand that persists independent of product quality — When regulations require a product, demand is structurally mandated rather than earned through competitive superiority. This creates extraordinary durability but also vulnerability to regulatory reform.
Infrastructure positions compound through entrenchment — Products that become embedded in customer workflows, regulatory frameworks, and market conventions generate switching costs that increase over time. The longer the entrenchment persists, the harder displacement becomes.
Secular trends can compound the value of existing assets — The shift to passive investing did not create the S&P 500 index, but it dramatically increased the economic value of owning that index. Identifying existing assets positioned to benefit from secular trends is a structural analysis that financial metrics alone cannot perform.
Data businesses exhibit economics that improve with scale — The low marginal cost of distributing data to additional customers means that revenue growth translates to margin expansion. This economic structure rewards market leadership with improving profitability over time.
Portfolio construction around structural advantage differs from diversification — S&P Global's segments are not unrelated businesses assembled for revenue stability. They are complementary positions in different structural layers of the same financial system, each reinforcing the others through shared data assets and customer relationships.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.