Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Related Party Agreements In June of 2012, we entered into a new license agreement (the "License Agreement") with the holder of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC noncontrolling interest, CME Group, which replaced the 2005 license agreement between S&P DJ Indices and CME Group. Under the terms of the License Agreement, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC receives a share of the profits from the trading and clearing of CME Group's equity index products. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC earned $18 million and $40 million, respectively, of revenue under the terms of the License Agreement. The entire amount of this revenue is included in our consolidated statement of income and the portion related to the 27% noncontrolling interest is removed in net income attributable to noncontrolling interests. Legal & Regulatory Matters In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company, its subsidiary Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P LLC”) and some of its other subsidiaries are defendants in a number of legal proceedings and are often the subject of government and regulatory proceedings, investigations and inquiries. Many of these proceedings, investigations and inquiries relate to the ratings activity of S&P Global Ratings brought by issuers and alleged purchasers of rated securities. In addition, various government and self-regulatory agencies frequently make inquiries and conduct investigations into our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to ratings activities and antitrust matters. Any of these proceedings, investigations or inquiries could ultimately result in adverse judgments, damages, fines, penalties or activity restrictions, which could adversely impact our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the pending claims and potential claims in the matters described below and is diligently pursuing these defenses, and in some cases working to reach an acceptable negotiated resolution. However, in view of the uncertainty inherent in litigation and government and regulatory enforcement matters, we cannot predict the eventual outcome of these matters or the timing of their resolution, or in most cases reasonably estimate what the eventual judgments, damages, fines, penalties or impact of activity restrictions may be. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that the outcome of the matters described below will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position. As litigation or the process to resolve pending matters progresses, as the case may be, we will continue to review the latest information available and assess our ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business and competitive position, which may require that we record liabilities in the consolidated financial statements in future periods. S&P Global Ratings Financial Crisis Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries continue to defend civil cases brought by private and public plaintiffs arising out of ratings activities prior to and during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Discovery in these cases is ongoing. We can provide no assurance that we will not be obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve these matters on terms deemed acceptable. At this time, however, we are unable to reasonably estimate the range of such additional amounts, if any. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission As a nationally recognized statistical rating organization registered with the SEC under Section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, S&P Global Ratings is in ongoing communication with the staff of the SEC regarding compliance with its extensive obligations under the federal securities laws. Although S&P Global Ratings seeks to promptly address any compliance issues that it detects or that the staff of the SEC raises, there can be no assurance that the SEC will not seek remedies against S&P Global Ratings for one or more compliance deficiencies. Trani Prosecutorial Proceeding The prosecutor in the Italian city of Trani has obtained criminal indictments against several current and former S&P Global Ratings managers and ratings analysts for alleged market manipulation, and against Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe under Italy’s vicarious liability statute, for having allegedly failed to properly supervise the ratings analysts and prevent them from committing market manipulation. The prosecutor’s theories are based on various actions by S&P Global Ratings taken with respect to Italian sovereign debt between May of 2011 and January of 2012. Trial commenced in February of 2015 and is ongoing. Apart from criminal penalties that might be imposed following a conviction, such conviction could also lead to civil damages claims and other sanctions against Standard & Poor's Credit Market Services Europe or the Company. Such claims and sanctions cannot be quantified at this stage. Shareholder Derivative Actions In August of 2015, two purported shareholders commenced a putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled Retirement Plan for General Employees of the City of North Miami Beach and Robin Stein v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and mismanagement against the board of directors, certain former directors of the Company, and three former S&P Global Ratings employees. Plaintiffs seek recovery from the defendants based on allegations that S&P Global Ratings’ credit ratings practices for certain residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations misrepresented the credit risks of those securities, allegedly resulting in losses to the Company. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in October of 2015. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in December of 2015, and the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply on January 8, 2016. On January 28, 2016, a different purported shareholder commenced a separate putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled L.A. Grika v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to those in the North Miami Beach matter described above. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification against Harold McGraw III, Douglas L. Peterson, and nine former S&P Global Ratings employees. The case was transferred to the judge presiding over the North Miami Beach action. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Grika complaint in May of 2016. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in June of 2016, and the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply on July 22, 2016. The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral argument on the motions to dismiss in either the North Miami or the Grika actions. The City of Swan Australian government municipal councils filed suit against the Company and S&P International LLC in a representative action in April of 2013 in connection with alleged investment losses in eight synthetic collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) rated by S&P Global Ratings. These same CDOs were at issue in an earlier lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs against its investment advisor, Lehman Brothers Australia (“LBA”), in which the plaintiffs secured a judgment against LBA, which is now in liquidation. The plaintiffs claim total losses of AUD$327 million from these investments and are seeking recovery from both LBA and the Company. On February 19, 2016, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve the claims in this action. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to and made a payment of AUD$144 million. The federal court approved the settlement on April 12, 2016.

Commitments and Contingencies

Related Party Agreements

In June of 2012, we entered into a new license agreement (the "License Agreement") with the holder of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC noncontrolling interest, CME Group, which replaced the 2005 license agreement between S&P DJ Indices and CME Group. Under the terms of the License Agreement, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC receives a share of the profits from the trading and clearing of CME Group's equity index products. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2016, S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC earned $18 million and $40 million, respectively, of revenue under the terms of the License Agreement. The entire amount of this revenue is included in our consolidated statement of income and the portion related to the 27% noncontrolling interest is removed in net income attributable to noncontrolling interests.

Legal & Regulatory Matters

In the normal course of business both in the United States and abroad, the Company, its subsidiary Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC (“S&P LLC”) and some of its other subsidiaries are defendants in a number of legal proceedings and are often the subject of government and regulatory proceedings, investigations and inquiries. Many of these proceedings, investigations and inquiries relate to the ratings activity of S&P Global Ratings brought by issuers and alleged purchasers of rated securities. In addition, various government and self-regulatory agencies frequently make inquiries and conduct investigations into our compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including those related to ratings activities and antitrust matters. Any of these proceedings, investigations or inquiries could ultimately result in adverse judgments, damages, fines, penalties or activity restrictions, which could adversely impact our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the pending claims and potential claims in the matters described below and is diligently pursuing these defenses, and in some cases working to reach an acceptable negotiated resolution. However, in view of the uncertainty inherent in litigation and government and regulatory enforcement matters, we cannot predict the eventual outcome of these matters or the timing of their resolution, or in most cases reasonably estimate what the eventual judgments, damages, fines, penalties or impact of activity restrictions may be. As a result, we cannot provide assurance that the outcome of the matters described below will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business or competitive position. As litigation or the process to resolve pending matters progresses, as the case may be, we will continue to review the latest information available and assess our ability to predict the outcome of such matters and the effects, if any, on our consolidated financial condition, cash flows, business and competitive position, which may require that we record liabilities in the consolidated financial statements in future periods.

S&P Global Ratings

Financial Crisis Litigation

The Company and its subsidiaries continue to defend civil cases brought by private and public plaintiffs arising out of ratings activities prior to and during the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Discovery in these cases is ongoing. We can provide no assurance that we will not be obligated to pay significant amounts in order to resolve these matters on terms deemed acceptable. At this time, however, we are unable to reasonably estimate the range of such additional amounts, if any.

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

As a nationally recognized statistical rating organization registered with the SEC under Section 15E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, S&P Global Ratings is in ongoing communication with the staff of the SEC regarding compliance with its extensive obligations under the federal securities laws. Although S&P Global Ratings seeks to promptly address any compliance issues that it detects or that the staff of the SEC raises, there can be no assurance that the SEC will not seek remedies against S&P Global Ratings for one or more compliance deficiencies.

Trani Prosecutorial Proceeding

The prosecutor in the Italian city of Trani has obtained criminal indictments against several current and former S&P Global Ratings managers and ratings analysts for alleged market manipulation, and against Standard & Poor’s Credit Market Services Europe under Italy’s vicarious liability statute, for having allegedly failed to properly supervise the ratings analysts and prevent them from committing market manipulation. The prosecutor’s theories are based on various actions by S&P Global Ratings taken with respect to Italian sovereign debt between May of 2011 and January of 2012. Trial commenced in February of 2015 and is ongoing. Apart from criminal penalties that might be imposed following a conviction, such conviction could also lead to civil damages claims and other sanctions against Standard & Poor's Credit Market Services Europe or the Company. Such claims and sanctions cannot be quantified at this stage.

Shareholder Derivative Actions

In August of 2015, two purported shareholders commenced a putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled Retirement Plan for General Employees of the City of North Miami Beach and Robin Stein v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and mismanagement against the board of directors, certain former directors of the Company, and three former S&P Global Ratings employees. Plaintiffs seek recovery from the defendants based on allegations that S&P Global Ratings’ credit ratings practices for certain residential mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations misrepresented the credit risks of those securities, allegedly resulting in losses to the Company. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint in October of 2015. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in December of 2015, and the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply on January 8, 2016.

On January 28, 2016, a different purported shareholder commenced a separate putative derivative action on behalf of the Company in New York State Supreme Court titled L.A. Grika v. Harold McGraw III, et al. The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to those in the North Miami Beach matter described above. The complaint asserts claims for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, contribution and indemnification against Harold McGraw III, Douglas L. Peterson, and nine former S&P Global Ratings employees. The case was transferred to the judge presiding over the North Miami Beach action. The Company and the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the Grika complaint in May of 2016. Plaintiffs filed an opposition in June of 2016, and the Company and the individual defendants filed their reply on July 22, 2016.

The court has not yet scheduled a date for oral argument on the motions to dismiss in either the North Miami or the Grika actions.

The City of Swan

Australian government municipal councils filed suit against the Company and S&P International LLC in a representative action in April of 2013 in connection with alleged investment losses in eight synthetic collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) rated by S&P Global Ratings. These same CDOs were at issue in an earlier lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs against its investment advisor, Lehman Brothers Australia (“LBA”), in which the plaintiffs secured a judgment against LBA, which is now in liquidation. The plaintiffs claim total losses of AUD$327 million from these investments and are seeking recovery from both LBA and the Company. On February 19, 2016, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiffs to resolve the claims in this action. Under the settlement, the Company agreed to and made a payment of AUD$144 million. The federal court approved the settlement on April 12, 2016.