近期，浦发银行和中信银行均公布了 2025 年业绩快报。根据未经审计的数据， 两家银行 2025 年 末总资产均突破了 10 万亿元 ，中信银行 2025 年末总资产达到 10.13 亿元，浦发银行达到 10.08 亿元。 纵观两家银行近年来总资产情况，浦发银行和中信银行资产十分接近。 本文对两家银行进行对比分析。 出身、股东和级别 中信银行 前身是成立于 1987 年的 中信实业银行 ，更早是 1984 年在中国国际信托投资公司（中信 集团前身）内部设立的银行部。 2005 年中信实业银行更名为中信银行。 2007 年，中信银行在 上海和香港两地同步上市 ，股票代码分别为 601998.SH 和 00998.HK 。 | 前十大股东 | 持股比例 | 备注 | | --- | --- | --- | | 中国中信金融控股有限公司 | 64. 75% | 央企 | | 香港中央结算(代理人)有限公司 | 21. 30% | | | 中国烟草总公司 | 4. 64% | 央企 | | 中国证券金融股份有限公司 | 1. 83% | | | 中国人寿保险股份有限公司-传统-普通保险产品 | 1. 29% | 产品 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article analyzes the comparison between Postal Savings Bank of China (PSBC) and Citic Bank, particularly in light of the appointment of Lu Wei, the former president of Citic Bank, as the president of PSBC, and discusses the potential impact of this leadership change on PSBC's operations and strategy [2]. Group 1: Background and Structure - PSBC traces its origins back to 1919 with the establishment of postal savings, and it officially became a limited liability company in 2007, transitioning to a joint-stock company in 2012 [3]. - Citic Bank was established in 1987, evolving from the banking department of the former China International Trust Investment Corporation, and was renamed in 2005 [5]. - As of September 2025, PSBC's major shareholders include China Post Group (51.87%), the Ministry of Finance (15.77%), and China Mobile (6.70%) [4]. - Citic Bank's major shareholders include Citic Financial Holdings (64.75%) and the Ministry of Finance (21.30%) [6]. Group 2: Operational Scale and Network - By the end of 2024, PSBC had 7,899 branches across China, leveraging its extensive postal network, while Citic Bank had 1,470 branches in 153 cities [8]. - PSBC's branch network is significantly larger, especially in rural areas, while Citic Bank has international branches in Hong Kong and London [8]. Group 3: Subsidiaries and Business Focus - PSBC has three major subsidiaries focused on consumer finance, wealth management, and direct banking [9]. - Citic Bank operates seven major subsidiaries, including those in international finance and asset management, indicating a broader range of services [10]. Group 4: Financial Performance - As of the end of 2024, PSBC's total assets were CNY 17.08 trillion, compared to Citic Bank's CNY 9.53 trillion, indicating that PSBC's assets are approximately twice that of Citic Bank [13][14]. - In terms of net profit, PSBC reported CNY 864.79 billion in 2024, while Citic Bank reported CNY 685.76 billion, showing PSBC's profitability advantage [13]. - PSBC's non-performing loan ratio was 0.90% in 2024, lower than Citic Bank's 1.16%, indicating better asset quality [14][37]. Group 5: Income Structure and Cost Efficiency - PSBC's operating income heavily relies on net interest income, which constituted 82.04% of its revenue in 2024, while Citic Bank's was 68.66% [13][25]. - The cost-to-income ratio for PSBC was 64.23% in 2024, significantly higher than Citic Bank's 30%, primarily due to its unique cost structure related to deposit acquisition [47][50]. Group 6: Employee and Compensation Analysis - As of 2024, PSBC employed 197,600 people, significantly more than Citic Bank's 65,500 employees, leading to lower average compensation at PSBC (CNY 324,100) compared to Citic Bank (CNY 600,000) [12][54].

Core Viewpoint - The article analyzes the competitive landscape and operational performance of three city commercial banks in Taizhou, Zhejiang Province: Taizhou Bank, Tailong Bank, and Mintai Bank, highlighting their unique characteristics and market positioning [2][4]. Group 1: Background and Ownership Structure - Taizhou Bank originated from a financial service agency in 1988 and was established as a commercial bank in 2002, later renamed in 2010 [3]. - Tailong Bank was founded in 1993 as a city credit cooperative and rebranded as a commercial bank in 2006 [3]. - Mintai Bank also started as a city credit cooperative in 1988 and transitioned to a commercial bank in 2006 [3]. - The major shareholders of Taizhou Bank include China Merchants Bank (24.86%) and several private enterprises, with local government ownership being minimal [3][5]. - Tailong Bank's largest shareholder is the employee shareholding committee (19.52%), with a significant presence of private enterprises among its top shareholders [5]. - Mintai Bank's largest shareholder is a county-level state-owned asset management company (8.23%), with a mix of private enterprises in its ownership structure [5]. Group 2: Operational Scope and Strategy - All three banks have expanded their operations across various cities in Zhejiang Province, with Tailong and Mintai Banks also establishing branches outside the province [7][8]. - Taizhou Bank has 10 branches and 351 sub-branches, while Tailong Bank operates 407 institutions, including 13 branches [7][8]. - The banks primarily focus on serving small and micro enterprises, with Taizhou Bank implementing a "1125 strategy" aimed at high-quality development [9]. Group 3: Financial Performance - As of the end of 2024, the total assets of Taizhou Bank, Tailong Bank, and Mintai Bank are 411.90 billion, 455.99 billion, and 312.78 billion respectively [12]. - Tailong Bank leads in operating income (17.56 billion) and net profit (5.26 billion), while Mintai Bank has the lowest figures in both categories [12][19]. - The net interest margin for Tailong Bank is the highest at 3.71%, while Mintai Bank has the lowest at 2.43% [12][23]. - The non-performing loan (NPL) ratios are 1.10% for Taizhou Bank, 1.19% for Tailong Bank, and 0.94% for Mintai Bank, indicating varying asset quality [12][27]. Group 4: Long-term Trends and Asset Quality - Over the past decade, all three banks have shown growth in total assets, with Tailong Bank surpassing Taizhou Bank in 2022 [14]. - Tailong Bank has consistently outperformed in operating income since 2020, with a significant gap widening between it and Taizhou Bank [16]. - Mintai Bank has the smallest asset base but has shown improvement in asset quality, with a declining NPL ratio [27][33]. - Taizhou Bank maintains the highest asset quality, supported by the lowest overdue loan ratio and the highest provision coverage ratio among the three banks [33][34].

Core Viewpoint - The article provides a comparative analysis of Bank of Communications and Postal Savings Bank of China, highlighting their historical backgrounds, shareholder structures, operational scales, financial performance, and asset quality, ultimately indicating that Postal Savings Bank has surpassed Bank of Communications in several key metrics. Historical Background - Bank of Communications was established in 1908 and has undergone several transformations, including being designated as a national bank and later restructured as a joint-stock bank in 1986 [3]. - Postal Savings Bank can trace its origins back to 1919, with its formal establishment as a limited liability company occurring in 2007, and it transitioned to a joint-stock company in 2012 [5]. Shareholder Structure - As of September 2024, the top shareholders of Bank of Communications include the Ministry of Finance (35.01%) and HSBC (16.00%) [4]. - Postal Savings Bank's major shareholders include China Post Group (51.87%) and the Ministry of Finance (15.77%) [6]. Operational Scale - By the end of 2024, Bank of Communications had 14,750 operating institutions, while Postal Savings Bank had 7,899, but with a total of approximately 40,000 outlets when including its parent company's network [7][8]. Financial Performance - In 2024, Bank of Communications had total assets of 14.90 trillion yuan, while Postal Savings Bank had 17.08 trillion yuan, indicating that Postal Savings Bank has a higher asset scale [14]. - For the first three quarters of 2025, Postal Savings Bank's net profit reached 765.62 billion yuan, surpassing Bank of Communications' 699.94 billion yuan [14]. Asset Quality - Postal Savings Bank has consistently maintained a lower non-performing loan ratio compared to Bank of Communications, with figures below 1% for the past decade [35][43]. - The provision coverage ratio for Postal Savings Bank has been higher than that of Bank of Communications, although it has seen a decline in recent years [36][39]. Net Interest Margin - Postal Savings Bank's net interest margin has been higher than that of Bank of Communications, attributed to its deposit structure, which relies heavily on stable personal deposits [32][34]. Cost-to-Income Ratio - As of the end of 2024, Postal Savings Bank's cost-to-income ratio was significantly higher at 64.23%, compared to Bank of Communications' 29.90% [44]. Employee Structure - By the end of 2024, Postal Savings Bank employed 197,600 people, significantly more than Bank of Communications' 95,700 employees [12][47]. Overall Assessment - Postal Savings Bank has shown rapid growth in total assets and operating income, surpassing Bank of Communications to become the fifth-largest commercial bank in China, although it still trails in net profit [49].

Core Viewpoint - The article provides a comparative analysis of China Construction Bank (CCB) and Agricultural Bank of China (ABC), highlighting their total assets, revenue, and financial performance, indicating that while ABC has surpassed CCB in total assets, CCB still leads in revenue and profit metrics [2][44]. Group 1: Historical Background - CCB was established in 1954 as a state-owned bank and transitioned to a commercial bank in 1996, with its shares listed in Hong Kong and Shanghai in 2005 and 2007 respectively [3]. - ABC's origins date back to 1951, becoming a commercial bank in 1994 and listing its shares in Hong Kong and Shanghai in 2010 [5]. Group 2: Shareholding Structure - As of September 2025, CCB's largest shareholder is Central Huijin Investment with a 54.61% stake, followed by Hong Kong Central Clearing with 35.86% [4]. - ABC's major shareholders include Central Huijin Investment at 40.14% and the Ministry of Finance at 35.29% [6]. Group 3: Operational Scale - By the end of 2024, CCB had 14,750 operating institutions, while ABC had 22,877, indicating a more extensive network for ABC [7][8]. - Both banks have a nationwide presence and international branches, but ABC's network is more extensive and deeper [8]. Group 4: Financial Performance - In 2024, CCB's total assets reached 40.57 trillion yuan, while ABC's were 43.24 trillion yuan, with both expected to exceed 45 trillion yuan by September 2025 [13]. - CCB's revenue in 2024 was 750.15 billion yuan, compared to ABC's 710.55 billion yuan, indicating CCB's stronger revenue generation [13]. - CCB's net profit for 2024 was 335.58 billion yuan, while ABC's was 282.08 billion yuan, showing CCB's continued profitability advantage [13]. Group 5: Asset Quality - ABC has better asset quality metrics, with a non-performing loan (NPL) ratio of 1.30% compared to CCB's 1.34% in 2024 [14][38]. - The provision coverage ratio for ABC was 299.61%, higher than CCB's 233.60%, indicating stronger risk management [14][34]. Group 6: Cost and Efficiency - ABC's cost-to-income ratio was 34.40% in 2024, higher than CCB's 29.44%, reflecting higher operational costs [39]. - Employee costs are a significant factor, with ABC having a larger workforce and slightly higher average salaries compared to CCB [41][43]. Group 7: Business Structure - Both banks primarily rely on net interest income, but ABC's revenue is more dependent on this source, maintaining around 80% of its income from net interest [23]. - CCB has a higher proportion of loans in its total assets, with 61.72% compared to ABC's 55.45% [27]. Group 8: Long-term Trends - Over the past decade, both banks have seen growth in total assets, but ABC surpassed CCB in 2023, becoming the second-largest commercial bank in China [15][16]. - CCB has experienced more volatility in revenue growth compared to ABC, which has shown more consistent performance [17].

Core Viewpoint - The articles analyze that the securitization of non-performing loans (NPLs) has a significant negative impact on bank profits and does not effectively reduce the NPL balance of banks [2][19]. Group 1: Characteristics of NPL Securitization - The first characteristic is that banks remain responsible for the collection of cash flows from the securitized NPLs after securitization [2][8]. - The second characteristic is that securitized products require stable cash flows, but NPL asset packages exhibit a "front-heavy" cash flow pattern, meaning that initial cash flows are high while later cash flows diminish [10][14]. Group 2: Impact on Bank Profits - After securitization, the cash flows from the underlying assets are still collected by the bank, meaning that the bank only retains a portion of the cash flows, leading to no profit increase from securitization [7][19]. - The consumption of provisions further exacerbates bank losses, as securitization locks in provisions that could have been recovered through cash collections [8][9]. Group 3: Cash Flow Characteristics - NPLs with stable cash flows are considered high-quality assets, but when compared to the total principal, the cash flows are insufficient [11]. - The cash flow pattern of NPLs leads to a situation where banks do not effectively receive upfront cash from securitization, as a significant portion of cash flows occurs before the issuance date [13][14]. Group 4: Reasons for Securitization - Despite the drawbacks, banks continue to pursue securitization due to the influence of intermediaries who benefit from the process, similar to how a barber would encourage haircuts for income [19][20]. - The internal structure of banks, including departmental segmentation and a lack of thorough cost-benefit analysis, contributes to the continued use of securitization for NPLs [20].

Core Viewpoint - The article provides a comparative analysis of Huaxia Bank and Beijing Bank, highlighting their similarities and differences in terms of ownership structure, financial performance, asset quality, and operational scale. It emphasizes the growing competitiveness of Beijing Bank, which has shown significant improvements in total assets and net profit, potentially surpassing Huaxia Bank in these areas by mid-2025 [2][12][38]. Ownership and Structure - Huaxia Bank was established in 1992 and transformed into a joint-stock commercial bank in 1995, with its largest shareholder being Shougang Group, a state-owned enterprise [3]. - Beijing Bank originated from 90 city credit cooperatives in 1996 and became a joint-stock bank in 2004, with ING Bank as its largest foreign investor since 2005 [5]. Capital Market - Both banks are listed on the A-share market, with Huaxia Bank listed in 2003 and Beijing Bank in 2007 [6][7][8]. Operational Regions - As of the end of 2024, Huaxia Bank operates in 120 cities across 30 provinces, with a total of 963 branches [9]. - Beijing Bank's operations are primarily concentrated in Beijing and several other provinces, with a more limited geographical reach compared to Huaxia Bank [9]. Subsidiaries - Huaxia Bank controls one financial leasing company and one wealth management subsidiary, while Beijing Bank has a broader range of subsidiaries, including insurance and consumer finance companies [10]. Employee Situation - By the end of 2024, Huaxia Bank had approximately 38,900 employees, while Beijing Bank had around 23,500 employees, with a higher percentage of master's degree holders in Beijing Bank [11]. Financial Performance - In 2024, Huaxia Bank's total assets were approximately 4.38 trillion yuan, while Beijing Bank's were about 4.22 trillion yuan. By mid-2025, Beijing Bank's total assets are projected to reach 4.75 trillion yuan, surpassing Huaxia Bank's 4.55 trillion yuan [12][21]. - Huaxia Bank's net profit for the first half of 2025 is expected to be 11.47 billion yuan, while Beijing Bank's is projected at 15.05 billion yuan, indicating a shift in profitability [19][21]. Asset Quality - Beijing Bank outperforms Huaxia Bank in terms of non-performing loan ratios, provision coverage ratios, and overdue loan ratios, indicating better asset quality management [13][30][35]. Business Structure - Both banks primarily generate revenue from net interest income, but Huaxia Bank's proportion has fluctuated significantly, dropping below 64% in 2024 [22]. - The loan-to-asset ratio for Beijing Bank has stabilized around 52%, while Huaxia Bank's has varied, indicating different lending strategies [24]. Salary and Compensation - Huaxia Bank has higher overall employee costs due to a larger workforce, but Beijing Bank's average salary is higher at 490,000 yuan compared to Huaxia Bank's 410,000 yuan [35][36]. Conclusion - Overall, while Huaxia Bank has historically led in several financial metrics, Beijing Bank is closing the gap and may surpass Huaxia Bank in total assets and net profit by mid-2025, reflecting a significant shift in the competitive landscape [38][39].

Core Viewpoint - The article compares two city commercial banks in Shanxi Province: Shanxi Bank and Jinshang Bank, highlighting their differences in ownership structure, financial performance, and operational efficiency [2][34]. Ownership and Structure - Shanxi Bank was established in 2021 through the merger of five city commercial banks and has a significant state-owned capital investment, with its largest shareholder holding 59.09% [3]. - Jinshang Bank originated from the merger of 47 city credit cooperatives in 1998 and has a more diversified ownership structure, with the largest shareholder being the Shanxi Provincial Finance Department at 12.25% [5]. Capital Market - Jinshang Bank is publicly listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange since 2019, while Shanxi Bank has not yet gone public [6]. Operational Coverage - As of the end of 2024, Shanxi Bank has 314 branches across 10 cities in Shanxi, while Jinshang Bank has 153 branches covering all 11 cities in the province [7]. Subsidiaries - Shanxi Bank has one controlling subsidiary and 16 equity investees, all focused on village and town banking within Shanxi [8]. - Jinshang Bank has one controlling subsidiary and one affiliated company, indicating a more streamlined subsidiary structure [8]. Employee Situation - Shanxi Bank employs 6,704 staff members, while Jinshang Bank has 4,373 employees, reflecting a larger workforce in Shanxi Bank [9]. Financial Performance - As of the end of 2024, Shanxi Bank's total assets were 3593.45 billion, slightly lower than Jinshang Bank's 3763.06 billion [11]. - Jinshang Bank's operating income was significantly higher at 57.99 billion compared to Shanxi Bank's 31.74 billion, indicating better revenue generation [11]. - The net profit attributable to shareholders for Shanxi Bank was only 0.51 billion, while Jinshang Bank achieved 17.55 billion, showcasing a stark contrast in profitability [11][18]. Asset Quality - Shanxi Bank's non-performing loan (NPL) ratio was 2.50%, higher than Jinshang Bank's 1.77%, indicating poorer asset quality [12]. - The provision coverage ratio for Shanxi Bank was 154.76%, lower than Jinshang Bank's 205.46%, suggesting Jinshang Bank is better positioned to cover potential loan losses [12][26]. Efficiency Metrics - Jinshang Bank's net interest margin was 1.20%, while Shanxi Bank's was only 0.57%, reflecting a significant difference in interest income efficiency [12][24]. - Average employee compensation in Jinshang Bank was higher at approximately 320,000, compared to Shanxi Bank's 210,000, aligning with its superior operational performance [31]. Conclusion - Overall, Jinshang Bank demonstrates stronger financial performance, better asset quality, and higher operational efficiency compared to Shanxi Bank, which has faced challenges in profitability and asset management [34][35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the negative impact of non-performing loan (NPL) securitization on the profitability of commercial banks, emphasizing that it does not effectively reduce the NPL ratio as intended [2][19]. Summary by Sections Securitization Process - A bank issued a securitized product based on personal credit NPLs, with a total asset pool amounting to 1.2 billion yuan, including 1.11 billion yuan in principal and 90 million yuan in interest and fees [3][4]. - The expected total recovery from these NPLs over 2-3 years is 237 million yuan [3]. Cash Flow and Recovery Analysis - During the transition period, approximately 105 million yuan was recovered, accounting for 60.73% of the investment amount [5]. - In the year of issuance, 135 million yuan was recovered, representing 78.08% of the investment amount [6]. - Over the first year, a total of 204.5 million yuan was recovered, exceeding the investment amount of 172.9 million yuan [7]. Impact on NPL Reduction - The bank effectively reduced its NPLs by 1.82 billion yuan through securitization, but still had to write off a difference of 928 million yuan between the principal and the amount received [8]. - The article questions whether the cash flow received through securitization is genuinely "advanced," as the bank could have received similar amounts without securitization [9][10]. Long-term Recovery Comparison - Over a full year, the total recovery from the NPLs was significantly higher than the amount received through securitization, suggesting that not securitizing would have led to better NPL management [12]. - If the bank continues to issue securitized products annually, the effectiveness of this method in reducing NPLs diminishes over time [13]. Risk Classification and Profitability - Securitization leads to the loss of potential risk classification adjustments, as the underlying assets no longer belong to the bank, which could have been reclassified from non-performing to performing [18]. - The article concludes that the costs associated with securitization, including the need to write off non-compliant loans, negatively impact the bank's profitability [19][17]. Conclusion - Overall, the article argues that the perceived benefits of NPL securitization are misleading, as traditional methods of recovery and write-offs could achieve similar or better results without the associated costs and risks of securitization [19][20].

Core Viewpoint - The article compares two leading city commercial banks in Hebei, namely Hebei Bank and Tangshan Bank, highlighting their differences in ownership structure, financial performance, and operational efficiency [2][41]. Ownership Structure - Hebei Bank has 5,124 shareholders, with the largest being State Energy Group Capital Holding Co., Ltd. at 19.02% [3]. - Tangshan Bank has 1,624 shareholders, with the largest being Tangshan Port Industrial Group Co., Ltd. at 11.66% [4][5]. - Hebei Bank is a provincial-level city commercial bank, while Tangshan Bank is a municipal-level bank, indicating a difference in administrative ranking [6]. Capital Market - Both banks have not yet achieved stock market listings [7]. Operational Area - Hebei Bank operates 263 branches across 11 cities in Hebei and has two branches outside the province [8]. - Tangshan Bank focuses solely on the Tangshan area, with 78 branches [8]. Subsidiaries - Hebei Bank has two subsidiaries, while Tangshan Bank has none [9][10]. Employee Situation - As of the end of 2024, Hebei Bank employs 6,323 staff, with 15.58% holding postgraduate degrees, while Tangshan Bank has 1,642 employees, with 18.21% holding postgraduate degrees [11][12]. Financial Performance - As of the end of 2024, Hebei Bank's total assets are 569.6 billion, while Tangshan Bank's total assets are 352.3 billion [14]. - Hebei Bank's operating income is 13.725 billion, compared to Tangshan Bank's 6.827 billion [14]. - Hebei Bank's net profit attributable to shareholders is 1.956 billion, significantly lower than Tangshan Bank's 3.393 billion [14]. Asset Quality - Hebei Bank's non-performing loan (NPL) ratio is 1.50%, while Tangshan Bank's is 0.82% [15][32]. - The provision coverage ratio for Hebei Bank is 184.51%, compared to Tangshan Bank's 639.69% [15][34]. Profitability - Hebei Bank's net interest margin is 1.61%, lower than Tangshan Bank's 1.73% [16]. - Overall, Tangshan Bank demonstrates better operational efficiency and profitability compared to Hebei Bank [17][42]. Long-term Trends - Over the past decade, Hebei Bank has consistently maintained higher total assets and operating income than Tangshan Bank, but its profitability has fluctuated significantly [18][20][24]. - In 2024, Hebei Bank's net profit was only 57.65% of Tangshan Bank's [42]. Business Structure - Both banks primarily generate revenue from net interest income, with Hebei Bank experiencing a significant drop in this ratio in 2024 [25]. - The loan-to-asset ratio for both banks has been increasing, with Hebei Bank having a lower ratio compared to Tangshan Bank [27]. Salary and Benefits - Hebei Bank's total employee compensation in 2024 was 2.051 billion, while Tangshan Bank's was 697 million [39]. - However, the average salary at Tangshan Bank is higher due to its smaller workforce [39].