“卡王”滑落，“废”于内乱

Core Viewpoint - In 2024, Guangfa Bank experienced its first decline in both revenue and net profit in nearly 17 years, with revenue at 69.237 billion yuan, a year-on-year decrease of 0.63%, and net profit at 15.284 billion yuan, down 4.58% [1][11] Group 1: Credit Card Business Performance - The credit card business, which accounts for nearly half of Guangfa's revenue, is the main reason for the poor performance, with personal banking and credit card revenue dropping by 6.12 billion yuan year-on-year to 31.35 billion yuan [1][6] - The number of credit card holders remained stagnant at 118 million in 2024, marking zero growth for the first time, while the cumulative issuance reached 123 million [1][3] - In terms of overdraft loan balance, Guangfa's credit card balance decreased from 452.35 billion yuan in 2021 to 392.846 billion yuan in 2024, with the proportion of personal loans dropping from 22.37% to 18.44% [4][5] Group 2: Key Performance Indicators - The cumulative issuance of Guangfa credit cards increased from 101 million in 2021 to 123 million in 2024, but the growth rate has significantly slowed [3] - The transaction volume for Guangfa credit cards fell from 2.42 trillion yuan in 2021 to 2.22 trillion yuan in 2023, with no disclosure of the figure for 2024, indicating a poor performance [4] - The non-performing loan ratio for Guangfa credit cards rose from 1.54% in 2021 to 2.19% in 2024, indicating increasing asset quality pressure [5][6] Group 3: Market Position and Strategy - Guangfa's credit card business has been losing its competitive edge, with its market position rapidly declining, leading to concerns that it may become a "waste card" [6][12] - The bank's strategy has shifted from focusing on new card issuance to strengthening existing card management, but this transition comes too late as competitors have already gained significant advantages [10][11] - The bank's net interest margin has also been declining, reaching a historical low of 1.54% in 2024, further weakening its profitability compared to peers [11]