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 two urban commercial banks in Guizhou Province: Guizhou Bank and Guiyang Bank, highlighting their differences in ownership structure, financial performance, and operational metrics [2][3][4]. Ownership and Structure - Guizhou Bank was formed in 2012 through the merger of three city commercial banks and is primarily owned by the Guizhou Provincial Finance Department, holding 20% of shares [3]. - Guiyang Bank originated from 25 urban credit cooperatives in 1997 and is mainly owned by the Guiyang State-owned Assets Investment Management Company, with a 12.82% stake [4][5]. Capital Market Presence - Guizhou Bank was listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange in 2019, making it the first financial institution from Guizhou to enter the international capital market [6]. - Guiyang Bank was listed on the Shanghai Stock Exchange in 2016 [7]. Operational Scope - Both banks operate branches across nine cities in Guizhou Province, with Guiyang Bank also having a branch in Chengdu, Sichuan. Guiyang Bank generates 94.48% of its revenue from Guizhou, with 50.38% from Guiyang city [8]. - As of the end of 2024, Guizhou Bank has 222 branches, while Guiyang Bank has 296 branches [8]. Subsidiaries - Guizhou Bank currently has no subsidiaries [9]. - Guiyang Bank operates two subsidiaries: one in Sichuan and another in Guiyang [9]. Employee Metrics - As of the end of 2024, Guizhou Bank employs 5,604 staff, with 7.42% holding a master's degree or higher [10]. - Guiyang Bank has 5,888 employees, including 1,440 at the headquarters, with 9.22% holding a master's degree or higher [10]. Financial Performance - In 2024, Guizhou Bank reported total assets of 589.99 billion, while Guiyang Bank reported 705.67 billion [11]. - Guizhou Bank's net profit attributable to shareholders was 3.779 billion, compared to Guiyang Bank's 5.164 billion [11]. - Guiyang Bank has a lower non-performing loan ratio of 1.58% compared to Guizhou Bank's 1.72% [11][12]. Long-term Growth Trends - Over the past decade, both banks have seen asset growth, with Guiyang Bank consistently outperforming Guizhou Bank, although the gap has narrowed from 62% of Guiyang Bank's assets in 2016 to 84% in 2024 [13]. - In terms of operating income, Guiyang Bank's revenue has also been higher, but Guizhou Bank's share of Guiyang Bank's revenue increased from 69% in 2017 to 83% in 2024 [16]. Business Structure - Both banks primarily generate revenue from net interest income, with Guizhou Bank's share declining from over 100% in 2017 to 73.86% in 2024, while Guiyang Bank's share remained relatively stable at 74.48% [20]. - The loan structure is predominantly corporate loans, with Guizhou Bank maintaining around 85% and Guiyang Bank increasing from 69.71% in 2015 to 82.2% in 2024 [27]. Asset Quality - Guizhou Bank has a higher non-performing loan ratio but a better provision coverage ratio compared to Guiyang Bank, indicating a mixed assessment of asset quality [36][33]. Employee Compensation - In 2024, Guiyang Bank's employee compensation was 2.525 billion, while Guizhou Bank's was 2.244 billion, reflecting a similar average salary due to the difference in employee numbers [37]. Conclusion - Overall, Guiyang Bank, as a city-level bank, has maintained a larger scale than Guizhou Bank, a provincial-level bank, but the gap is closing. Both banks exhibit similar business structures and operational focuses, with comparable asset quality metrics [40].