Everbright Bank A+H Shares Data "Clash" Reveals the Real Shortcomings of Digital Transformation in the Banking Industry

Log in to Sina Finance APP and search for [Information Disclosure] to see more evaluation levels

(Source: Huayin Strategic Observer)

On the evening of March 30, when Everbright Bank first disclosed its 2025 annual report, there was a serious discrepancy in the data regarding “branch asset size” between the Hong Kong Stock Exchange version (H-shares) and the Shanghai Stock Exchange version (A-shares), attracting market attention.

For example, the end-of-period asset size of Everbright Bank’s Tianjin Branch was 101.33B yuan in the Shanghai version, but only 59.84B yuan in the Hong Kong version; the end-of-period asset size of Shijiazhuang Branch was 120.27B yuan in the Shanghai version, but 286.7B yuan in the Hong Kong version; the Qingdao Branch’s end-of-period asset sizes in the two versions were 98.01 billion yuan and 443.19B yuan, respectively, with a difference of about 4.5 times.

Analysis suggests this is not due to differences in statistical standards. Whether using Chinese Accounting Standards for Business Enterprises (CASBE) in A-shares or International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in H-shares, calculating the total assets of branches would not produce discrepancies of multiple or even tenfold.

Media and analysts pointed out that this is not due to distorted underlying financial data, but because Everbright Bank employees, due to negligence, uploaded drafts or preliminary versions with unfinalized, misaligned data to the Hong Kong Stock Exchange disclosure system.

The two exchanges have different rules for modifying listed companies’ financial reports, leading to the coexistence of “two sets of data” being made public.

The Shanghai Stock Exchange allows errors to be corrected by directly replacing the original file with a “corrected version” (i.e., “overwrite”). Therefore, Everbright Bank quickly updated and displayed the correct data version on the Shanghai exchange.

In contrast, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange adheres to the principle of “permanent archiving of information disclosure,” meaning once a file is uploaded, it cannot be directly overwritten or deleted. Listed companies must issue correction or supplementary announcements to amend the information.

As a result, before Everbright Bank officially issued a correction announcement, the incorrect version remained on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange website, creating a stark contrast.

Everbright Bank issued correction announcements on the evening of April 1 (at 21:08 and 21:21), revising the data related to branch asset sizes in the H-shares annual report, and re-uploaded the correct version.

After this late-night correction, the latest annual report data posted on both the Shanghai and Hong Kong exchanges have been aligned, ending the nearly two-day “dual-version” controversy.

Some analysts pointed out that any externally disclosed financial report must go through processes including preparation, proofreading, review by department heads, approval by the company secretary/executives, and even review by the audit committee of the board.

The error this time at Everbright Bank was directly caused by an employee “shaking hands and pasting the wrong line.” But the ultimate responsibility lies with management.

Many regions simultaneously disclosed, with tight schedules and heavy tasks. Without automated verification tools, staff working under continuous high pressure are prone to basic mistakes like “reading the wrong line” or “pasting the wrong number.” Even more concerning is that these errors often fail to be caught in subsequent layered reviews, indicating that the review mechanism has become merely a formality.

Reports of hundreds of pages often see reviewers only focusing on large figures, assuming that front-line staff have verified everything correctly. This “trust” essentially signifies a failure of process supervision.

Industry insiders pointed out that a few days ago, a bank chairman mentioned that the bank’s “secretary’s office staff worked overnight for two days to produce hundreds of pages of materials,” and the recent Everbright Bank financial report blunder exposed a harsh reality: many banks’ “moats” still rely on the “flesh and blood” of their employees.

When organizations are under long-term extreme pressure, pursuing speed excessively, and with very low tolerance for mistakes, front-line staff will inevitably deform their actions to meet targets, and errors become only a matter of time.

For years, China’s banking industry has called for digital transformation and AI empowerment. Why, then, do employees still need to work overtime and manually verify data during the most critical financial report disclosures and earnings presentation preparations?

Over the past decades, China’s banking industry’s rapid rise has largely benefited from a “steel army culture” and relentless effort. But today, with refined management, strict regulation, and low interest margins, this model has reached its ceiling.

True excellent management should not rely on employees working at full throttle every day without mistakes.

The real moat should be transforming dependence on people into reliance on scientific processes and intelligent systems.