The mismatched "trillion-dollar report" in the AI era: Bank of Communications' dividend typo causes a "blunder," and China Everbright Bank's branch assets "change faces"

Log in to Sina Finance APP and search for 【Information Disclosure】 to see more evaluation levels

The annual report season is always a time when banks “speak with data.”

By the end of March 2026, while most banks are busy smoothly disclosing their annual results, Everbright Bank (601818) and Bank of Communications (601328) both experienced “slips,” with consecutive errors in their annual report disclosures, quickly attracting widespread attention and adding an unexpected twist to what should have been a rigorous “data test.”

Annual report data “goof”: Everbright Bank urgently corrects within 48 hours

On the evening of March 30, 2026, Everbright Bank disclosed its 2025 annual report. As a nationwide joint-stock bank listed in both A-shares and H-shares, the A-share annual report follows Chinese accounting standards, while the H-share report follows International Financial Reporting Standards. The two reports should present consistent operating results under different standards.

However, on March 31, investors and media found that the two reports showed obvious data discrepancies: among 47 primary branches, 40 had asset data that could not be matched between the A- and H-share versions, resulting in systemic data misalignment.

Such differences are not normal adjustments caused by accounting standard variations but represent significant deviations affecting the interpretation of branch operations data.

Taking the Shanghai branch as an example, the disclosed total assets on the Shanghai Stock Exchange were 443.19B yuan, consistent with previous scale logic; meanwhile, the initial version on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange showed this figure as 39.54 billion yuan, a significant drop.

Conversely, the Qingdao branch showed the opposite: the Hong Kong version listed assets at 443.19B yuan, while the Shanghai version was only 98.01 billion yuan, a large gap between the two.

This kind of data mismatch is not limited to domestic branches but also involves overseas institutions: the assets of the Seoul and Luxembourg branches in the Shanghai Stock Exchange version are highly consistent with the Hong Kong Stock Exchange version’s Hong Kong and Seoul branches.

Looking at the scale of differences, the Shijiazhuang branch stood out: the Hong Kong version showed 286.7B yuan, while the Shanghai version was only 120.27B yuan, a difference of 166.43 billion yuan. The Tianjin branch (A-shares 101.33B yuan vs. H-shares 59.84B yuan) and Yantai branch (A-shares 72.6 billion yuan vs. H-shares 69.9k yuan) also showed discrepancies in the hundreds of millions to billions range.

Although the total assets of all 1,339 branches combined are about 6.99 trillion yuan, consistent across both versions, local data errors cause the asset data at the branch level to lose accurate reference value, causing obvious confusion for investors’ interpretation.

Within 48 hours, Everbright Bank carried out correction work according to the rules of both exchanges, with different paces.

On April 1 at noon, the Shanghai Stock Exchange version was directly updated without a separate correction announcement, only reflected in the subsequent H-share announcement attachments with data consistent with the A-shares. This low-key approach also sparked some market participants’ discussion about disclosure transparency.

According to the “Rules for the Preparation and Disclosure of Company Information for Public Offering Securities No. 19” issued by the China Securities Regulatory Commission, if the financial information in publicly disclosed periodic reports contains errors, corrections should be disclosed promptly via interim reports; the Shanghai Stock Exchange’s self-regulatory guidelines also require that errors or omissions in disclosure documents be corrected or supplemented promptly.

Hong Kong Stock Exchange rules require that historical disclosure information be retained with traceability. According to the HKEX “Frequently Asked Questions Series on Disclosure Easy,” original disclosure materials are stored in the system, and issuers must submit revised versions marked as “(Revised).”

At 21:08 and 21:21 on April 1, Everbright Bank issued two revised announcements on HKEX, acknowledging “layout issues and errors,” and disclosed the corrected annual report. The bank stated that the corrections did not materially affect annual performance, but the inconsistency caused by basic data entry and review oversights still impacted market credibility.

Failing to detect and prevent such errors in the trillion-level asset annual report process reflects inadequate proofreading and exposes certain flaws in internal review procedures.

“One character” causes a trillion: the proofreading oversight of Bank of Communications

Everbright Bank’s error stemmed from branch data misalignment, a layout and verification oversight; in contrast, the disclosure error at Bank of Communications was a typical textual statement mistake. Different causes but both pointing to deficiencies in the full process control of information disclosure.

On March 27, 2026, Bank of Communications issued its 2025 profit distribution plan, a routine investor return announcement, but a statement in the announcement caused market confusion: it said “propose a cash dividend of 3.247 yuan per share.”

If calculated literally, this would imply a dividend far beyond reasonable bounds. With a total share capital of 88.36B shares, a dividend of 3.247 yuan per share would total about 286.92B yuan. Meanwhile, the disclosed net profit attributable to parent shareholders for 2025 was 95.62B yuan. If implemented as such, the bank would need to pay out its entire net profit and additional funds, totaling roughly 2.7 times the net profit for the year. Given the banking industry’s emphasis on stable and sustainable dividends, this figure clearly does not align with financial logic.

On the evening of March 30, Bank of Communications issued a correction, changing “per share” to “per 10 shares (tax included).” This single word change adjusted the total dividend from 286.92B yuan to 28.69B yuan, a difference of 25.82 billion yuan.

In fact, after removing the wording error, the dividend plan at Bank of Communications is fundamentally supported by solid fundamentals. The 3.247 yuan figure is the total of semi-annual and annual dividends: 1.563 yuan per 10 shares for the semi-annual dividend, and 1.684 yuan per 10 shares for the final dividend, totaling 14.88 billion yuan. President Zhang Baojiang has previously stated that the 2025 cash dividend payout ratio was 32.3%, maintaining a dividend rate above 30% for 14 consecutive years. During the “14th Five-Year Plan,” the bank’s cumulative cash dividends reached 123.9 billion yuan, demonstrating a stable dividend foundation, making the initial misstatement unnecessary to cause market volatility.

Bank of Communications attributed the mistake to “insufficient proofreading” and apologized. As a large state-owned bank known for rigorous risk control, a thousand-billion-yuan discrepancy in core financial disclosures can mislead ordinary investors and cause unnecessary emotional fluctuations.

By the end of 2025, Bank of Communications’ total assets exceeded 15.5 trillion yuan, operating income was 258.2B yuan, and the non-performing loan ratio fell to 1.28%, with overall stable operations. However, such a basic error in core information disclosure contrasts with its emphasis on prudent management. This incident again reminds the industry that in trillion-yuan financial disclosures, every detail must be strictly reviewed.

The missing “0” and misplaced “Yuan”: forgotten details of information disclosure

The two cases at Everbright and Bank of Communications are not isolated. Reviewing recent banking disclosure practices, errors caused by textual, unit, or data verification issues occur frequently. Most are operational, but their repeated occurrence warrants high industry attention.

On April 19, 2024, Hangzhou Bank disclosed its 2023 profit distribution plan, mistakenly writing “per share dividend of 0.52 yuan” as “5.20 yuan,” enlarging the dividend tenfold. The “Important Reminder” in the announcement also conflicted with the main text, yet it was still published after review. In July of the same year, the bank’s vice president and secretary of the board of directors, Mao Xianghong, who was responsible for information disclosure, resigned due to work adjustments, and the market linked this incident to the previous dividend typo.

Misuse of units is another common issue, where minor deviations can cause large data distortions. In August 2023, Chengdu Bank disclosed its Sichuan Jincheng Consumer Finance net profit, mistakenly writing 155k yuan (265.07B yuan) as 15.9 thousand yuan, shrinking the data by nearly ten thousand times. In 2019, Jiangxi Bank’s quarterly report misrepresented “capital net amount” and “risk-weighted assets” units from “billion yuan” to “ten thousand yuan,” causing key indicators to be off by orders of magnitude, and only nearly two months later issued a correction notice, failing to fulfill timely correction obligations.

Some issues go beyond simple operational errors. In October 2024, Xi’an Bank received a warning letter from the Shaanxi Securities Regulatory Bureau due to inaccurate classification of financial investments from 2020 to 2022, reflecting deeper internal control problems involving accounting judgments and asset classification. Additionally, review processes are sometimes superficial: in its 2023 annual report, Yantai Bank reused 2020 and 2021 data for the “Top Five Loan Industries,” failing to truthfully disclose current figures. These cases collectively highlight that, under the overall framework of regulated operation, banks still face management shortcomings caused by lax process controls and multi-level review gaps.

Annual reports are not only a systematic summary of a bank’s yearly operations but also a credit certificate for the market and investors. In tens of thousands of words, even a character, a unit, or a line of data error can trigger market misunderstandings and irrational fluctuations. The data misalignment at Everbright branches and the dividend statement mistake at Bank of Communications serve as warnings: while vigorously promoting digital transformation and technological empowerment, the most fundamental manual review, multi-level verification, and full-process control remain the core bottom line to ensure the quality of information disclosure.