Recently, the Hong Kong stock market has been flooded with IPO prospectuses. While reviewing them, I discovered an interesting financial phenomenon.

Nanhua Futures is preparing for a secondary listing in Hong Kong. Comparing the financial reports disclosed in both regions, a clear divergence emerges: from 2022 to 2024, the A-share financial reports show revenues of 6.823 billion, 6.247 billion, and 5.712 billion yuan, respectively, showing a downward trend; however, the Hong Kong IPO prospectuses for the same period report figures of 954 million, 1.293 billion, and 1.355 billion yuan, which are increasing year by year.

The underlying reason for this opposite trend lies in the differences in accounting standards — Hong Kong follows International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), while the A-shares adopt Chinese Accounting Standards (CAS). These two systems have fundamental differences in revenue recognition criteria.

Even more noteworthy is another set of data: during the same period, the company's net interest income was 327 million, 545 million, and 682 million yuan, accounting for 4.8%, 11.9%, and 19.4% of operating income, respectively. When calculated under adjusted standards, this proportion even reaches 34.2%, 42.2%, and 50.3%. In other words, the interest income generated from client margins nearly supports half of the company's revenue, even surpassing net profit scales.

There is a gray area here: according to futures regulatory regulations and the Civil Code, client margins are considered clients' property, and theoretically, the interest income generated should belong to the clients. However, in practice, this portion of interest has become an important source of income for futures companies. Where does the reasonableness boundary of this model lie? Is there tension between industry practices and legal principles? Perhaps more discussion is needed.