Does keeping the Export-Import Bank around just to stop a government-owned export credit agency from disappearing make any sense?
That's what lawmakers propose, desperate to hold off a government plan to merge three state-run banks, including the Export-Import Bank of the ROC, into one mega financial holding company.
The Cabinet announced in August it would establish the Taiwan Financial Holding Co by merging the Bank of Taiwan, the Land Bank of Taiwan and the Export-Import Bank within three years.
But the legislature's Finance Committee last week approved a resolution demanding the Ministry of Finance suspend the merger. They attacked the plan to scrap the Export-Import Bank and implied a statute governing the bank must be scrapped first before moving forward with the merger.
While the committee is busy fighting a rational consolidation so that these state lenders can continue their existence as mediocre performers with undiversified portfolios, they are ignoring whether the merger would create synergy and why the market is so eager to see the merger.
It is a significant development to see the government pushing for a merger of state banks that would rid the market of some of the weaker private financial holding companies. Lawmakers should pay attention to the problems the merger could mitigate.
If the committee's resolution, which was non-binding, was notable for anything, it was for the debate over whether the Export-Import Bank deserves its favored status and whether the merger would eliminate its export credit role.
While the Bank of Taiwan and the Land Bank of Taiwan are commercial banks, the Export-Import Bank was established in 1979 specifially to provide financial support for trade through export credit insurance, trade finances and other foreign investment assistance. As the Export-Import Bank is much smaller than its potential partners, some lawmakers have expressed concern that it would be dwarfed in the new management structure, with grave implications for its crucial services to exporters.
The bank's contribution to the growth of the nation's export-oriented economy is huge. Nevertheless, this doesn't change the fact that the bank suffers from low profitability because profit maximization is not its main objective.
The argument that a specialized policy-related role is reason enough to leave a poor-performing lender alone should no longer guide our financial market, forcing lenders to labor under above-average funding costs for policy-related obligations and sizable low-margin lending. Business sustainability and operation efficiency simply cannot be ignored.
It is gladdening to hear that our lawmakers are concerned about the key role of the Export-Import Bank and how policy-based finance will function following the merger. Instead of opposing the merger, however, they should look into how to supervise its execution to ensure that the new financial holding company will carry out its role efficiently.
The Ministry of Finance is touting the merger, saying it will lead to diversified services for customers, that government policies would be implemented efficiently and that it would solve personnel, wage and budget problems associated with state banks.
It is not surprising to hear this kind of optimism from the ministry. In the end, however, the merger is subject to political and regulatory developments and competition on the market will determine whether the ministry was right to be so optimistic.
As for lawmakers, if they care about the economy, they should jump at the chance to see through real reforms to deal with a long-standing problem with the nation's lenders.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs