Increasing calls from investors, pundits and politicians for immediate government action to help prop up the sagging stock market show that the market has little confidence.
From March 17, when the stock market started to climb before peaking on the eve of the presidential inauguration, investors hoped that things would take a turn for the better and that a rise of 1,289.74 points, or 16.11 percent, on the benchmark TAIEX at that time was only the first indicator of good news to come.
But since May 20, when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, the TAIEX has plunged by 2,761.6 points, or 30.46 percent, and penetrated both 10-year and 20-year moving averages to close at 6,307.28 points on Friday. This was a fresh two-year low, with market capitalization for all listed companies losing a total of NT$7.4 trillion (US$232.2 billion).
Ma’s remark last week that his “6-3-3” economic policy could not be delivered until 2016 — the final year of a second term in office if he were re-elected — became the last straw for a sinking market as investor confidence fell apart.
With margin calls placing pressure on the market and most local investors choosing to wait in the wings for the time being, and with foreign investors redirecting funds from Asian equity markets — including Taiwan — to home markets amid global uncertainty, it is clear that the market’s bear run will continue for an extended period.
In response to growing public criticism at their do-nothing approach, government officials said they would have an action plan to support the market ready this week, with measures possibly including the use of government funds to purchase a substantial amount of shares, as well as tax exemptions or tax cuts on stock transactions.
There is a strong political case to be made on this point, because many salary earners were drawn into the stock market because of their belief that Ma could fulfill his campaign pledges.
But there is a difference between cutting investor losses and boosting market confidence. It is also clear — if perhaps unwelcome — that these measures cannot be expected to change fundamentals; government intervention will likely only serve to prop up the market temporarily.
The sagging market reflects a bigger picture of global slowdown amid lingering financial turmoil, inflation pressures and exchange-rate volatility. But it is foreign investors continuing to trim positions to meet fund redemptions in home markets that accounts for most of the plunge in local equities.
Remarks by Minister of Finance Lee Sush-der (李述德) last week that investors should take responsibility for investment decisions, and that the government should not shoulder investor losses, is economically accurate but politically incorrect. What he didn’t say was that action to support the market would favor people who invest and not those who don’t.
No one should expect the market to rebound just because of a government “action plan.” The market will eventually act to correct itself as long as the economic outlook is positive and policy improves confidence in the government’s ability to manage.
What investors and the government should worry about is whether a bear run will hurt other capital markets and further undercut domestic consumption before posing a threat to the economy as a whole.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
RSS