The question of whether the government should rescue manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips is generating mixed responses.
The issue attracted attention last week when lawmakers across party lines urged the government to create an immediate bailout package, adding that without action, the DRAM industry would collapse and consequently damage the nation’s economy.
Figures show that the nation’s top four DRAM makers posted combined losses of NT$36.6 billion (US$1.1 billion) in the third quarter and NT$90.83 billion for the first nine months of the year, making the sector the biggest loser among local industries.
With the industry still in a trough and market demand weak, experts expect the four companies — Powerchip Semiconductor Corp (力晶半導體), Nanya Technology Corp (南亞科技), Inotera Memories Inc (華亞科技) and ProMOS Technologies Inc (茂德科技) — to incur combined losses of NT$112.5 billion this year.
Making matters worse is the fact that these companies have borrowed an aggregate NT$420 billion (US$12.7 billion) from local banks over recent years, according to Ministry of Economic Affairs statistics, in addition to a significant roster of overseas convertible bond payments that are due next year.
The combination of global credit crunch and economic slowdown has discouraged banks from lending to avoid bad loans, and this has made it impossible for chipmakers to borrow more money to ease capital shortages and honor bond payments. Under these circumstances, some may bow out of the industry before the market recovers — possibly in the second half of next year, as many in the industry expect.
Some say the government should save the DRAM industry because a sector collapse would not only create a financial crisis for local banks but also trigger a chain reaction in the tech industry, with flat-panel displays very likely to be the next victim.
The economic repercussions of bankruptcies in the DRAM industry, even if just one chipmaker were allowed to fail, would also be far-reaching and hard to predict, as would the socioeconomic impact of a spike in job losses.
However, others say that saving the DRAM industry would pose a greater threat to banks because no one knows how much cash would be needed to see DRAM makers through this difficult time.
There is also an argument that the government should let the weaker players go to the wall. Though painful in the short term, this would allow the survivors to grow stronger, with bigger economies of scale and more cost-efficiency, which would raise the industry’s long-term competitiveness.
Given the complexity and massive risks associated with a collapse of the DRAM industry and its implications for the economy overall, however, the government is expected to come to the rescue.
So far, the government is considering an adjustment of payment terms and emergency loans. It is also looking into injecting public funds into DRAM companies and securing stakes in the companies, eventually facilitating mergers or other consolidation within the industry. But the task will not be easy in view of the different production technologies and various partnerships involved.
Whether or not a bailout is on the way, the government must make its position clear, and soon. This would enable DRAM makers to seek funding from other investors or negotiate mergers while there is time left.
In the meantime, the companies must make deep cuts in production capacity and change corporate strategies given the unfavorable and inevitable market obstacles that lie ahead.
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