Most monetary policymakers view a sudden resurgence in capital inflow with a wary eye amid concerns that speculative funds may have found their way into the system, leading to currency instability and asset price bubbles. In Taiwan, a press statement released by the central bank on Thursday, citing excerpts on capital controls and financial stability, suggests that the bank now considers foreign speculative funds its No. 1 target.
The three excerpts, which the bank dubbed “reference materials,” were taken from an interview by Thai newspaper The Nation with Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on Aug. 25, the UN Trade and Development Report 2009 and the G7 communique issued last Saturday.
First, the central bank made it clear that it didn’t welcome speculative money by quoting Stiglitz as saying: “You have to recognize how dangerous hot money can be.”
It then quoted the UN trade report by saying: “It would certainly be a step forward if surging capital inflows were no longer perceived as a sign of strength, but as a potential source of disequilibrium.”
Finally, the bank voiced its concern about financial stability by citing the G7 communique: “Excess volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates have adverse implications for economic and financial stability.”
While the statement said the materials were for public reference only, the general perception in financial circles is that the hawkish, anti-inflation central bank Governor Perng Fai-nan (彭淮南) is gearing up to fight the inflow of hot money. The strategy has worked in the past, and Perng has built a reputation for killing currency speculation.
The bank has a good reason to worry. The latest Financial Supervisory Commission data revealed that US$2.7 billion out of the US$7.06 billion net inflow of foreign portfolio capital last month was not invested in local stocks, suggesting the money was used to buy New Taiwan dollars.
Several central banks in the region have already expressed concern that the resurgence of capital inflows is threatening the stability of their financial markets, with some choosing to intervene in the market. South Korea, for example, is reportedly considering restricting state-controlled companies’ US dollar loans in a bid to keep the value of the won in check.
Intensifying concern about the volatility of capital inflows makes the central bank’s intervention inevitable. However, the bank should be extremely cautious in exercising capital controls and intervene only when the exchange rate of the NT dollar has deviated sharply from its value, because in some cases it could be counterproductive.
Global investors are now looking for clues on how strong emerging markets — including Taiwan — can perform once the global crisis ends, compared with relatively slow growth in the US, Europe and Japan. The bank should bear in mind how its capital controls have frequently invited criticism from MSCI Inc or FTSE Group when they were re-weighting Taiwan’s market status in their compiled indexes.
No one doubts the central bank’s ability to keep the foreign inflows in check, as it has plenty of monetary tools at its disposal. But the bank should stick to its anti-inflation mission and should not use its monetary instruments solely for a shortsighted desire to prolong an export boom by manipulating the exchange rate.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS