The government’s regulatory agencies last week lashed out at a Hong Kong consortium’s plan to sell 30 percent of its stake in Nan Shan Life Insurance Co to Chinatrust Financial Holding Co. However, the Nan Shan deal has also put the regulatory agencies’ credibility to the test, with the public watching closely if they will approve the deal eventually.
On Tuesday, Hong Kong-listed China Strategic Holdings Ltd — which, along with private equity fund Primus Financial Holdings Ltd, had purchased a 97.57 percent stake in Nan Shan last month from American International Group Inc (AIG) for approximately US$2.15 billion — announced unexpectedly that it planned to sell 30 percent of the Nan Shan shares to Chinatrust Financial for US$660 million.
In exchange, Chinatrust Financial would sell 9.95 percent of its shares to China Strategic for NT$20.79 billion (US$643 million) via a private placement. Chinatrust Financial said it also reserved the right to increase its shareholding in Nan Shan within three years.
This new deal between China Strategic and Chinatrust Financial has pretty much blown a hole in the commitment the Hong Kong consortium made earlier to the Financial Supervisory Commission, in which it said that, once it wins regulatory approval for its deal with AIG, it would maintain a long-term stake and run the company for a minimum of seven years.
But what has actually raised people’s eyebrows is the identity of the people — or the power — behind the Hong Kong consortium — especially China Strategic.
On Nov. 10, China Strategic, a battery manufacturing and securities investment company, appointed former Hong Kong commerce secretary Frederick Ma (馬時亨) as chairman and former Hang Seng Bank chief executive Raymond Or (柯清輝) as its chief executive officer. Its shareholding structure is also a mystery, raising concern in Taiwan that it might include Chinese nationals. Taiwanese regulations still prohibit Chinese investment in the local financial sector.
Given these concerns, the Investment Commission last Friday demanded that the company submit more documentation about its shareholding structure and the nationalities of shareholders before entering into a formal review of the Nan Shan deal.
The deal has raised a number of questions. Why is China Strategic planning to sell part of its Nan Shan holding to Chinatrust Financial even before it has received regulatory approval to buy AIG’s stake in Nan Shan? Is it simply a tactic to gain regulatory approval by partnering with a major financial conglomerate in Taiwan?
As for AIG, how does it view this deal with the consortium? Has China Strategic broken AIG’s bidding rules by agreeing to sell a stake in Nan Shan to Chinatrust Financial?
When the Hong Kong consortium outbid Chinatrust Financial last month to acquire AIG’s Nan Shan shares, AIG said the winning bidder was chosen because it presented the greatest long-term stability and potential to Nan Shan. Will AIG now agree to the consortium teaming up with Chinatrust Financial after initially rejecting Chinatrust?
This conundrum has raised suspicions whether the government is under pressure to approve the Hong Kong consortium’s deal with AIG, which is nearly 80 percent owned by the US government. The ownership transfer of Nan Shan has great implications for its 4 million policyholders, approximately 4,000 employees and more than 34,000 agents in Taiwan. There is too much at stake for the regulatory agencies to take this issue lightly.
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS