Last week, the semi-official Taiwan Insurance Guaranty Fund (TIGF) announced that four financial institutions were qualified to bid for Kuo Hua Life Insurance Co at an auction to be held on Tuesday, which marks yet another attempt at public sale of the loss-making insurer. Whether or not the insolvent company is auctioned off next week, it is time for the government to consider structural reforms of financial industry bailouts so taxpayers no longer have to rescue collapsing companies.
Cash-strapped Kuo Hua was officially taken over by the TIGF in August 2009 after the Financial Supervisory Commission found the insurer’s weak capitalization and consistent operating losses had seriously hurt the rights and interests of its policyholders. Since then, the government receivership — the first of its kind among the nation’s life insurers in more than 40 years — has been extended four times, with the current extension due to expire in August next year. The commission continues the process of finding a new owner for Kuo Hua after its previous efforts failed due to discrepancies over acquisition terms.
According to the TIGF — which is funded by an industry premiums tax — Mercuries Life Insurance Co, Chinatrust Life Insurance Co, Taiwan Life Insurance Co and Transglobe Life Insurance Inc will be eligible to bid for 49-year-old Kuo Hua. Based on industry estimates, the TIGF is likely to subsidize the successful bidder by as much as NT$120 billion (US$4.1 billion) if Kuo Hua is sold as a whole (including its assets and liabilities), whereas the amount may be reduced to NT$74.63 billion, Kuo Hua’s accumulated net losses as of March 31, if it is sold as separate packages.
In either case, this deal is likely to become the highest bailout settlement by the government after the now-defunct Chung Hsing Bank cost the nation’s Financial Restructuring Fund — modeled after the US’ Resolution Trust Corp in the 1980s — as much as NT$58.5 billion before its sale to the Union Bank of Taiwan in 2004. Moreover, in order to attract potential buyers, given Kuo Hua’s weak business and financial fundamentals, the commission has reportedly also agreed to provide flexible administrative oversight for the new owner over the next 20 years, setting yet another record for the local financial industry.
In fairness, the low interest rate environment is hurting all insurance companies in Taiwan, but the problems at Kuo Hua are unrepresentative of the capabilities and strengths of others in the industry.
Nonetheless, the government’s persistent reliance on taxpayers to bail out failed financial companies has put increased burdens on the nation. At a time when the government has agreed to reform the public-sector pension system in light of more than NT$5 trillion of national debt as of last month, it is now time for a decision on whether public money should remain available for bailouts in the event of a financial crisis.
Another concern is that since the government established the Financial Restructuring Fund in June 2001, it has not only spent nearly NT$289 billion cleaning up ailing firms, it has also created a sense of moral hazard in the financial industry. Some in the industry now feel they can do whatever they want, because the government will eventually bail them out. To stop financial companies from gambling recklessly, the government should change its thinking regarding rescue of ailing companies that are “too big to fail.” That losses at Kuo Hua under TIGF custodianship have risen to NT$74.63 billion from NT$55.9 billion over the past three years indicates that such companies are both too complicated to manage and too weak to survive.
Certainly, the government has a responsibility to help protect the rights of employees and the interests of investors when financial companies get into trouble. It is also entitled to use any means necessary to stop financial distress turning into a broader meltdown of the entire system. However, the point remains that the government needs to safeguard public interest and mitigate moral hazard. It must make the right decisions for the economy as a whole.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations