TransAsia Airways Corp dissolved its operations in November last year, but the airline and its former employees still have not agreed on severance packages. The issue has not only left the more than 1,700 former employees frustrated just three weeks before the Lunar New Year holiday, but also raised the question of whether corporate dissolution is the best exit strategy in a case like this.
The issue has ignited discussion about exit strategies for family businesses, particularly about their method and timing. Well-developed exit strategies can have a big impact on the value of a business and inevitably have implications for employees, investors and society as a whole. Apparently, TransAsia — one of the three main businesses of the Lin (林) family empire — did not think through the consequences.
There are some common exit strategies for family businesses, such as selling to management, selling to a third party (including financial investors or competitors), or gradually winding down the business before a formal end. Nonetheless, an abrupt dissolution of business is barely better than doing nothing before it dies. The TransAsia case has broad repercussions and shows how poor succession planning contributes to the failure of family businesses, as the saying goes: Wealth does not pass three generations.
Are family businesses prepared to put a succession plan in place? According to a recent survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers Taiwan (PwC Taiwan), they are not. Most Taiwanese family businesses are not adequately prepared for succession — only 9 percent of owners have a formal, written succession plan, compared with 10 percent in China, Hong Kong and Singapore, and lower than the global average of 15 percent. Regarding the separation of ownership and management, 29 percent of Taiwanese family businesses have plans to keep management out of the hands of family members, while 58 percent want management and ownership to remain in the family, higher than the global average of 39 percent, the survey showed.
Most family business leaders expect next-generation family members, rather than professional managers, to take over their business. According to PwC Taiwan, only 11 percent of Taiwanese owners will leave the family business by thinking outside the box, compared with 28 percent in China, 23 percent in Hong Kong and 20 percent in Singapore.
Family businesses are the backbone of the economy, with about 74 percent of publicly listed companies being family-controlled, from small businesses to major corporations, according to a report issued by the Taiwan Institute of Directors in April last year. However, an elderly owner, rivalry between siblings or other family members, as well as rapid changes in the business and the economic environment, have made succession planning an urgent concern for top leaders.
There have been conflicts among Grape King Bio Ltd’s Tseng (曾) family members, struggles between Evergreen Group’s Chang (張) family heirs and infighting between siblings of Taisun Enterprise Co’s Chan (詹) family last year.
For family businesses to be stable and long-lasting, they must step up efforts to create sound succession plans, as well as address the issue of separating ownership and management in corporate governance.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past