The number of publicly listed companies that have initiated capital reductions has been increasing, with 57 companies last year implementing reduction programs, compared with 40 in 2015. So far this year, more than 10 listed companies, including in the electronics, textile and real-estate sectors, have announced capital reduction programs to improve their financial structure, despite speculation that they are using the measures to bypass dividend taxes and health insurance supplement premium obligations.
In theory, capital reduction is the process of decreasing a company’s share capital, which usually boosts its return on equity (ROE) for shareholders. In practice, a company can reduce its capitalization either through share cancelations or with share buybacks to cut the nominal value of each share.
However, the rationale for companies to implement capital reductions varies, with some using the scheme to offset operating losses and some aiming to improve their balance sheet for a better shareholder value, while others simply want to make payments to shareholders as they are sitting on huge piles of cash.
Accordingly, capital reductions have different meanings for shareholders. First, loss-making companies are forced to implement capital reductions, because otherwise they would have no chance of achieving a recovery in earnings. While a capital reduction aimed at covering losses is typically followed by a cash injection to make up the financing gap, the implications of this scenario are that companies have operational difficulties and might still face risks if no dramatic changes are made to business strategy or product portfolio. Therefore, despite an immediate improvement in the company’s ROE due to the declining number of issued shares, sustainable growth is not ensured.
Second, there are companies that view a capital reduction as a feasible solution if they consider splitting their operations into different businesses, especially when tax considerations are involved in the process of a planned demerger. Under a well-orchestrated demerger, shareholders benefit from better net book value and earnings per share. They could also see an increase in their total wealth after a restructuring amid a bullish market.
However, there is always the possibility of a company using a demerger to create hype around their shares, so investors have to discern companies that genuinely attempt to create value from those wanting to manipulate stock prices.
Third, there are companies facing heightened scrutiny from investors about how their pile of cash should be utilized, and their answer is to return the cash to shareholders through capital reductions. Of course, shareholders greet the refunds cheerfully, but they would not benefit in the long term if companies reduce capital out of a conservative outlook on future business performance, which they might derive from either cloudy prospects for their industry, few new products in the pipeline, or uncertainty in the macroeconomic environment.
Companies might also want to deliver cash directly to shareholders amid cashflow uncertainties, insider interests and government regulation, but whatever the reason is, a capital reduction hints at limited growth potential.
The reduction fever is likely to continue for a while, as most investors welcome payouts from companies along with a potential boost to ROE and stock prices in the short term.
While some companies use direct cash payouts to circumvent tax regulations on their retained earnings and stock dividends, investors should remember that this approach also carries long-term investment outlook risks, as companies might need large amounts of cash for expansion, acquisitions and intellectual property expenses to boost their competitiveness.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with