The proxy vote battle at China Development Financial Holding Co last week offered a fascinating insight into the boardroom struggle between the government and Koo family.
That the Koo family won two-thirds of China Development's board seats in the election came as no surprise to many people, although it did disappoint the Ministry of Finance.
What is noteworthy about this boardroom fight was the impact it will have on the nation's changing financial landscape. The implications of the government's shrinking control over China Development and its impact on the effectiveness of the government's public shareholding policy merit attention.
Take the set of standards which the finance ministry established last September to manage public shareholdings in financial institutions. The ministry now faces questions about whether it can continue to honor these rules or if it should amend them.
The ministry had said the government would not withdraw from China Development's management -- unless the Koo family boosted their shareholding to more than 15 percent by the end of February.
The Koo family never met that minimum, but the government also failed to gain substantial control of the board in last week's election.
The ministry now finds itself in the embarrassing situation of being trapped by its own rules. In principle, the ministry should not dispose of any more of its shareholdings in China Development, but that would run contrary to the Cabinet's reform scheme, which calls for the gradual disposition of public shareholdings in financial institutions.
Just as a good and workable policy can help promote the healthy development of an economy, adverse rules and conventional government mentality may prevent financial institutions from maximizing their potential in an industry undergoing rapid changes involving strong competition, innovative products and ever-changing market risks.
Some have also questioned whether the Koo family's dominance would have a domino effect on uncooperative private shareholders at other financial institutions where the government also owns shares.
No one can be sure what other private shareholders will do. While it's good that the government has a Plan B in the works, there will always be concern as long as the government does not appear sure why exactly it wants to hold seats on the board at institutions where it owns shares.
Sitting on the board to offer counsel, make judgements and oversee the company's resources is not the same as managing a company. While private management is often far more efficient in maximizing a firm's economic value, the directors are the ones who can help perpetuate the value of governance in the company, not the executive staff.
At China Development, the government may be disappointed that it will no longer be able to "share management" with Koo family and only "participate on" the board.
Nonetheless, the government should remember that its goal is to act in the interests of all shareholders, especially since the recent boardroom fight raised questions among investors about the quality of the company's corporate governance and hence the future of the company.
The government has a historical role to play in maintaining the nation's financial stability, but the time is surely now ripe for the government to review the feasibility of its public shareholding policy, as well as reconsider whether it wants to be a player or an arbitrator.
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
Denmark has consistently defended Greenland in light of US President Donald Trump’s interests and has provided unwavering support to Ukraine during its war with Russia. Denmark can be proud of its clear support for peoples’ democratic right to determine their own future. However, this democratic ideal completely falls apart when it comes to Taiwan — and it raises important questions about Denmark’s commitment to supporting democracies. Taiwan lives under daily military threats from China, which seeks to take over Taiwan, by force if necessary — an annexation that only a very small minority in Taiwan supports. Denmark has given China a
Last month, two major diplomatic events unfolded in Southeast Asia that suggested subtle shifts in the region’s strategic landscape. The 46th ASEAN Summit and the inaugural ASEAN-Gulf-Cooperation Council (GCC)-China Trilateral Summit in Kuala Lumpur coincided with French President Emmanuel Macron’s high-profile visits to Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. Together, they highlighted ASEAN’s maturing global posture, deepening regional integration and China’s intensifying efforts to recalibrate its economic diplomacy amid uncertainties posed by the US. The ASEAN summit took place amid rising protectionist policies from the US, notably sweeping tariffs on goods from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, with duties as high as 49 percent.
RSS