Despite massive redemption pressure last week, Mega International Investment Trust Co avoided closing its NT$36.6 billion (US$1.14 billion) Mega Diamond Bond Fund after its parent Mega Financial Holding Co promised to fully back debt securities and absorb potential losses.
The worsening US credit crisis added to redemption pressure for the Mega fund, which held NT$939.2 million in asset-backed commercial paper (ABCP) linked to the bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
In an effort to create positive market sentiment, the Securities Investment Trust and Consulting Association said last week that no other Taiwanese mutual funds were linked to Lehman Brothers’ bond holdings. But the financial regulator, banks and investors should not be complacent.
The problem is not confined only to ABCP, but extends to many other popular financial products.
Since the US subprime mortgage crisis, we have seen sizable write-downs by many local banks on their subprime-related investments in collateralized debt obligations, collateralized bond obligations and structured investment vehicles.
Retail investors did not fare well either because they often misunderstood or were misled by their banks about the financial products they were purchasing.
For years, Wall Street brokerages and investment banks such as Lehman Brothers have introduced mutual funds to the market and attracted retail investors with high-return structured products, which are fixed income instruments with returns tracking the movements of currencies, interest rates, securities or commodities.
Despite their potential high returns, investors often don’t take into account the risks these products carry.
Take structured notes as an example: Taiwanese investors had placed an aggregate sum of NT$882.8 billion in structured notes at the end of this year’s second quarter.
But, without adequate information from sales agents regarding the possible risks, there were 689 complaints lodged by local investors against banks over structured note investments totaling NT$2.35 billion between July last year and this April, Financial Supervisory Commission’s (FSC) data showed. Four hundred people who saw their investments in structured notes turn sour have formed an association and are considering taking legal action.
On Friday, the FSC said it had coordinated with the investment trust association, the Bankers’ Association of the Republic of China and major commercial banks to halt management fees on structured products issued or guaranteed by Lehman Brothers.
Compared with what regulators in Hong Kong and Singapore said last week — that they would take action to protect individual investors from being affected by Lehman Brothers’ collapse — this is pathetic.
The FSC should conduct a systematic and comprehensive review of financial regulations on structured products sold in this country.
The financial regulator should also investigate any banks accused of misleading investors while selling structured products and other derivatives.
Most importantly, the FSC should make it crystal clear that justice will be served if banks are found to have misinformed investors. Otherwise, with the current volatility of local and global financial markets, it should begin to prepare for the worst.
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS