There are more reasons behind Moody’s Investors Service’s recent decision to shut down its operations in Taiwan than a mere “review of business strategy” in the wake of weakening global economic and market conditions.
The untold story is the lack of interest foreign investors have in corporate bonds and securitized debts from Taiwanese companies, which has long limited the scale of global ratings agencies’ business in Taiwan and is now forcing Moody’s to close its Taipei office. Moody’s pulling out of the local market is a warning sign for Taiwanese capital markets.
In the face of the global financial crisis, it makes sense that the New York-based company itself is undertaking business restructuring to maximize resource allocation. The question is: Why is Taiwan under the spotlight this time?
Many market watchers said that the Moody’s move reflected the fact that the company was facing a saturated market dominated by rivals Fitch Ratings Ltd and Standard & Poor’s Ratings Service.
But that’s a short-sighted assessment. What these market watchers seemed to miss — as suggested by Polaris Research Institute president Liang Kuo-yuan (梁國源) in an interview with the Central News Agency on Friday — is that the Moody’s withdrawal is indicative of Taiwan’s slower pace in internationalizing its capital markets.
Efforts to internationalize the nation’s capital markets are the best way to develop Taiwan into a regional fundraising hub as the government planned. Therefore, the Moody’s closure rings a warning bell in a country where the government is slow to revise outdated financial regulations and its companies are not interested in developing their global visibility in terms of bond issues.
Another statistic released by S&P’s local partner, Taiwan Ratings Corp, showed how few Taiwanese companies have contracted international ratings agencies to evaluate their corporate credit ratings. It said only around 50 of some 1,200 listed companies in Taiwan have their credit reviews published by ratings agencies on a regular basis.
This figure suggests that nearly 96 percent of Taiwan’s listed companies didn’t feel the need to hire ratings agencies to conduct a credit review of their corporate bonds or securitized debts. There are many reasons behind this, but the simple answer is these companies are just too locally focused and cost-sensitive to do so.
The Moody’s closure also indicates unbalanced development in Taiwan’s capital markets, where the stock market has been growing bigger with the increasing presence of foreign investors, while the bond market still plays a very small role with little interest from investors abroad.
Bonds are generally less attractive than stocks because bond price changes are not as volatile. However, corporate bonds can sometimes show where the economy is headed even more clearly than stocks because bondholders usually pay more attention to a company’s ability to repay its debts. Stock investors, in comparison, are more speculative in attitude and mindset, and so are their forecasts of economic ups and downs.
The withdrawal of Moody’s poses both a crisis and an opportunity for Taiwan’s capital markets. It could be a crisis if people just think of the withdrawal as an isolated incident. It could be an opportunity if the government acts to revise outdated regulations, and local companies become more aware of the importance of internationalizing their debt instruments.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS