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 Therefore, the Moody’s closure rings a warning bell in a country where the government is slow to revise outdated financial regulations and its companies are not interested in developing their global visibility in terms of bond issues.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.
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
RSS