Taiwan has been eager to hatch its own unicorns to join the ranks of global US$1billion companies.
However, this is not happening. Gogoro Inc and Appier Group Inc, two local start-ups with the best potential to become home-grown unicorns, have pursued overseas initial public offerings (IPO) to raise funds for expansion.
To provide easier access to the local capital market, the Taiwan Stock Exchange and Taipei Exchange in July launched two new share trading platforms — the Taiwan Innovation Board and the Pioneer Stock Board — for start-ups to trade their shares. The new boards are proving unappealing to local start-ups amid rigid regulation and a smaller market scale, setting back Taiwan’s efforts to develop unicorns.
Electric scooter maker and battery swapping system provider Gogoro last week announced its IPO on the NASDAQ. With a valuation of US$2.35 billion, Gogoro is to become the latest local start-up joining the unicorn club. The Taoyuan-based company is set to list its shares in the US via a merger with special-purpose acquisition company (SPAC) Poema Global Holdings Corp in the first quarter of next year.
Gogoro is to add US$550 million to its balance sheet together with a private investment in public equity, a huge and unthinkable venture for locally listed companies.
Six months ago, Appier, an artificial intelligence software developer, raised ￥29.8 billion (US$272 million) by debuting its shares on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Mothers market, aiming to cater to its Japanese customers.
A major reason Appier and Gogoro forwent the local stock exchange and opted for Tokyo and New York to launch IPOs was the low valuation local investors give to start-ups, given their poor financial performance in the budding stage. Making money is not the priority of such firms, and they barely generate any revenue even upon IPO launches.
Local investors are mostly conservative and lack appetites for start-up stocks. They prefer stocks with stable returns and have a low tolerance for unprofitable companies. Foreign investors, on the other hand, have deep pockets and are more willing to bet on companies that might have excellent growth potential in the long term.
Gogoro, 10 years old, has not yet turned a profit. Appier just swung into a monthly operating profit in June for the first time since 2013, with its gross margin improving to 50 percent from 42 percent last year.
High qualification ceilings for investors set by the Financial Supervisory Commission could also be a factor that stops start-ups from debuting shares locally. Retail investors are restricted from investing in shares listed on the newly launched boards. Only qualified investors are allowed to buy shares listed on the new trading platforms, given the higher risks in investing in those start-ups.
Institutional investors, or venture funds, are naturally qualified to trade those shares. Otherwise, investors interested in those start-ups are required to hold assets of NT$10 million (US$360,542) to NT$50 million, depending on their assets, experience and income.
So far, not a single company has listed its stocks on the Taiwan Innovation Board, as it takes at least six months to complete the IPO review process. Lin BioScience Inc has pulled back its share offering plan on the board and considers trading shares of its subsidiary, Belite Bio Inc, via a traditional IPO, SPAC or on overseas stock exchanges.
To provide a fast track to the local capital market and to revitalize local stock markets, the stock exchange regulator should consider relaxing the rules governing share listings and investor qualifications. Otherwise, Taiwan risks losing start-ups with valuable innovation and core technologies to overseas markets and should expect the fallout of a talent exodus.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS