US and European companies operating in China continue to report record-low business confidence and profits amid geopolitical tensions between Beijing and the West and a slowing Chinese economy, two separate reports published last week by the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai and the EU Chamber of Commerce in China showed. The reports also found that more companies than ever are pessimistic about their business outlook in China due to Beijing’s failure to implement policies to stimulate and revive the world’s second-largest economy.
The American Chamber of Commerce’s report showed that only 47 percent of US firms were optimistic about their business outlook in China over the next five years, 5 percentage points lower than a year earlier and the lowest level since the US business group started the survey in 1999. Meanwhile, just 66 percent of the US businesses surveyed said they were profitable last year, a record low, the report said.
Similarly, 44 percent of European companies polled said they were pessimistic about their profitability in China over the next two years, the highest level since records started in 2012, the EU Chamber of Commerce’s report showed. Nearly two-thirds of respondents also said their profit margins in China had sunk to equal to or below the global average.
The reports underscore a trend of a persistent decline in foreign direct investment into China this year, which fell 31.5 percent during the January-to-August period from a year earlier, greater than the 29.6 percent fall during the first seven months and accelerating from the 26.1 percent decline in the first quarter, Chinese Ministry of Commerce data released on Saturday showed.
They also come after IBM Corp last month said it would shut down a key research division in China, affecting more than 1,000 employees, three months after Microsoft Corp confirmed it had offered to relocate some of its employees in China. Meanwhile, Taiwanese restaurant chain Din Tai Fung last month also announced it would close 14 stores in northern China by the end of next month, although the chain’s stores in Taipei, New York and London still have customers lining up to dine on a first-come, first-served basis.
While geopolitical tensions and tough regulations have long been risk factors for Taiwanese firms, China’s struggling economy has increasingly emerged as a major concern, driving more of them to repatriate funds to Taiwan instead of parking them in China for potential investment purposes, the latest data released last week by the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) showed. Publicly listed firms repatriated NT$65.6 billion (US$2.06 billion) of investment gains from China in the first half of this year, an 8.25 percent increase from a year earlier, the highest figure on record for the period. Firms — including those listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange and the Taipei Exchange — remitted their investment income, dividends and proceeds from share sales back home to align with their business groups’ capital planning strategies, the commission said.
FSC data also showed that 1,198 listed Taiwanese companies had invested in China as of the end of June, 11 fewer than at the end of last year, the largest decline in seven years for the same period.
The data reflect a trend that more Taiwanese firms have become cautious about their investment across the Taiwan Strait and are preparing global strategies in light of rising risks in China’s business environment and a slowing economy, along with the strained relationship between Taipei and Beijing and the intensifying rivalry between the US and China, not to mention fierce competition with Chinese firms who benefit from extensive government support. Most importantly, as Chinese authorities still do not understand the full scale of their country’s dire economic situation, they are likely to see more international firms scale back their operations there in the near to medium term.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS