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.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
As the war in Burma stretches into its 76th year, China continues to play both sides. Beijing backs the junta, which seized power in the 2021 coup, while also funding some of the resistance groups fighting the regime. Some suggest that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) is hedging his bets, positioning China to side with the victors regardless of the outcome. However, a more accurate explanation is that China is acting pragmatically to safeguard its investments and ensure the steady flow of natural resources and energy for its economy. China’s primary interest is stability and supporting the junta initially seemed like the best
RSS