To help businesses affected by the financial crisis, Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) directed the Ministry of Finance on Friday to formulate a reward and punishment scheme to force the heads of state-run banks to ease their lending policy. This might be helpful to businesses but portends increased risks for banks.
As the government has no control over private banks’ lending practices, the ministry said it would ask the Bankers Association of the Republic of China to establish a similar mechanism for private banks.
On Thursday, Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Sean Chen (陳冲) said the commission was considering transferring the nation’s postal savings — totaling NT$4 trillion (US$119.2 billion) — to small and medium-sized private banks, hoping this move would help spur more lending to local businesses.
The government’s commitment to helping as many companies as possible given the severity of the ongoing financial turmoil is commendable. It is also encouraging to see the administration’s firm stance against banks tightening credit to local companies. The ministry went as far as to state bluntly on Friday that banks should grant more loans to businesses in need to show their good will given the government’s blanket deposit guarantees announced in October.
And with the unemployment rate surging to a five-year high of 4.37 percent last month, the government is evidently hoping that if banks could extend loans to businesses and help them weather the current turmoil, companies won’t have to resort to massive layoffs.
But none of these considerations is strong enough to ease concerns about potential lending risks and rising bad loans, especially if the government were to push through with its proposed reward and punishment scheme.
Banks earn profits mainly through lending. Empirical studies have shown a positive correlation between a bank’s profitability and the economic climate, meaning the current economic downturn is likely to undercut profitability.
Against this backdrop, what a responsible bank should and can do is adopt a conservative lending stance, maintain a cautious assessment of customers’ ability to repay their loans, adjust its organizational structure and implement cost-cutting measures.
Aside from taking their shareholders’ interests into account, banks should avoid the potentially negative consequences of irresponsible or politically motivated lending — an old but notorious habit that led to a sizable build-up of overdue loans at state banks under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government in the 1990s.
A report by the Chinese-language Economic Daily News last week estimated that local banks had extended NT$1.3 trillion in loans to chipmakers, flat-panel manufacturers, airlines, construction firms and the high speed railway, and banks may need to set aside about NT$100 billion in loan provisions next year to cover potential bad debts if the downturn continues.
Overdue loans are tolerable up to a certain level. What has raised people’s eyebrows is that the government’s reward/punishment scheme is likely to coerce more lending from banks — be they state-run or privately owned — while enhancing a potential moral hazard as the measure could allow corrupt government officials and legislators to press banks for privileged loans.
While it may sound reasonable to help businesses by loosening credit, it is not yet clear how the government can make it happen without compromising the nation’s financial stability. The government needs to be careful in implementing this measure when it comes out with a detailed plan.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS