The much-awaited set of new regulations governing cross-strait market access for the banking, securities brokerage and insurance sectors announced by the Financial Supervisory Commission on Tuesday showed that the financial regulator has taken public concerns to heart.
However, as any market-access deal takes two to tango, there is bound to be uncertainty over whether President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration will stick to its bottom line and refrain from making concessions in the upcoming negotiations over a proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China, during which further relaxations of financial rules may be agreed upon.
From the Taiwanese side, to ease concerns that the Taiwanese banking sector may use local deposits to fund its loan businesses in China, the commission’s new regulations stipulate that half of the loans to be granted by the banks’ to-be-established outlets in China will have to come from Chinese depositors. The commission has also placed a cap on each Taiwanese bank’s China-bound investment at less than 15 percent of a bank’s net worth or 10 percent of a financial service provider’s net worth.
All of this means that the capital outflow of 14 Taiwanese banks to China will be capped at NT$25 billion (US$785 million), while that of 13 financial service providers will not exceed NT$50 billion.
To a certain degree, both rules aim to put a brake on the acceleration of China-bound capital flight within the banking sector, which was previously barred from branching into China.
This contrasts with earlier estimates by China Development Industrial Bank president Simon Dzeng (曾垂紀), at the time executive vice president at Mega Financial Holding Co, that once the government gave the green light, most domestic banks would move into the Chinese market “within three months,” resulting in a fund outflow of as much as NT$300 billion.
However, we shouldn’t expect the banking sector to be satisfied with the new regulations. It is very likely that it will push for more open policies before the government sits down with its Chinese counterparts.
Meanwhile, the commission has opened the door just a little for Chinese banks wishing to branch into Taiwan. Chinese banks will remain barred from setting up subsidiaries here and will have to wait two years before they can upgrade their representative offices into branches.
In terms of share investments, Chinese financial institutions will not be allowed to own more than 10 percent of a Taiwanese rival’s stock, although the regulator has said it would further relax, “in a progressive manner,” such rules after — and if — an ECFA is signed.
Many Chinese banks have made it clear they have no interest in single-digit holdings in Taiwanese banks, as Taiwanese banks are already allowed to take up stakes of up to 20 percent in Chinese banks via overseas outlets.
It does appear that the new regulations were baby steps that will please nobody. This said, we must hope the government will remain steadfast and refrain from making careless moves when it negotiates with the Chinese government on further market access. When dealing with Beijing, baby steps might just be advisable.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS