Over the past few years, the government has made a number of efforts to maintain discipline in the nation’s financial sector. In addition, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) has tried to avoid looking like a paper tiger. Unfortunately, the commission’s latest punitive action against Global Life Insurance Co shows otherwise.
According to a statement posted on the commission’s Web site on May 10, it decided to ban Global Life from investing in shares of listed companies, with the exception of exchange traded funds (ETF) and Grade-A bonds, and prohibit the unlisted insurer from making new overseas investments for violating the Insurance Act (保險法).
The punishment came after Global Life on May 6 cast its vote in a board of directors election at the publicly listed Long Bon International Co, a Greater Taichung-based investment holding company which has subsidiaries including Taiwan Life Insurance Co, King Dragon Life Insurance Co and Reiju Construction Co.
Under the Insurance Act, insurers are not allowed to influence the management of companies in which they own stakes.
According to local media reports, Global Life had earlier promised the commission it would not interfere with the management of Long Bon.
However, this insurer was found to have not only voted during Long Bon’s shareholders’ meeting, but also supported its favored candidates to be elected to the board.
The commission’s disciplinary action against Global Life serves as a reminder to local insurance companies that they must abide by the law while conducting investments.
Despite no government receivership being considered, the commission’s actions are seen as a warning to Global Life — which has seen its financial structure deteriorate in recent years, with a negative net value of NT$20.92 billion (US$696 million), a net loss of NT$3.16 billion and a capital adequacy ratio of below the required 200 percent minimum last year — that it should not use policyholders’ money recklessly.
A closer look at the commission’s disciplinary action also shows the regulator’s effort to halt Global Life’s rumored attempts to acquire Taiwan Life Insurance Co through its investment in Long Bon, as the former is reportedly eyeing Taiwan Life’s ample funds to help it turn around its fortunes.
However, to provide an effective deterrent, the commission’s penalties have to be more severe.
What is needed is the removal of top management at Global Life because they have broken their pledge not to influence Long Bon’s management.
Moreover, if those at the top are found to not have real authority but are a mere rubber stamp for major shareholders, the commission must find out who the real players behind the scenes are and mete out punishment to them as well.
The financial regulator should also consider punishing Global Life for its continued failure to obtain fresh capital to improve its financial structure and closely monitor the company’s progress to seek a constructive way to exit the market.
Two other local insurers, Singfor Life Insurance and Chaoyang Life Insurance, have also seen their net value fall into negative territory, which means that the commission should also pay close attention to these firms.
The commission should not be discouraged from taking punitive action against Global Life, but it should take action that is severe enough to prevent market irregularities.
What the public wants to see is a financial regulator that has real teeth and is able to ensure rigorous market discipline and corporate governance.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS