The lingering China-US trade tensions have caused some China-bound Taiwanese businesses to bring home their production and prompted some foreign companies to reconsider increasing their investments in China. When determining who benefits from the ongoing trade disputes, even if Taiwan does not rank first, it is often considered to be near the top of the list.
However, even though the prolonged civil protests in Hong Kong have increased political uncertainties and dampened investors’ confidence in the world-class financial center, few people would consider Taiwan a priority when evaluating where the trillions of dollars parked in Hong Kong should go.
The civil protests in Hong Kong are causing investors to rethink the allocation of funds in their portfolios. To them, in spite of the fund flight concern, Taipei does not have a sound enough financial environment to replace Hong Kong as a regional or global financial center, which requires world-class standards in the market scale of foreign exchanges, stocks, bonds and asset management, along with first-rate financial supervision.
For investors, a regional or global financial center must also have the capability to meet their needs ranging from a high degree of freedom of capital movement to large-scale financial markets, and a variety of financial products.
However, Taiwan’s financial market is under strict regulation, and the market is relatively small. Some in Taiwan have begun to discuss the possibility of making the country a regional financial hub, given the ongoing political crisis in Hong Kong, but Taiwan still lags behind Hong Kong and even Singapore in the region in terms of diversity and openness in the financial market. These are all related to deregulation, and most importantly, the results would not emerge overnight, and it would take time to gain trust from international investors.
Given Hong Kong’s political situation, it is naive to think that Taiwan can replace it as the financial hub in the region or globally, but the government’s focus should not be solely on Taiwanese financial firms’ exposure to Hong Kong and how to lower the financial risk. Instead, the government should take this opportunity to consider how to attract funds from the territory.
The Taiwan Institute of Economic Research recently suggested that Taiwan could become a regional fundraising hub if the government has the ambition to attract the global funds spilling out of Hong Kong.
The government has continued to encourage Taiwanese businesses to move back home, and rules allowing capital repatriation from abroad took effect in August. Earlier this month, Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Wellington Koo (顧立雄) said that the commission would ease regulations and approve new wealth management programs by the end of this year. Apparently, the commission is seeing the business opportunity derived from the repatriated capital and aims to help banks and stock brokerages develop their wealth management businesses here.
That is not enough if Taiwan plans to compete with Hong Kong and Singapore in the long-term financial landscape. It is true that compared with other Asian markets, Taiwan’s financial products are not sufficiently innovative and diversified, and the country lags behind in terms of taxation, laws, financial systems and international financial professionals.
However, Taiwan does have its advantages. Its yuan pool has increased rapidly to become the second-largest offshore yuan pool in the world. The country has ample liquidity given the steady increase in excess savings in recent years, which would rely on good government policies to not just improve the competitiveness of Taiwan’s financial industry, but also to bring funds to the manufacturing and technology industries.
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