BenQ chairman Lee Kun-yao's (李焜耀) announcement last week that BenQ would stop funding its German subsidiary, BenQ Mobile GmbH, took most observers by surprise -- especially since the company only acquired the Siemens handset business last October.
It was a "painful" decision, Lee said, but one that had to be made. BenQ had booked losses of 600 million euros (US$760.8 million) from BenQ Mobile since the takeover of the Siemens unit. These losses had grown unbearably high compared to BenQ's total capital of NT$26.25 billion (US$793 million).
Despite the combination of Siemens' brand recognition and technological know-how with BenQ's manufacturing capabilities and ability to control costs, it was no secret that all was not well at BenQ's handset business. The company announced recently that it would downsize two cellphone plants in Taiwan, and earlier this year said it planned to shut down a cellphone plant in Mexico.
BenQ had hoped to win at least a 10 percent global market share, but only managed to secure 3.2 percent. Siemens effectively paid BenQ 250 million euros to take over its money-losing handset business, and BenQ faced tough challenges. It needed to prop up Siemens' falling handset market share while trimming operating expenses and manufacturing costs.
Worse, delays in handset research and development (R&D) postponed the launch of new products, which only added to the challenges in a market increasingly dominated by larger rivals Nokia and Motorola.
It is sad to see BenQ fail, but Siemens, which had been aspiring to the No. 4 spot for its handset unit, had fared no better. After all, the handset business is a high-volume business, with scale in both sales and R&D a key differentiator in the industry.
A year ago, BenQ had hoped that the takeover of Siemens' unit would help make it one of the world's leading players. But on Friday, BenQ Mobile filed for insolvency protection in a Munich court, a move aimed to protect the interest of creditors. BenQ Mobile will hand over its management to a new team appointed by the German government.
But whether BenQ can retain its ownership of the subsidiary remains questionable. The case is now in the German courts, amid strong protests from German unions and politicians.
Whether the company can continue operating the BenQ-Siemens co-brand is also in doubt, as Siemens said it may take legal steps against BenQ. Siemens said that the continued operations of its facilities in Germany were an important factor in its decision to sell its handset unit to the Taiwanese firm.
Investors are also wondering whether BenQ is just saying goodbye to European markets, or if it may leave the handset business altogether.
But the biggest concern BenQ's move has raised is whether other Taiwanese firms will now be discouraged from trying to become top global brands. If the nation wants to avoid this fate, then Taiwan Inc should look more carefully at what its firms need for success -- beyond strong manufacturing skills, cost control ability and ambition -- before making such a bold leap again.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)