Publicly listed firms repatriated NT$114.4 billion (US$3.72 billion) of investment gains from China last year, a 175.7 percent surge from NT$41.5 billion in 2021 and the most since 2013, data released last month by the Financial Supervisory Commission showed. That came as listed firms posted a combined profit of NT$454.1 billion from their Chinese investments last year, a NT$98.2 billion decrease from 2021, but still the second-highest total over the past decade, driven mainly by the semiconductor and electronic components sectors.
Previously, listed firms rarely repatriated their investment gains from China, as Beijing imposes strict foreign-exchange controls to curb capital outflows. Taiwanese firms also tend to keep most of their profits in China for further investments. However, this has changed in the past few years as they have been scaling back new investments in the world’s second-largest economy amid US-China trade disputes as well as escalating tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
There are three main reasons for Taiwanese listed firms to repatriate their investment gains. The first is to meet funding needs and business planning. Firms remit their investment income and proceeds from share sales to their parent companies to bolster working capital and align with their business groups’ capital planning strategy.
Second, the fund repatriations were in response to firms’ deployment strategies, as more Taiwanese businesses shifted their investment targets to the US or countries covered by the government’s New Southbound Policy, introduced in 2016 and aimed at boosting interactions with ASEAN and South Asian nations, as well as Australia and New Zealand.
Third, China’s economic outlook has become more worrying for Taiwanese businesses, and nervousness over geopolitics has limited their investments there. For example, there are growing concerns over the transparency and accuracy of China’s economic data, making it harder for businesses to make investment plans. The Chinese National Bureau of Statistics last week reported that profits at industrial firms continued to plunge in the first three months of the year, down 21.4 percent year-on-year, even though the same agency just 10 days earlier reported that China’s first-quarter GDP expanded 4.5 percent annually, which was the fastest in the past year.
In other words, demand for China’s goods is still weak, despite a rebound in overall economic growth that has been driven largely by the services sector following the end of strict COVID-19 restrictions at the end of last year. As the recovery in China’s economy is still patchy and the strength of its rebound is closely linked to the global trade environment, it is not surprising that listed firms repatriated about one-quarter of their profits made in China last year.
The latest data also showed that businesses remain wary of China’s investment environment and firms have started to evaluate the ramifications of geopolitical risks, despite messages from senior government officials that China welcomes foreign investment. On one hand, US-China trade tensions have continued to escalate, with the dispute shifting from trade to investment and technology. In March, Beijing launched a cybersecurity review of US chipmaker Micron Technology, a move that followed Washington’s efforts to contain China’s access to strategic semiconductor technologies.
On the other hand, relations between Taiwan and China have become even tenser in the past few years, with little room for any breakthrough in the short term as some people have suggested. Just two weeks ago, China launched an investigation into so-called trade barriers that Taiwan has imposed on more than 2,400 Chinese imports spanning from agricultural products and textiles to minerals and petrochemicals. The changes were similar to many of those Beijing has imposed on Taiwanese goods over the years, which suggests the unpredictability of China as an export market.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS