With rising default risks from Country Garden Holdings Co to China’s leading asset management firm, Zhongzhi Enterprise Group Co, concerns are growing that a slump in the Chinese property market could trigger a wider financial crisis, creating a potential spillover effect that would impact the broader economy. Analysts worry that it would lead to a “Lehman moment” for China if Beijing stops short of interventions to stem any domino effects its financial system might experience.
The term “Lehman moment” refers to a situation in which the problems of one company or one seemingly minor component of an economy turn out to be so large that they become everyone’s problem, just like the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc in September 2008, which triggered a broader market rout for US stocks before developing into the global financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.
It remains unknown if a Lehman moment would take shape in China, but what is already certain is that the ongoing downturn in China’s property sector can be expected to persist for a while, and the systemic risks from rising defaults might hurt its economic growth further. Against this backdrop, the People’s Bank of China unexpectedly cut its key interest rates on Tuesday, two months after its previous cut, but there is an increasing consensus that the Chinese central bank might need to cut rates further and extend its monetary easing to ensure ample liquidity in its financial system.
The fast-rising economic risks in China might come as a surprise for some, but given the latest developments related to its property developers and investment trust firms, Taiwan’s financial institutions’ efforts to reduce their exposure to China over the past few years have been reasonable and correct. While the three major financial industries in Taiwan — banking, insurance, and securities and futures — reported aggregate exposure of NT$1.12 trillion (US$35.06 billion) to China as of the end of June, the risks are controllable, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) said on Tuesday.
Taiwanese financial firms have slashed their exposure to the world’s second-largest economy quickly and sizably. The FSC’s data found that Taiwan’s financial holding companies’ aggregate exposure to China dropped to a historic low of 8.62 percent of their combined overseas investments at the end of June, while Taiwanese banks’ Chinese market exposure — including corporate lending, investments and interbank loans — also fell to NT$1.01 trillion as of June, or 23.91 percent of their combined net worth, both the lowest levels on record.
The result should come as no surprise to anyone. Financial institutions in Taiwan and around the world are often under special supervision and strict regulation, because their activities and services would directly influence economic performance and consumer rights. They are highly sensitive to risks and naturally adjust their overseas investments or credit profiles when they see fit.
Bad news has repeatedly broken out in China’s real-estate industry in recent years with the risk of a snowballing economic downturn. A broader sense of nervousness had already emerged among investors as early as in the second half of last year, creating no reason for Taiwanese banks to increase investments or loans in China. Instead, if there was a chance for them to reduce investment holdings or tighten credit lines, they would not hesitate to do so.
However, more actions are still needed if Taiwanese financial firms aim to promptly respond to any major financial events in China. To tackle headwinds, firms must review and adjust their holdings of Chinese securities and bolster risk management after extending loans to the Chinese market.
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with