The Financial Supervisory Commission recently drafted amendments to the Financial Holding Company Act (金融控股公司法) and the Banking Act (銀行法), aiming to curb improper interference by major shareholders in the operations of financial holding companies and banks. Last week, the commission said it would submit the draft to the Executive Yuan for review this month and expected further deliberation in the Legislative Yuan later this year.
The commission unveiled the draft amendments in April, inserting a new Article 16-1 into the Financial Holding Company Act and a corresponding Article 25-1 into the Banking Act. Since then, it has held two public hearings to collect feedback from concerned parties and gauge public opinion. Under its previous drafts, the commission would have the power to punish major shareholders who improperly interfere in the operations of a holding company or bank by fining them up to NT$50 million (US$1.56 million), restricting their voting rights or ordering them to sell their shares.
Major shareholders can strongly influence a board of directors and directly intervene in company operations in terms of personnel, finance, business and investment. In the financial industry, though, the regulator expects major shareholders to communicate and interact with companies in which they own stakes through their representatives on the board, rather than getting information directly from management or engaging in any form of meetings with responsible executives.
The draft legislation responds to two cases last year when the commission imposed sanctions on Shin Kong Financial Holding Co and China Development Financial Holding Corp respectively for failing to comply with corporate governance requirements and for allowing major shareholders to improperly interfere in company operations. It also comes as the commission early last month meted out punishments to CTBC Financial Holding Co for similar violations.
Yet after discussions with legal experts and financial professionals, the commission last month decided to limit the punishment to fines only, as it wanted to avoid violating the principle of legal certainty. For example, it seems difficult to define major shareholders’ conduct as intervention in gray areas like lunch meetings with company executives. Some experts also said the proposed divestment orders might infringe on shareholder property rights, according to the commission.
The commission’s previous draft has faced strong objections from the financial industry and there is still a long road ahead in separating management and ownership within the nation’s financial institutions, even though the commission started this push nearly six years ago.
Without voting rights restrictions and equity divestment orders, can the draft legislation constrain the conduct of shareholders who control a financial holding company or bank, instead of its management? Will a fine of NT$50 million effectively curb major shareholders interfering in a financial company? In response, the commission last week said it still hoped to receive public support by achieving its policy goal in stages.
To prevent those in power from improperly exercising power, there must be strong checks and balances. Regardless of the scope of punishment, the commission must keep in mind that precise, rigorous and determined legislation is key to curbing major shareholders’ improper interventions. Only then can it convince the public and continue implementing policy goals. If the commission dropped the equity divestment requirements due to fears of stock market impacts, it could still look at other ways to restrict the voting rights of major shareholders, as the outcome of this measure is major shareholders likely losing control of the company, but not stock investors.
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
RSS