Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) reiterated last week that the government had not imposed restrictions on housing loans, amid heavy news coverage and online discussion of the issue as the housing market remains hot. Cho said the authorities were concerned about whether banks’ credit risk management was adequate, adding that the Executive Yuan would meet with the central bank to devise a plan to address loan applicants’ concerns without harming first-time buyers.
However, despite the premier’s assurances, the issue has not only raised questions about whether the much discussed loan restrictions are a sign of a potential asset bubble, but it also puts the credibility of regulators — the central bank, the Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) and the Ministry of Finance — to the test, on the general health of the financial market and the government’s risk control mechanisms.
It all started last month, when the central bank met with 34 local lenders, telling them to propose plans by Friday to cool their real-estate lending or face central bank-imposed measures if persuasion fails. The move underscores just how concerned the central bank is about Taiwan’s high property prices and the risk for banks when their credit portfolios are overconcentrated on real-estate loans.
The central bank later clarified that it was urging lenders to strengthen their self-discipline on real-estate lending and prevent funds from flowing to investors holding nonowner-occupied homes or people who hoard properties. The central bank also said it hopes lenders’ real-estate loans could fall to 35 percent to 36 percent of total loans, after the ratio reached 37.4 percent as of June 30, close to the 37.9 percent record.
The worries are also related to several banks having been on the FSC’s radar as their real-estate lending approaches the regulator’s property loan quota for banks. Under Article 72-2 of the Banking Act (銀行法), loans extended for residential and commercial properties may not exceed 30 percent of the aggregate of a bank’s deposits and financial debentures, or its available funds on hand. The commission’s data showed that as of June 30, local lenders’ property loans reached 26.62 percent of their total deposits and debentures on average, while 13 banks’ ratio had exceeded 27 percent.
Local lenders must improve their high concentration of real-estate loans, as it is crucial for balanced economic development and key to the reasonable allocation of banks’ resources. Moreover, if the central bank decides to further raise its policy rates, or if the asset bubble collapses, people who cannot pay their mortgages would likely dump their properties on the banks, which would result in greater risks for the banking system. After all, there are global precedents of how a slumping property market — such as the asset bubble collapse in Japan during the 1990s, the US subprime mortgage crisis in 2008 and the property debt crisis in China today — could cause financial turmoil and economic slowdown.
The introduction of a government program in August last year that offers preferential loans for first-time home buyers with more flexible conditions and favorable terms played a role in rekindling a hot housing market this year. It led some lenders to hastily increase their property loans in the short term, which not only caused their property lending to move closer to the regulatory ceiling of 30 percent of total loans, but also forced them to set restrictions on people’s mortgage applications, including delaying loan approvals, adjusting mortgage terms and suspending new mortgage operations.
It is correct for the central bank to treat the rising property loans as a “code red,” but as the concerns about loan restrictions affect homebuyers as well as financial and property markets, the financial regulator and monetary policymaker must deal with it cautiously and keep problems from growing severe, without compromising the government’s efforts of achieving housing affordability and availability.
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