Speeding toward a ChatGPT-powered Wall Street

By:
On:
In: Asia, Business, Finance

Artificial Intelligence-powered tools, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize the efficiency, effectiveness and speed of the work humans do.

And this is true in financial markets as much as in sectors like health care, manufacturing and pretty much every other aspect of our lives.

I’ve been researching financial markets and algorithmic trading for 14 years. While AI offers lots of benefits, the growing use of these technologies in financial markets also points to potential perils. A look at Wall Street’s past efforts to speed up trading by embracing computers and AI offers important lessons on the implications of using them for decision-making.

Program trading fuelled Black Monday

In the early 1980s, fueled by advancements in technology and financial innovations such as derivatives, institutional investors began using computer programs to execute trades based on predefined rules and algorithms. This helped them complete large trades quickly and efficiently.

Back then, these algorithms were relatively simple and were primarily used for so-called index arbitrage, which involves trying to profit from discrepancies between the price of a stock index – like the S&P 500 – and that of the stocks it’s composed of.

As technology advanced and more data became available, this kind of program trading became increasingly sophisticated, with algorithms able to analyze complex market data and execute trades based on a wide range of factors. These program traders continued to grow in number on the largey unregulated trading freeways – on which over a trillion dollars worth of assets change hands every day – causing market volatility to increase dramatically.

Eventually this resulted in the massive stock market crash in 1987 known as Black Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average suffered what was at the time the biggest percentage drop in its history, and the pain spread throughout the globe.

In response, regulatory authorities implemented a number of measures to restrict the use of program trading, including circuit breakers that halt trading when there are significant market swings and other limits. But despite these measures, program trading continued to grow in popularity in the years following the crash.

HFT: Program trading on steroids

Fast forward 15 years, to 2002, when the New York Stock Exchange introduced a fully automated trading system. As a result, program traders gave way to more sophisticated automations with much more advanced technology: High-frequency trading.

HFT uses computer programs to analyze market data and execute trades at extremely high speeds. Unlike program traders that bought and sold baskets of securities over time to take advantage of an arbitrage opportunity – a difference in price of similar securities that can be exploited for profit – high-frequency traders use powerful computers and high-speed networks to analyze market data and execute trades at lightning-fast speeds.

High-frequency traders can conduct trades in approximately one 64-millionth of a second, compared with the several seconds it took traders in the 1980s.

These trades are typically very short term in nature and may involve buying and selling the same security multiple times in a matter of nanoseconds. AI algorithms analyze large amounts of data in real time and identify patterns and trends that are not immediately apparent to human traders. This helps traders make better decisions and execute trades at a faster pace than would be possible manually.

Another important application of AI in HFT is natural language processing, which involves analyzing and interpreting human language data such as news articles and social media posts. By analyzing this data, traders can gain valuable insights into market sentiment and adjust their trading strategies accordingly.

Benefits of AI trading

These AI-based, high-frequency traders operate very differently than people do.

The human brain is slow, inaccurate and forgetful. It is incapable of quick, high-precision, floating-point arithmetic needed for analyzing huge volumes of data for identifying trade signals. Computers are millions of times faster, with essentially infallible memory, perfect attention and limitless capability for analyzing large volumes of data in split milliseconds.

And, so, just like most technologies, HFT provides several benefits to stock markets.

These traders typically buy and sell assets at prices very close to the market price, which means they don’t charge investors high fees. This helps ensure that there are always buyers and sellers in the market, which in turn helps to stabilize prices and reduce the potential for sudden price swings.

High-frequency trading can also help to reduce the impact of market inefficiencies by quickly identifying and exploiting mispricing in the market. For example, HFT algorithms can detect when a particular stock is undervalued or overvalued and execute trades to take advantage of these discrepancies. By doing so, this kind of trading can help to correct market inefficiencies and ensure that assets are priced more accurately.

a crowd of people move around a large room with big screens all over the place
Stock exchanges used to be packed with traders buying and selling securities, as in this scene from 1983. Today’s trading floors are increasingly empty as AI-powered computers handle more and more of the work. Photo: AP / Richard Drew

The downsides

But speed and efficiency can also cause harm.

HFT algorithms can react so quickly to news events and other market signals that they can cause sudden spikes or drops in asset prices.

Additionally, HFT financial firms are able to use their speed and technology to gain an unfair advantage over other traders, further distorting market signals. The volatility created by these extremely sophisticated AI-powered trading beasts led to the so-called flash crash in May 2010, when stocks plunged and then recovered in a matter of minutes – erasing and then restoring about $1 trillion in market value.

Since then, volatile markets have become the new normal. In 2016 research, two co-authors and I found that volatility – a measure of how rapidly and unpredictably prices move up and down – increased significantly after the introduction of HFT.

The speed and efficiency with which high-frequency traders analyze the data mean that even a small change in market conditions can trigger a large number of trades, leading to sudden price swings and increased volatility.

In addition, research I published with several other colleagues in 2021 shows that most high-frequency traders use similar algorithms, which increases the risk of market failure. That’s because as the number of these traders increases in the marketplace, the similarity in these algorithms can lead to similar trading decisions.

This means that all of the high-frequency traders might trade on the same side of the market if their algorithms release similar trading signals. That is, they all might try to sell in case of negative news or buy in case of positive news. If there is no one to take the other side of the trade, markets can fail.

Enter ChatGPT

That brings us to a new world of ChatGPT-powered trading algorithms and similar programs. They could take the problem of too many traders on the same side of a deal and make it even worse.

In general, humans, left to their own devices, will tend to make a diverse range of decisions. But if everyone’s deriving their decisions from a similar artificial intelligence, this can limit the diversity of opinion.

Consider an extreme, nonfinancial situation in which everyone depends on ChatGPT to decide on the best computer to buy. Consumers are already very prone to herding behavior, in which they tend to buy the same products and models. For example, reviews on Yelp, Amazon and so on motivate consumers to pick among a few top choices.

Since decisions made by the generative AI-powered chatbot are based on past training data, there would be a similarity in the decisions suggested by the chatbot. It is highly likely that ChatGPT would suggest the same brand and model to everyone. This might take herding to a whole new level and could lead to shortages in certain products and service as well as severe price spikes.

This becomes more problematic when the AI making the decisions is informed by biased and incorrect information. AI algorithms can reinforce existing biases when systems are trained on biased, old or limited data sets. And ChatGPT and similar tools have been criticized for making factual errors.

AI is making strides in learning the English language. Image: Facebook

In addition, since market crashes are relatively rare, there isn’t much data on them. Since generative AIs depend on data training to learn, their lack of knowledge about them could make them more likely to happen.

For now, at least, it seems most banks won’t be allowing their employees to take advantage of ChatGPT and similar tools. Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and several other lenders have already banned their use on trading-room floors, citing privacy concerns.

But I strongly believe banks will eventually embrace generative AI, once they resolve concerns they have with it. The potential gains are too significant to pass up – and there’s a risk of being left behind by rivals.

But the risks to financial markets, the global economy and everyone are also great, so I hope they tread carefully.

Pawan Jain, Assistant Professor of Finance, West Virginia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Exchanging views on crypto: Exclusive interview with Coinhako’s co-founder and CEO, Yusho Liu | cryptocurrency, crypto, coinhako, founder, exclusive interview, yusho liu, singapore, digital assets | FinanceAsia

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

From the fallout of FTX in November 2022, to the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and other US lenders associated with start-up clients, the last few months have been challenging for the crypto industry.

Singapore-based cryptocurrency exchange, Coinhako, however, remains optimistic in terms of its industry outlook as sector participants focus on “rebuilding trust and faith” across the digital asset universe.

Coinhako was conceptualised in 2014 and started off as a bitcoin wallet service for Singaporeans. Today, it is a multi-currency trading platform for cryptocurrencies and is licensed, regulated and headquartered in the city-state.

Receiving its Major Payment Institution licence from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) in May 2022, the firm is one of nine financial institutions in the market permitted to provide Digital Payment Token (DPT) services.

Confident about Singapore’s future as a Web3 hub, its team wants to play a part in growing the market’s ecosystem. To do so, the company founders recently launched Berru.co, a separate entity that seeks to support Web3 start-ups as they navigate setting up in the city.

In this interview, Coinhako’s co-founder and CEO, Yusho Liu speaks to FinanceAsia about the challenges faced by the crypto industry; the future of Singapore as a digital asset hub; and where exactly the company has its sights set on next.

Excerpts from the interview have been edited for clarity and brevity.

FA: What’s your take on the cryptocurrency market and what developments are you focussed on?

2023 is the year of reset. With the developments of the last few months and bad actors bringing the industry back several steps, we need to rebuild trust and faith in the sector.

Beyond this, we are seeing more regulatory clarity from the likes of the Hong Kong and EU authorities, which paves the way for Asia and Europe to lead when it comes to innovation in the space.

Given that Washington’s current regulatory environment is less hospitable – coupled with the issues faced by the wider US tech industry, it will be challenging for innovation to emerge from the market.

FA: Was Coinhako exposed to any of the US banks that recently collapsed?

We had zero exposure to Silvergate and SVB. We did have some exposure to Signature Bank, but no money parked there. The collapse of these banks has affected many companies but thankfully, our strongest banking relationships are based in Asia.

FA: Is Coinhako looking to raise funds to expand further? How do you view the fundraising environment?

Overall, global and regional venture capital (VC) firms have poured record amounts of money into Southeast Asian technology companies because they consider them to be at the next frontier of growth and these countries have shown very high rates of adoption and interest in digital assets. They have focussed less on companies based in more mature, traditional markets, such as the US, Europe, China, South Korea or Japan.

However, it is currently a challenging climate and investments into crypto start-ups or in the broader technology space have slowed down. While we are continuing conversations with investors, we do not think this is the right timing or environment in which to be actively fundraising.

FA: Do you have any expansion plans?

We do have plans to expand, but this year our focus is on embedding deeper into Singapore, because we think the city-state is going to be a relevant crypto hub, regardless of what the rest of the world is doing.

We see a lot of Web3 founders building a nexus in the market. There is an influx of start-ups looking to establish their presence in Singapore and we’ve set up a separate, professional advisory entity, Berru.co, to support them. Since inception this year, we’ve connected with 10 or more clients and hope to grow this multi-fold further down the road.

Drawing on Coinhako’s experience since entering the market in 2014, we want to help founders navigate the crypto landscape. We’ve done the legwork and we know what works and what doesn’t – whether that be related to finance, accounting, tax or legal considerations. This is in line with Singapore’s status as a hub, and as such, we want to make sure that companies can develop easily. A bad user experience would likely make these founders consider going elsewhere.

FA: Where else in Asia do you see opportunity?

We are watching developments in Hong Kong, with the government having recently come up with a crypto framework to foster growth in the industry. But Hong Kong is just one of the markets we’re looking at for expansion, alongside other countries in Southeast Asian and the broader Asia region.

Coinhako has a domicile-registered licence in Singapore and the beauty of being based here, is that we can use it as a centre from which to reach the rest of the region.

FA: What’s your view on Singapore’s future as a crypto hub, given that many peers have relocated to Dubai?

I’ve always said that time will tell the story.

Dubai was a hot spot when its authorities announced updated licensing frameworks. But I think that, to date, we haven’t really seen or heard much about crypto exchanges moving to the market, except for Bybit, that is trying to establish global headquarters there.

The reality is that Dubai is a regional hub for the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), but if you’re trying to establish a global or Asian base, Singapore might be more suitable.

FA: Is Dubai perceived to be friendlier from a regulatory perspective, compared to Singapore?

I think it’s important to differentiate between what people say, versus what people do.

From our perspective, we don’t see many licensed entities going to Dubai, but we’re seeing unlicensed entities go there to try to obtain a licence.

FA: How optimistic are you about the growth of the Web3 and crypto industries in Asia?

We remain optimistic about the growth of the Web3 sector, in general. Yes, the industry is volatile, but most nascent industries are.

Of course, where money is involved, so too will there be bad actors. And indeed, we are seeing more overlap between the tech and finance industries.

However, as long as builders continue to come in to develop purposeful technology and applications – and good people enter the space, we remain positive.
 

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Singapore digital banks behind the regulatory times

By:
On:
In: Asia, Business, Finance

The digital banking ecosystem among Southeast Asia’s approximately 687 million inhabitants is diverse.

Some ASEAN members, including the more developed ASEAN-5 economies and Brunei, have well-consolidated financial services sectors, while others — especially in their rural areas — have large unbanked populations. Traditional banks and fintech start-ups have increasingly turned to digital banking to solve this problem but various issues demand greater regulatory oversight.

Digital banks have proliferated across Southeast Asia and financial authorities in Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines are seeking to incentivize financial innovation by supporting fintech growth without compromising financial stability. Some of these initiatives include rules for digital wallets, peer-to-peer lending, application programming interfaces, licensing frameworks for digital banks and regulatory sandboxes.

Digital banking adoption is influenced by numerous factors including unmet customer needs, technology adoption, talent and national identification tech systems. The World Bank estimated that the region’s connectivity rate of 133% contrasts with only 27% of the population having a bank account. It is estimated that 80% of Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, and 30% of Malaysia and Thailand are unbanked.

Traditional banks such as the United Overseas Bank and Commerce International Merchant Banks have increasingly leveraged technology to compete with online-only banks and fintech start–ups. But with increasing mobile connectivity, monetary authorities — including the Monetary Authority in Singapore — have leaned towards licensing digital-only banks and nurturing fintech start-ups to compete with traditional banks.

The number of fintechs in Southeast Asia increased from 34 to 1,254 between 2000-2022. Southeast Asian fintechs have a cumulative total of US$4.8 billion of equity funding — the largest share of these start-ups located in Singapore.

Singapore’s position as a financial hub and the region’s leading digital economy for tech-driven innovation makes it an ideal choice to observe the motivations and challenges for technological transformation in financial services.

In December 2020, the Singaporean Monetary Authority awarded digital full bank licenses to GXS Bank and Sea Limited’s Mari Bank and gave significantly rooted foreign bank privileges to Trust Bank to create competition for traditional incumbents and encourage financial innovation and digital banking.

These initiatives prompted the three biggest traditional banks in Singapore — namely the Development Bank of Singapore (DBS), Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (OCBC) and United Overseas Bank (UOB) — to accelerate their transformation processes. With high overheads, traditional banks must transform to compete with fintechs in terms of costs, products and services.

DBS approached this challenge in its journey toward being a tech-minded company by collaborating with cloud computing provider Amazon Web Services to retrain its staff in digital tools, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning. Over 3,000 DBS employees — including senior executives — were trained in innovative technologies.

DBS differentiated itself by developing 85% of its technology in-house — rather than outsourcing — during its cloud-based tech infrastructure transition. Data is used for personalized intelligence and analytics to enable a greater understanding of customers’ desires and expectations. DBS is industrializing the use of AI and machine learning to power differentiated customer experiences.

Fundamentally, DBS had to operate as a start-up and embed an appropriate organizational start-up culture — a particular challenge for incumbent banks transitioning into the tech space. Adopting a hybrid multi-cloud infrastructure, DBS aims to reduce infrastructure costs by adapting its architecture to the cloud and reimagining its processes to be customer-centric.

In this context, Singapore’s Smart Nation Initiative “Singpass”, a digital identification framework, could play a key role in enrolment and verification. DBS has become a technology company, enabling flexibility to experiment and implement changes faster, and integrate with customer systems.

For example, DBS and GovTech are teaming up to pilot Singpass face verification technology for faster digital banking sign-ups among seniors aged 62 and above.

During Singapore’s economic post-Covid-19 transition, DBS created the DBS Digital Exchange to manage its integrated digital ecosystem. Self-directed trading is possible via its digibank app. DBS and JPMorgan also co-created “Partior” as a blockchain-based cross-border clearing and settlement provider that harnesses smart contracts to transform the future of payments.

Before experimenting with intelligent banking, DBS built its proprietary AI machinery using an integrated approach. This combines predictive analytics, AI and machine learning, and customer-centric design to convert data into hyper-personalized nudges to help customers make informed decisions.

Because DBS provides “insights” and “nudges” for customers on its digibank app, the technology must be consistent and dependable. Yet despite spending billions on tech, training, contracting reputable vendors and using proven technology, DBS still encountered technical problems in its digitalization journey.

On May 5, 2023, DBS’ online banking and payment services were disrupted for the second time in two months. Previously, on March 29, 2023, DBS lost electrical power, disrupting its digital services for 10 hours. These two disruptions come 16 months after an outage in November 2021 which lasted for two days, causing access problems to the bank’s control servers.

The DBS Digital Exchange is 10% owned by Singapore’s SGX stock exchange. Image: Twitter

For the 2021 outage, the Monetary Authority required DBS to apply a multiplier of 1.5 times to its risk-weighted assets for operational risk, amounting to US$700 million of regulatory capital to ensure sufficient liquidity.

As traditional banks like DBS digitalize and embrace technology, they must have robust business recovery and continuity capacity built into their digital frameworks. Regulatory authorities like the Monetary Authority have driven digital transformation and highlighted the need for banks to continually review their digital banking infrastructure.

But regulators also need to increase monitoring and supervision of banks’ digital processes and transformation models.

Dr Faizal Bin Yahya is Senior Research Fellow in the Governance and Economy Department of the Institute of Policy Studies, National University of Singapore.

This article was originally published by East Asia Forum and is republished under a Creative Commons license.

Continue Reading

Winners: FinanceAsia Awards 2022-2023 Southeast Asia | awards, financeasia awards, southeast asia, sustainability, impact, esg, flagship awards, annual winners, 27th iteration | FinanceAsia

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

Still reeling from the effects of last year’s supply chain woes, energy disruptions and geopolitical tensions, financial markets are now also contending with the impact of consecutive interest rate hikes and uncertainty following recent banking turmoil.

While 2023 may not deliver the capital markets rebound we were all hoping for, it is worth pausing to recognise leading financial institutions that have forged through and made waves in these volatile times.

Marked progress and innovation across deals continues to demonstrate regeneration and resilience. After all, the goal posts have not changed: each of Asia’s markets is bound by net zero commitments; and digital transformation continues to drive regulatory discourse and development around emerging sectors and virtual assets. As a result, sustainability and digitisation continue to be underlying themes shaping a new paradigm for deal-making in the region. 

The FinanceAsia team invited banks, brokers and ratings agencies to showcase their capabilities to support their clients as they navigated these uncertain economic times. Our awards process celebrates those institutions that showed determination to deliver desirable outcomes, through display of commercial and technical acumen.

This year marks the 27th iteration of our FinanceAsia awards and celebrates activity that has taken place within the past year (2022).

To reflect new trends, this year we introduced an award for Biggest ESG Impact (encompassing all three elements of ESG strategy) and updated our D&I award to include equity: Most Progressive DEI Strategy.

Read on for details of the winners for Southeast Asia. Full write-ups explaining the rationale behind winner selection will be published in the summer edition of the FinanceAsia magazine, with subsequent syndication online.

Congratulations to all of our winners!

 

*** SOUTHEAST ASIA ***

CLM (CAMBODIA, LAOS, MYANMAR)
Domestic
Best Bank: Cambodian Public Bank
***

INDONESIA
Domestic
Best Bank: PT Bank Central Asia
Best Broker: PT Mirae Asset Sekuritas
Best DCM House: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best ECM House: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best ESG Impact: PT Bank Mandiri
Best Investment Bank: PT Mandiri Sekuritas
Best Sustainable Bank: PT Bank Mandiri
Most Innovative Use of Technology: PT Bank Mandiri
Most Progressive DEI: PT Bank Rakyat Indonesia

International
Best Bank: BNP Paribas
Best Investment Bank: BNP Paribas
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
***

MALAYSIA
Domestic
Best Bank: Public Bank Berhad
Best DCM House:
Winner: CIMB Investment Bank
Finalist: Maybank Investment Bank
Best ECM House: Maybank Investment Bank
Best ESG Impact: Public Bank Berhad
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: Maybank Investment Bank
Finalist: CIMB Investment Bank
Best Sustainable Bank:
Winner: Public Bank Berhad
Finalist: Maybank Investment Bank
Most Progressive DEI: CIMB Bank

International
Best Bank: Citi
***

PHILIPPINES
Domestic
Best Bank: BDO Unibank
Best DCM House:
Winner: BPI Capital Corporation
Finalist: China Bank Capital
Best ECM House:
Winner: First Metro Investment
Finalist: China Bank Capital
Best ESG Impact: Bank of the Philippines Islands
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: First Metro Investment Corporation
Finalist: SB Capital Investment Corporation
Best Sustainable Bank: Bank of the Philippine Islands

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

SINGAPORE
Domestic
Best Bank: DBS Bank
Best Broker: CGS-CIMB Securities
Best DCM House: United Overseas Bank
Best ESG Impact: DBS Bank
Best Investment Bank: DBS Bank
Best Sustainable Bank: DBS Bank
Most Innovative Use of Technology: DBS Bank

International
Best Bank: Citi
Best Investment Bank: Citi
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

THAILAND
Domestic
Best Broker: InnovestX Securities Co., Ltd.
Best ECM House: Kiatnakin Phatra Securities PCL
Best DCM House: Kasikornbank
Best Investment Bank: Kiatnakin Phatra Securities PCL
Best Sustainable Bank: Bangkok Bank PCL
Most Innovative Use of Technology: InnovestX Securities Co., Ltd

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Best Investment Bank: Citi
Best Sustainable Bank: MUFG
Most Progressive DEI: Citi
***

VIETNAM
Domestic
Best Bank: Techcombank
Best Broker: SSI Securities Corporation
Best Investment Bank:
Winner: Viet Capital Securities Corporation
Finalist: SSI Securities Corporation
Best DCM House: SSI Securities Corporation
Best ECM House:
Winner: Viet Capital Securities JSC
Finalist: SSI Securities Corporation
Best ESG Impact: Saigon-Hanoi Commercial Bank
Most Innovative Use of Technology: TechcomSecurities

International
Best Bank: HSBC
Best ESG Impact: HSBC
Best Investment Bank: HSBC
Best Sustainable Bank: Citi
Most Innovative Use of Technology: HSBC

***

For other winners:

Click here to see the winners across North Asia.

Click here to see the winners across South Asia.

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

HSBC: right idea, wrong time for an Asian divorce

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance

Thirty years of being headquartered in London is proving to be very disorienting for HSBC Holdings Plc.

Posterity will question the wisdom of the behemoth’s 1993 decision to move its headquarters from Hong Kong to the UK. Anyone who couldn’t see then that Asia would be the bank’s true profit center decades later — it generated 78% of pre-tax profit in 2022 — wasn’t paying attention.

But today’s tussle between HSBC and Shenzhen-based Ping An Insurance — its biggest shareholder — raises a question everyone knew was coming: whether HSBC is an Asian bank or a global one.

Ping An is pressuring HSBC CEO Noel Quinn to admit it’s the former and create a separately listed Asian business headquartered in Hong Kong.

Michael Huang, CEO of Ping An, says it’s the clearest way to fix what he views as HSBC’s lack of competitiveness. And, as Huang puts it, to “crystallize multiple benefits” from a “strategic restructuring” that better reflects Asia’s contributions to the bank’s bottom line.

Odds are, however, Huang will be disappointed. A shareholders meeting in Birmingham seems likely to side with Quinn, who has time on his side. And a recent dose of healthy financial results is sure to dampen calls for radical change.

Thing is, Huang isn’t exactly wrong. With its 8.3% stake in HSBC, Ping An is well within its rights to agitate for change. There’s certainly an argument that management has “drained HSBC Asia of dividends and growth capital” to smooth out underperformance elsewhere.

Indeed, dramas abroad appear to be preoccupying HSBC’s top management in London. HSBC’s interests in France, for example, have gone awry. Hopes to sell that unit back in 2021 appear to be going nowhere.

Huang probably looks askance at the time and energy spent on the purchase of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK operation in March. Quinn’s team called it a win for HSBC’s global growth strategy. To Huang and his fellow detractors, the SVB deal is yet another distraction from the real game in Asia.

Still, Quinn’s argument to stay the course got a big boost from a barnburner of a first-quarter report.

HSBC CEO Noel Quinn has money and time on his side. Image: YouTube / Screengrab

Earlier this week, shareholders learned HSBC generated a 19.3% annualized return on tangible equity. It was a performance in league with Singapore giant DBS Bank and in a different stratosphere than the single-digit gains normally experienced by HSBC shareholders.

Jefferies analyst Joseph Dickerson notes that the quarter was characterized by “strong capital generation. Revenue showed strength notably in non-interest income.”

Hence Huang’s “timing” problem. Quinn’s team can argue its restructuring strategy is working. Why risk changing course now?

Already, HSBC brass can counter, the bank has pivoted away from low-yielding businesses in Canada and parts of Europe. And that, for all Ping An’s griping, the bank is indeed gravitating more and toward prioritizing Asia.

All this helps explain why advisory group Institutional Shareholder Services wants investors to vote down Ping An’s proposals. ISS told Reuters that Ping An’s strategy “lacks detailed rationale.”

Advisory firm Glass Lewis recommends the same: “We do not believe that realizing improvements in returns and value necessitates a breakup or spinoff of HSBC’s Asian business at this time.”

As Quinn told Bloomberg this week: “We have said all along that we believed the fastest and safest way to get increased valuation, increased profit, increased dividends, is by focusing on the current strategy. These results show that the strategy is working.”

Another reason the time might not be right is the intensifying banking crises that have global markets in near-panic mode. In the US, the collapses of SVB and Signature Bank made headlines anew this week as First Republic Bank hit a wall.

After being seized by regulators, California-based First Republic was sold to JPMorgan Chase. The news triggered investors’ PTSD over UBS having to save Credit Suisse from the financial abyss.

As such, Huang’s odds of convincing other top HSBC shareholders that now is the time for a risky breakup of a US$150 billion lender — one that regulators on a few continents would want to micromanage — are falling by the day.

There’s also the danger of the biggest HSBC shareholder essentially yelling “fire!” in a traumatized financial theater. SVB’s downfall, remember, was precipitated in part by tech billionaires ragging on its management over social media. Many believe, likewise, that intemperate comments from Saudi National Bank pushed Credit Suisse over the edge.

Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse has raised contagion concerns. Image: Screengrab / Twitter / TechCrunch

In such a fragile environment, Huang’s Ping An doesn’t seem to be reading the room. There’s no doubt that Chinese leader Xi Jinping would be thrilled to see HSBC heed Huang’s demands. Having a truly pan-Asian giant headquartered in Hong Kong would be a boon for a city watching its banking jobs pivot to Singapore.

Though Huang is speaking for Ping An, this financial cold war of sorts, the extent to which things have broken down entirely between him and HSBC, may fan concerns over China’s increasing hold over Hong Kong and its future status as a global financial center.

It’s intriguing to view this standoff as a microcosm of the East-West divide upending the global economy. More than arguably any other banking giant, HSBC finds itself squeezed between two great powers – China and the US –wielding financial leverage wherever they can find it.

For HSBC, it hardly helps that it relies on the US dollar to clear trades at a moment when Beijing is working to internationalize the yuan. After all, HSBC’s ability to access deals in Hong Kong and China — and rack up massive profits — comes at the pleasure of Xi’s Communist Party.

The outsized role that China’s growth played in the $13.7 billion pre-tax profit HSBC reported in the first quarter makes this a delicate dance. 

In February, lawmakers from Britain’s All-Party Parliamentary Group accused HSBC and Standard Chartered Bank of being “complicit” in China’s “gross human rights abuses of Hongkongers.” At issue: barring customers’ access to their pensions after they fled the city amid anti-mainland China protests in recent years.

“These banks cannot continue to act with impunity, and the UK government must act to assist those… who are suffering from the impact of these anti-democratic laws,” says Alistair Carmichael, co-chair of the APPG for Hong Kong.

In a statement, HSBC retorts that the bank has “an enduring commitment to Hong Kong, its people and communities. It is where we were founded nearly 160 years ago. Like all banks, we have to obey the law, and the instructions of the regulators, in every region in which we operate.”

Yet Ping An’s real problem is that it hasn’t pulled enough HSBC shareholders its way. Here, activist shareholder Ken Lui is proving to be an ally.

He recently submitted a resolution calling on HSBC to plot ways to restructure its Asia business. Lui seeks “structural reforms including but not limited to spinning off, strategic reorganization and restructuring” of HSBC’s Asia unit.

Ping An CEO Michael Huang wants HSBC to look more towards Asia. Image: Facebook

Of course, Huang’s company has other options for betting on giant lenders focused specifically on Asia. Selling its HSBC stake is always an option. After all, it hardly seems that Quinn’s inner circle – or that of chairman Mark Tucker – is about to announce a giant U-turn in strategy.

Quinn’s office claims it’s already stress-tested what Ping An is requesting and argues Huang’s ideas would do more to reduce than boost shareholder value. Goldman Sachs has reportedly made similar arguments.

Though Huang is not wrong that HSBC should be more present in Asia, physically, the recalibration he seeks at a moment of fragility in the global banking system seems a non-starter.

Huang might have better luck getting shareholders to prod HSBC to restore dividends. For Quinn’s team, that might be the easier way to defuse this shareholder cold war.

Follow William Pesek on Twitter at @WilliamPesek

Continue Reading

How Twitter brought down Silicon Valley Bank

By:
On:
In: Asia, Business, Finance

Due to Silicon Valley Bank’s March 10, 2023, crash, investor discussions about the institution spiked on Twitter, which fueled the SVB banks run. These tweets also caused some financial institutions with poor balance sheets to collapse, as we explain in our latest working paper,” Public media as a lender run catalyst.”

The bank’s stock ticker,” SIVB ,” was mentioned in a significant number of tweets on March 9 around 9 am EST. Before posts mentioning” SVB” or” Silicon Valley Bank,” which were aspect of a more general-interest word, started, it had been about 2.5 years.

The rapid decline in the company’s share price on March 9 coincided with that spike in trader tweets, which persisted in after-hours trading and before the market opened the following morning. On March 10, the day the bank failed, trading in SVB’s property was halted.

We categorized US businesses, along with a number of other acquaintances, based on the volume of tweets that were sent about them and their susceptibility to potential bank runs.

We multiplied loses the bankers incurred as a result of the series of interest rate increases that started in March 2022 by the percentage of their payments that were below the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. ‘ s security cap of US$ 250, 000 per account to determine risk.

We discovered that in March, stock of banks with significant Twitter engagement in January and February experienced significantly greater declines. The collection of institutions that were most vulnerable experienced a stronger impact. First Republic Bank was one of them, but it failed on May 1.

The one-third of businesses with the most posts saw drops in their share prices that were, on average, around twice as large as those of the other businesses when we examined what happened to the assets of all those with susceptible balance sheets between March 6 and March 13.

Why is it important?

Social marketing may have contributed to Silicon Valley Bank’s death, according to US politicians.

The Great Depression-era bank crisis is primarily responsible for the current understanding of bank functions. Back again, panic among banks customers was spread by word-of-mouth, media coverage, and social signals like lengthy lines outside of banks.

For US businesses, Silicon Valley Bank’s problems may be the tip of the iceberg. Screengrab, Twitter, and TechCrunch images

Since traditional media outlets primarily rely on one-way transmission from legal resources to the general public, the size of the reader and the quick spread of ideas set social media apart from newspapers and broadcast message.

Banks will undoubtedly continue to be concerned about this, especially in light of the problems that some financial institutions are currently experiencing.

What additional research is being conducted

Many of the ideas we raised in our documents were emphasized in a statement on SVB’s loss that the Federal Reserve released on April 28. It highlights SVB’s poor risk management and a sizable portion of Silicon Valley startup neighborhood savers, who are frequently very energetic and well-connected on social media.

Another group of academics, under the direction of Itamar Drechsler, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania, found that the subsequent rise in insured deposit accounts may weaken banks.

The development of perfectly modern businesses and mobile banking apps may increase this risk even more, according to ongoing research from a team of researchers at Columbia University and the University of Chicago.

What is unknown

According to reports, lenders who quickly withdrew money from SVB already used telephone calls, group email messages, Slack, and WhatsApp to express their worries.

However, since there is no content that is readily available to the public, it is difficult to determine what part those some, less formal dialogues played in causing the SVB bank run.

Tony Cookson is Associate Professor of Finance, University of Colorado Boulder and Christoph Schiller is Assistant Professor of Finance, Arizona State University

Under a Creative Commons license, this story has been republished from The Conversation. read the article in its entirety.

Continue Reading

First Republic collapse signals wider US bank ills

By:
On:
In: Asia, Business, Finance

First Republic Bank became the second-biggest bank failure in US history after the lender was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and sold to JPMorgan Chase on May 1, 2023. First Republic is the latest victim of the panic that has roiled small and midsize banks since the failure of Silicon Valley Bank in March 2023.

The collapse of SVB and now First Republic underscores how the impact of risky decisions at one bank can quickly spread into the broader financial system. It should also provide the impetus for policymakers and regulators to address a systemic problem that has plagued the banking industry from the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s to the financial crisis of 2008 to the recent turmoil following SVB’s demise: incentive structures that encourage excessive risk-taking.

The Federal Reserve’s top regulator seems to agree. On April 28, the central bank’s vice chair for supervision delivered a stinging report on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, blaming its failures on its weak risk management, as well as supervisory missteps.

We are professors of economics who study and teach the history of financial crises. In each of the financial upheavals since the 1980s, the common denominator was risk. Banks provided incentives that encouraged executives to take big risks to boost profits, with few consequences if their bets turned bad. In other words, all carrot and no stick.

One question we are grappling with now is what can be done to keep history from repeating itself and threatening the banking system, economy and jobs of everyday people.

S&L crisis sets the stage

The precursor to the banking crises of the 21st century was the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s.

The so-called S&L crisis, like the collapse of SVB, began in a rapidly changing interest rate environment. Savings and loan banks, also known as thrifts, provided home loans at attractive interest rates.

When the Federal Reserve under Chairman Paul Volcker aggressively raised rates in the late 1970s to fight raging inflation, S&Ls were suddenly earning less on fixed-rate mortgages while having to pay higher interest to attract depositors. At one point, their losses topped US$100 billion.

Paul Volcker in a file photo. Image: Twitter

To help the teetering banks, the federal government deregulated the thrift industry, allowing S&Ls to expand beyond home loans to commercial real estate. S&L executives were often paid based on the size of their institutions’ assets, and they aggressively lent to commercial real estate projects, taking on riskier loans to grow their loan portfolios quickly.

In the late 1980s, the commercial real estate boom turned bust. S&Ls, burdened by bad loans, failed in droves, requiring the federal government take over banks and delinquent commercial properties and sell the assets to recover money paid to insured depositors. Ultimately, the bailout cost taxpayers more than $100 billion.

Short-term incentives

The 2008 crisis is another obvious example of incentive structures that encourage risky strategies.

At all levels of mortgage financing – from Main Street lenders to Wall Street investment firms – executives prospered by taking excessive risks and passing them to someone else. Lenders passed mortgages made to people who could not afford them onto Wall Street firms, which in turn bundled those into securities to sell to investors. It all came crashing down when the housing bubble burst, followed by a wave of foreclosures.

Incentives rewarded short-term performance, and executives responded by taking bigger risks for immediate gains. At the Wall Street investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, profits grew as the firms bundled increasingly risky loans into mortgage-backed securities to sell, buy and hold.

As foreclosures spread, the value of these securities plummeted, and Bear Stearns collapsed in early 2008, providing the spark of the financial crisis. Lehman failed in September of that year, paralyzing the global financial system and plunging the U.S. economy into the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Executives at the banks, however, had already cashed in, and none were held accountable. Researchers at Harvard University estimated that top executive teams at Bear Stearns and Lehman pocketed a combined $2.4 billion in cash bonuses and stock sales from 2000 to 2008.

A familiar ring

That brings us back to Silicon Valley Bank.

Executives tied up the bank’s assets in long-term Treasury and mortgage-backed securities, failing to protect against rising interest rates that would undermine the value of these assets. The interest rate risk was particularly acute for SVB, since a large share of depositors were startups, whose finances depend on investors’ access to cheap money.

When the Fed began raising interest rates last year, SVB was doubly exposed. As startups’ fundraising slowed, they withdrew money, which required SVB to sell long-term holdings at a loss to cover the withdrawals. When the extent of SVB’s losses became known, depositors lost trust, spurring a run that ended with SVB’s collapse.

Silicon Valley Bank’s troubles could be the tip of the iceberg for US banks. Image: Screengrab / Twitter / TechCrunch

For executives, however, there was little downside in discounting or even ignoring the risk of rising rates. The cash bonus of SVB CEO Greg Becker more than doubled to $3 million in 2021 from $1.4 million in 2017, lifting his total earnings to $10 million, up 60% from four years earlier. Becker also sold nearly $30 million in stock over the past two years, including some $3.6 million in the days leading up to his bank’s failure.

The impact of the failure was not contained to SVB. Share prices of many midsize banks tumbled. Another American bank, Signature, collapsed days after SVB did.

First Republic survived the initial panic in March after it was rescued by a consortium of major banks led by JPMorgan Chase, but the damage was already done. First Republic recently reported that depositors withdrew more than $100 billion in the six weeks following SVB’s collapse, and on May 1, the FDIC seized control of the bank and engineered a sale to JPMorgan Chase.

The crisis isn’t over yet. Banks had over $620 billion in unrealized losses at the end of 2022, largely due to rapidly rising interest rates.

The big picture

So, what’s to be done?

We believe the bipartisan bill recently filed in Congress, the Failed Bank Executives Clawback, would be a good start. In the event of a bank failure, the legislation would empower regulators to claw back compensation received by bank executives in the five-year period preceding the failure.

Clawbacks, however, kick in only after the fact. To prevent risky behavior, regulators could require executive compensation to prioritize long-term performance over short-term gains. And new rules could restrict the ability of bank executives to take the money and run, including requiring executives to hold substantial portions of their stock and options until they retire.

The Fed’s new report on what led to SVB’s failure points in this direction. The 102-page report recommends new limits on executive compensation, saying leaders “were not compensated to manage the bank’s risk,” as well as stronger stress-testing and higher liquidity requirements.

It comes down to this: Financial crises are less likely to happen if banks and bank executives consider the interest of the entire banking system, not just themselves, their institutions and shareholders.

Alexandra Digby is Adjunct Assistant professor of Economics, University of Rochester; Dollie Davis is Associate Dean of Faculty, Minerva University, and Robson Hiroshi Hatsukami Morgan is Assistant Professor of Social Sciences, Minerva University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

FA Sustainable Finance Forum: Top Five Takeaways

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

In terms of sustainable development goals (SDG), business and investment have long and difficult journeys ahead.  Sobering figures from a draft report published by the United Nations (UN) last month reveal that at the end of 2022, just 12% of the SDGs were on track to meet their 2030 targets.

“It’s time to sound the alarm,” the report warned.

“At the mid-way point on our way to 2030, the SDGs are in deep trouble. A preliminary assessment of the roughly 140 targets with data show only about 12% are on track.”

“Close to half, though showing progress, are moderately or severely off track and some 30% have either seen no movement or have regressed below the 2015 baseline.”

The audience at FinanceAsia’s recent Sustainable Finance Asia Forum on April 18 heard that although there is plenty of road to make up on the journey to net zero, so too is there substantial opportunity. 

ESG imperatives are changing the way institutional investors approach decision-making, develop sustainable products and operate within new regulatory frameworks.

While the over-arching message of the forum underlined that sustainable goals and driving yield are not inimical, how exactly institutions approach sustainable finance will shape the future.

The following are FA’s top five takeaways from a forum focussed on these frameworks.

***

1. Creativity is key

While sufficient capital may be out there to bootstrap transitional finance in Asia – a region that is bearing the physical brunt of climate change – getting it where it needs to go in emerging markets (EMs) is not working at the scale and speed necessary to effect change.

Emily Woodland, head of sustainable and transition solutions for APAC at BlackRock, told a forum panel exploring the state of play of Asia’s SDG commitments that, as well as climate and transition risks, investors also face the common-or-garden risks that come from operating in EMs.

“There are the general risks of operating in these markets as well – that’s everything from legal, to political, to regulatory to currency considerations,” she said. 

“Where finance can help develop new approaches, is around alleviating risks to attract more private capital into these innovation markets, and this is where elements like blended finance come into play.”

To make emerging market projects bankable, de-risking tools are urgently needed.

“That means guarantees, insurance, first loss arrangements, technical assistance which can help bring these projects from being marginally bankable into the bankable space, offering the opportunity to set up a whole ecosystem in a particular market.”

2. Regulation drives change

As investment in sustainable development goals moves from the fringe to the mainstream, institutions are bringing with them experience and learnings that are accompanied by policy, regulation and clear frameworks from regional governments.

Institutions are being asked to lead mainstream investment in the space as increasingly, investment in ESG becomes a viable funding choice.

“The next phase, which is the forever phase, will be when sustainability becomes mandatory rather than just a choice,” Andrew Pidden, Global head of sustainable investments at DWS Group told the forum.

“In the future, you will not be able to make an investment that has not been subject to due diligence with a view to doing no harm – or at least to doing a lot less harm than it is going to supply.”

“People may think this is never going to happen, but people thought this phase (of ESG investment becoming mainstream) was never going to happen 10 or 15 years ago.”

3. China is an ESG bond behemoth

Make no mistake, China is an ESG debt giant. Assets in China’s ESG funds have doubled since 2021, lifted by Beijing’s growing emphasis on poverty alleviation, renewable power and energy security.

According to Zixiao (Alex) Cui, managing director CCX Green Finance International, in 2022, green bond issuance volume alone totalled about RMB 800 billion ($115.72 billion), marking a 44% increase year-on-year (YoY). In the first quarter of 2023, there were 113 green bond issuances worth almost RMB 20 billion.

“Actually, this number decreased compared to last year because right now in the mainland, the interest rate for lending loans from banks is very low so there’s really not much incentive to issue bonds,” he told the audience during a panel on the latest developments in Chinese ESG bonds and cross-border opportunities.

“But over the long term, I think we are on target to achieve a number no less than last year.”

At the heart of this momentum is China’s increasingly ESG positive regulation.

“Policy making is very critical because in the mainland, we have a top-down governance model mechanism which has proven effective in terms of scaling up the market – especially on the supply side.”

4. Greenwashing depends on your definition

When is greenwashing – the overstating of a company’s or product’s green credentials – technically measurable, and when is it a matter of opinion?

Gabriel Wilson-Otto, head of sustainable investing strategy at Fidelity International, told a panel addressing greenwashing and ESG hypocrisy issues, that these transparency and greenwashing concerns are often problems of definition.

“There is a bit of a disconnect between how these terms are used by different stakeholders in different scenarios,” he says.

On one side, is the argument around whether an organisation is doing what it says it is, which involves questions of transparency and taxonomy.

“In the other camp there’s the question of whether the organisation is doing what’s expected of it. And this is where it can get incredibly vague,” he explained.

Problems arise when interests and values begin to overlap.

“Should you, for instance, be investing in a tobacco company that’s aligned to a good decarbonisation objective? Should you pursue high ESG scores across the entire portfolio?” he queried.

“Depending on where you are in the world, you can get very different expectations from different stakeholders around what the answer to these sub-questions should be.”

5. Climate is overtaking compliance as a risk

While increased ESG regulation means that companies must take compliance more seriously, this is not the only driver. According to Penelope Shen, partner at  Stephenson Harwood, there is a growing understanding that climate risks are real.

“The rural economic forum global risk survey shows that the top three risks are all related to financial failure directly attributable to climate risk and bio-diversity loss,” she highlighted during a panel called ‘ESG as a component of investment DNA and beyond?’

“In fact, if you look at the top 10 risks, eight of them are climate related.”

The prominence of climate as a risk factor has consistently ranked top of the survey over the past 10 years, she explained.

“Other more socially related factors such as cost of living and erosion of social cohesion and societal polarisation are also risks that have consistently ranked highly,” she noted.

What’s your view on the outlook for green, social and sustainable debt in 2023? We invite investors and issuers across APAC to have your say in the 6th annual Sustainable Finance Poll by FinanceAsia and ANZ.

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Citi appoints new Malaysia CEO

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

Citi has appointed Vikram Singh as new CEO of its Malaysian business, effective from May.

A spokesperson for the bank told FinanceAsia that Singh had already relocated to Kuala Lumpur for the new role, which will see him prioritise growth across the market franchise.

In his new capacity, Singh reports to Amol Gupte, head of South Asia and the Asean region, and takes responsibility for the full suite of the bank’s activities in Malaysia. This includes oversight of the performance of Citi’s Solutions Centres in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, which support its wider banking operations in over fifty countries.

Singh has served across a number of Citi’s core divisions to date. He started his career with the bank 24 years ago working across its India-based business, in posts located in Mumbai, Bengaluru and New Delhi. Most recently, he was head of Asia Pacific Regional Account Management, managing coverage of global subsidiary clients operating in the region, from Singapore. 

A release shared with media pointed to Singh’s particular expertise leading the bank’s Corporate and Investment Banking effort in the Philippines over a period of five years, during which he devised robust business strategies that went on to achieve double-digit revenue growth.

“Vikram’s long career and experience with the firm will be invaluable in leading the next stage of growth in a market that also supports many of our global businesses and functions,” Gupte said in the announcement.

Citi established a presence in Malaysia 64 years ago. In January 2022, the bank announced plans to sell its consumer franchise in four Asean markets including Malaysia, to United Overseas Bank (UOB). The deal finalised in November 2022, bringing the bank regulatory capital benefits of approximately $1 billion. 

Offering an update on the bank’s performance in the market following the divestiture, the spokesperson told FA, “We continue to see good client activity across our institutional businesses.” He noted “good growth and client work”.

Elaborating on the current opportunities that Malaysia presents, the contact pointed to varied growth avenues across investment and corporate banking, as well as within the bank’s trade and treasury business, such as hedging.

“Across our institutional businesses from Banking, Markets and Services, we see opportunities to support both local and multinational corporate (MNC) clients further.”

The spokesperson added that the bank has recruitment plans around Singh’s appointment to support client-led growth. 

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading

Exploring the investible opportunity in life sciences & healthcare in the Asia Pacific region

By:
On:
In: Asia, Finance, South-East Asia

It has been a tumultuous time for the life sciences and healthcare space in the Asia Pacific region over the last three years. A post-pandemic boom saw a rapid surge in private equity buyouts in the sector through 2020 and 2021, followed by a sharp correction through last year.

However, 2023 promises to be a year in which life sciences and healthcare regains its spot among the top priorities of investors, with several macroeconomic, demographic, and digital adoption trends buoying interest.

To gain deeper insights into what the future holds for this critical sector, FinanceAsia in partnership with DFIN created the Life Sciences & Healthcare Report 2023. Our report is based on a study of the most significant recent trends in the sector so far; as well as a glimpse into what the future holds via bespoke research involving key stakeholders.

We surveyed nearly 70 investors, legal and financial advisors who are actively engaged in the space, as well as professionals operating in life sciences and healthcare companies across the APAC region, to obtain informed insights on the opportunities and challenges that come with investments in the sector.

Here are some of the key takeaways:

  • The life sciences and healthcare sector is expected to bounce back in 2023: After a challenging 2022 in which factors like rising interest rates and a post pandemic rationalisation saw a decline in interest in the space, respondents across categories demonstrate optimism about the sector’s prospects.
  • An overwhelming 80% of investors expect to be involved in a transaction (funding, M&A, public listing): Over the next two years, a vast majority of investors surveyed believe they will engage with the life sciences and healthcare space. This is particularly significant since only 40% have engaged in transactions in the sectors over the last two years. Among investors who have not associated with the sector so far, 100% are ready to invest, given the right opportunity.
  • APAC will receive increased investor focus: The regions aging population, rising pressure on the public healthcare systems in some markets, as well as a sharp increase in health consumerism and digital innovations are among the major factors driving investor interest. While the life sciences and healthcare space has underperformed in the region compared to North America and Europe, innovative solutions in this space will be embraced by the region’s digital savvy middle class population which is growing in affluence.
  • Investors expect heightened M&A activity and more foreign investment: This is particularly true of mature markets. Most investors (56.3%) expect to see a growth in both volume and value of M&As over the next two years.

Read the report for a comprehensive overview of the life sciences and healthcare space including:

  1. The verticals most likely to attract investor interest and M&A.
  2. The impact of a recessive climate on investment.
  3. The biggest opportunities within the life sciences and healthcare according to investors, advisors, and professionals.
  4. The most critical challenges that the sector is dealing with.
  5. A forward-looking view on the scope and potential of life sciences and healthcare in the APAC region.

The report is essential reading for investors engaged in or thinking of engaging with the life sciences and healthcare, companies operating in the sector looking for growth opportunities, as well as advisors serving the space.
 

Download the full report now

 

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Continue Reading