Singapore digital banks behind the regulatory times

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

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

About 50 public service roles may fulfil elected presidency requirement: Chan Chun Sing

SINGAPORE: There are around 50 public service positions that may fulfil the public sector service requirement to run in Singapore’s next presidential election, said Minister-in-charge of the Public Service Chan Chun Sing on Wednesday (May 10). For potential presidential candidates looking to qualify under the private sector service requirement, there are moreContinue Reading

China ‘will talk,’ but only if US changes its tune

Beijing has stated its terms for what it demands that Washington must do if the Americans want to resume dialogue. Those demands include:

  • Stop pressing Taiwan issues.
  • Don’t overreact in cases such as the recent balloon incidents.
  • Quit imposing new sanctions on the Chinese technology sector. 

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang met US Ambassador Nicholas Burns in Beijing on Monday morning before departing for a five-day visit to Germany, France and Norway in the afternoon.

Qin told Burns that China and the US should avoid a “downward spiral” in their relationship but the US must first correct its perception of China and return to rationality. He said the US cannot seek talks while at the same time suppressing China. He said the US must not deviate from the one-China principle over the Taiwan matter.

The meeting came after Burns said in a webcast on May 2 that the US would continue to provide defensive arms to Taiwan and help the island’s authorities build up deterrence.

It was the first meeting with Burns since Qin took charge of the Foreign Ministry on December 30 last year. Their previous last meeting had been held in Beijing last October after the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party. At that time Qin was Chinese ambassador to the United States.

“Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden,” Qin said during Monday’s session, “reached important consensus in the Bali meeting last November.” However, “a series of erroneous words and deeds by the US since then has undermined the hard-won positive momentum of Sino-US relations,” he complained.

“There is an urgency to stabilize Sino-US relations, avoid a downward spiral and prevent accidents between China and the US,” he said. “This should be the most basic consensus between the two powers and a bottom line safeguarded by both sides.”

Qin said the China side will handle Sino-US relations by adhering to the principles of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and win-win cooperation proposed by Xi. He said Beijing hopes the US will reflect deeply, walk with China in the same direction, and push Sino-US relations out of the difficult situation and back on track.

He added that the US should handle unexpected incidents in the relationship between the two countries in a calm, professional and pragmatic manner.

In late January, a Chinese balloon was seen flying in North American airspace. The US, calling it a spy balloon, shot it down and collected the residue. China insisted it was a “meteorological balloon.” The uproar resulted in the cancellation of a scheduled trip to China by US State Secretary Antony Blinken in early February. Last month, Blinken said he was ready to visit Beijing but he was rejected.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and US Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo also have said they want to visit China this year but have not yet seen any progress.

US-China conflicts

On May 2, Burns commented on US-China relations during a virtual event organized by the Stimson Center, a Washington-based think tank. He said the two powers held different views on the Taiwan matter, on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and on strategic competition in the high technology sector.

“Under the Taiwan Relations Act, and that goes all the way back to January 1, 1979, retroactively applied, the US has the obligation, as well as the interest, to make sure that we can provide defensive arms to Taiwan so that the Taiwan authorities can have a proper defense and we can help them build up deterrence,” Burns said.

“If Taiwan has sufficient deterrence in place, and if other countries around the world are supporting a peaceful resolution, one would hope that that would lead the Chinese to understand the consequences of the use of force in the Taiwan Strait,” he said.

He reiterated the US government’s stance of supporting the right of successive US House speakers Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy to meet with the Taiwan leaders.

Beijing said US arms sales have crossed its red line as they help promote Taiwan independence. State media said Biden promised in the Bali meeting that the US would not seek to support Taiwan independence but asserted that his words did not match his actions.

Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang (left) and US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns Photo: Twitter, China’s Foreign Ministry

Caikaoxiaoxi.com, a state media outlet in China, published an article on Sunday evening with the title “The US has staged ‘Say one thing and do another’ to the extreme.”

The Beijing-based writer of the article adds: “The US used the so-called intensifying situation in the Taiwan Strait as an excuse to pressurize China on different international occasions.”

He criticizes the US for having approved a $400 million arms sales deal to Taiwan last December and for having passed the National Defense Authorization Act, which will provide the island with $10 billion in security assistance over the next five years. He also slams the US for finalizing the sale of 400 anti-ship missiles to Taiwan and sending a delegation of 25 arms dealers to visit the island last week.

Investment curbs

According to Burns, speaking on the May 2 webcast, Beijing had blocked eight communication channels with the US after Pelosi visited Taiwan on August 2 last year. He said he was called into the Chinese Foreign Ministry on August 3 evening and was told China’s stance, which was later published in a statement on August 4.

Then-Foreign Minister Wang Yi, who was on a trip in Cambodia, in that August 4 statement described the US as the biggest disrupter of the peace of the Taiwan Strait. He said Pelosi’s visit had left China with no choice but to retaliate. The release of the statement was followed by the three days of People’s Liberation Army drills near Taiwan.  

The Bali meeting had temporarily eased the tensions between the two countries but then came the balloon incident in late January and the manifestation of stronger economic ties between China and Russia in March, Burns said.

“In recent weeks, in the last month or so, there’s been consistent communication between myself and senior officials in the foreign ministry, my colleagues in the US Mission and their counterparts in the foreign ministry here,” he said. “That’s been a good sign, that we’ve been able to pass messages, trade views, talk about difficult issues, sometimes at great length, here in Beijing.”

On April 18, Politico reported that Biden was set to sign an executive order that would restrict US companies and private equity and venture capital funds from investing in China’s microchips, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biotechnology and clean energy projects and firms. Biden will try to announce these investment curbs before the G7 Summit and ask US allies for support.

Chinese pundit’s views

A columnist of the state-owned Chengdu Radio and Television writes in an article on Monday that Qin has given the US an out by meeting Burns and telling him all Beijing’s demands. 

“Since the trade war broke out in 2018, there have actually been no dialogues and negotiations between China and the US,” he says.

“Firstly, the US’s attitude is not sincere, as it has imposed different curbs against China. Secondly, the US keeps creating new conflicts to worsen Sino-US relations. Thirdly, Biden and Blinken have said many times that the US wants to talk only if China is submissive to it. It is an unreasonable demand.”

He adds: “Finally, the China side stressed that dialogue must be conducted on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect.”

The writer says China will not talk to the US for the moment due to the needs to safeguard its national interest and develop a stable bilateral relationship. He says if the US can fulfil China’s demands, both sides can resume dialogues immediately.

Read: US investment curbs on tech firms infuriate China

Follow Jeff Pao on Twitter at @jeffpao3

Continue Reading

US Marines abdicating a rescue role to China

The failure of the US Marine Corps to respond to recent crises is inexcusable. The Marines are supposed to be “most ready when the nation is least ready.”

Marine Corps Commandant General David Berger told a United States congressional committee the other day that he had let down the “combatant commander.” The United States Marines Corps was unable to have Marines in position to assist US citizens during the ongoing fighting in Sudan and to provide assistance after a recent earthquake in Turkey.

But he’s not quite right. He also let down his nation.

The backbone of the Marine Corps’ global rapid response to crises is the three marine expeditionary units/amphibious ready groups (MEU/ARG) that are constantly “floating” worldwide. One of these is typically made up of three amphibious ships (the ARG) and a couple thousand marines (the MEU) with all their hardware, weapons, and aircraft. 

They are just as capable of saving lives as they are of taking them.

The MEU that should have been on hand to respond to Sudan and Turkey was in North Carolina. Thus, it had left the region uncovered. 

In the event, the United States flew in a rescue force of Navy SEALs from Djibouti to evacuate the 75 or so Embassy personnel and dependents from Khartoum. That was a success. 

As for the other thousands of American citizens in Sudan, the US government’s response to shelter in place or get yourself out was the equivalent of, “See ya, wouldn’t want to be ya.”

Crowds of rescue-seekers swell at Sudan’s main seaport. Photo: screengrab from video / westernslopenow.com

Blame it on the US Navy

The French and the British did better at getting in and assisting. And the Chinese did too. Indeed, Global Times crowed about the Chinese Navy‘s efforts to evacuate over 1300 Chinese from Sudan — and other nations’ citizens as well.

This was a far cry from the days when Americans overseas knew that the Marines would be coming. And the local authorities — or warlords — did as well. 

Read the commandant’s statements and it’s the US Navy that’s to blame as it hasn’t provided (or built) enough amphibious ships to transport the marines.

Make no mistake, the “amphib navy” is not the US Navy’s fair-haired child. Spending money on amphibious ships is only done grudgingly. 

But in this case, the navy might argue a degree of confusion about what the Marine Corps wanted. A year or two ago it seemed the commandant and the Marines just wanted 30 new light amphibious warships. 

The idea was these ships would be used to shuttle marines and supplies to and from their island hideouts in the Western Pacific. There, they would watch for Chinese ships in the event of war.

“Force Design 2030” — the Commandant’s plan to remake the Marine Corps — was the primary focus.

General Berger’s judgment called into question

And, anyway, amphibious assault wasn’t something Marines would be doing anymore. It was old-school. And probably not even possible, given today’s persistent surveillance from satellites and drones. Not to mention long-range weaponry.

One knowledgeable observer said it makes sense if you believe in:

General Berger’s strategic vision, [which] is to get out of the business of forcible amphibious landings. “That is sooo WWI …. The PLA have missiles you know…. We now have cyber … did well in defense of Wake Island…. We are NOT another US Army.. America doesn’t need ANOTHER air force in addition to USAF and Naval Air ー too expensive, you know. 

Now the commandant is complaining that he hasn’t got enough full-sized “amphibs” to do operations like Turkey and Sudan. No kidding.

General David Berger. Image: Screengrab / YouTube

A retired insider’s perspective

One retired Marine put it thusly:

General Berger’s testimony for 30 of those light amphibious warships at US$300 million per copy — which were to flit among the islands but withdraw from the [area of operations] in the event of armed conflict — really shook confidence in his professional military judgment.

In the waning days of his office, for him to now claim, “What I meant to say was I really really need those full-up 31 amphib big decks” just doesn’t resonate.  

Meanwhile, Beijing gets it

It almost seems as if the commandant and his advisors had forgotten about the things that a military service has to do in peacetime. You need to be able to do things that you would not or could not do in wartime — but that are essential. 

Non-combatant evacuation operations — think Sudan — are a main one. And so are humanitarian assistance and disaster relief — think Turkey. To do these, the MEU/ARG, and enough of them afloat, are a prerequisite. This requires amphibious ships.

The US Navy hasn’t got enough of them, which means the Marines don’t either. And thus the MEU (the marine part of the amphibious task force) was sitting in North Carolina when the nation needed it in the Mediterranean and East Africa. 

It’s humiliating.

The Chinese have their own version of MEU/ARGs ready to go and could put together three of them if they wanted. Before long, they will. And the Chinese Navy and Marines will be providing global coverage — along with the prestige and political influence that comes with it. Beijing gets it.

Get priorities straight

The Marine Corps leadership is going to have to do some clear thinking. That is something already being done farther down the ranks.

And the US Navy needs to clear its head, too. Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro recently said that climate change and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are the Navy’s top priorities — on a par with warfighting. 

Maybe to him. But not to Americans stuck in some place with hopped-up locals with guns and knives running around. Or to Americans caught up in a natural disaster. They just want the Marines to show up. 

Settling up

Now back to General Berger’s mea culpa. 

When a Marine Corps second lieutenant screws up, the only answer is, “No excuse, sir.”

He’ll be lucky if he still has a career. 

When a 19-year-old lance corporal driving a two-ton truck to a training area turns it over and Marines are injured, he’ll likely be at a court martial and facing jail time.

And when the Marine Corps’ top officer fails at his so-called “Title 10” duties to have the corps ready to respond? 

Most marines know the answer to that. 

Grant Newsham is a retired US Marine Corps officer and former US diplomat. He is the author of the book When China Attacks: A Warning To America. This article was first published by JAPAN Forward and is republished with permission.

Continue Reading

HSBC: right idea, wrong time for an Asian divorce

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

When US national investments succeed and fail

Key new technologies sectors that were born in the US are now located abroad. & nbsp,

After 2000, the US trade balance for technology items changed from a deficit to an increasing shortage due to the production migration. Concerns about the US’s reliance on foreign sources for corporate products have been raised due to both a significant trade deficit and the risk to national security. & nbsp,

In effect, the US government has provided greater financial support for corporate technical industries, such as the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, which pledges US$ 52.7 billion to support the domestic semiconductor manufacturing sector. & nbsp,

Although it is too early to evaluate its effectiveness, there have been earlier initiatives to support strategic different sectors that have both succeeded and failed. Their teachings ought to be taken away. & nbsp,

The silicon and light industries’ long-term support, which began in the 1970s, was the biggest success. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency( DARPA ) of the US Defense Department was then in charge of laying the groundwork for the modern electronic world in chips, lasers, and communications technologies in collaboration with industrial organizations. & nbsp,

However, smaller, more prior initiatives to support new industries, including clean energy, have notable failures. Solar panels were created by numerous startups in the early 2000s using & nbsp, Invented in US.

One of these new businesses, Solyndra & nbsp, built its goods on cutting-edge thin film technology, which was ultimately unworkable for business. It was given a$ 525 million federal loan to help with solar panel production, but it fell short and shut down in 2011.

installation of the circular thermal module design used by Solyndra prior to the company’s demise. Featured image: Solyndra

In the US, solar panels supply is currently very low. The majority of them are produced in China using a silicon technology that is completely different from Solyndra. This industry is worth$ 30 billion annually, with much of it being exported to the US. Rates have drastically decreased as a result, and no American organization can thrive with foreign businesses. & nbsp,

An attempt to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles in the US was another loss. With a novel lithium-ion technology, & nbsp, A123 was born out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology( MIT ) in the early 2000s and entered the market for rechargeable consumer electronic batteries, which was dominated by Asian producers like LG.

A123, on the other hand, concentrated on large systems, specifically on batteries for electric vehicles( EVs ), which were expected to eventually grow into a sizable market, presuming the availability of useful and reasonably priced rechargeable batteries. & nbsp,

The business entered into supply agreements with EV-focused businesses like General Motors ( GM ), but it continued to concentrate on the materials side of battery technology and delegated system integration to its partners. Because it affected its customers’ EV capabilities, this was a significant strategic mistake.

Tesla, which collaborated with well-known Eastern cell manufacturers’ battery technology, was noticeably absent from its client list. Its proprietary system technology made it possible for it to produce and market early electric vehicles( EVs ). Fisker, a significant A123 business, filed for bankruptcy in the interim, and the business was unable to produce profitable products. & nbsp,

A123 was undoubtedly a clear achievement at first. The business raised almost a billion dollars through an initial public offering( IPO ), including$ 250 million from the US government as part of the Federal Recovery Act of 2009. & nbsp,

Despite investing in high-quality development services, the company continued to lose money on the goods it sold. A123 declared bankruptcy in 2012 after failing to raise enough money to continue operating due to ongoing costs. & nbsp, It was eventually purchased by a significant manufacturer of Chinese automotive parts. & nbsp,

A123 Systems R & amp, D Laboratory’s NHR 9200 battery test systems. Photo: Facebook

These are all blatant examples of industrial policy intended to support different sectors and all involved public financing supplementing personal funds.

While the other two industries failed, the silicon company’s expansion was a large success. The most gifted individuals in the world were drawn to the semiconductor system. & nbsp,

Its performance was attributable to maintaining lucrative activities in business, education, and research facilities with wise US federal funding, primarily managed through DARPA, to address pressing issues and make the findings widely accessible to spur manufacturing. & nbsp,

Venture capital, public markets, and business funds were drawn to the good opportunities presented by the technology in order to meet capital needs. Good ideas could be turned into fantastic new items with the help of all the necessary components. & nbsp,

The two unsuccessful products had significantly fewer resources. With limited resources, the innumerable companies focused primarily on creating innovative new methods for building solar panels. A complete reworking of the components and techniques to reduce costs through clever vertical integration was ultimately successful in creating China’s low-cost, high-performance solar panels industry.

To design and construct for businesses, billions of dollars were needed. In China, the necessary cash was available. The difference is that this level of industry building was always included in the program here. China’s choice program was extensive and clever after deciding to build the solar panels industry. & nbsp,

The choice in Solyndra, on the other hand, was an innovative strategy that ultimately failed with limited financing. & nbsp,

The solar panels industry in China has expanded by leaps and bounds. Supplied picture

The power course is subject to the same criticism. A123 was essentially the only company attempting to establish a home EV power supplier in the US. There were no viable businesses to offer options, so it was unclear what techniques or tactics it used to achieve. Additionally, there was no concept development relative to DARPA. & nbsp,

My opinion: Two things are necessary to repeat the success of the transistor company’s development with government support.

The ability to capture and asset the highest levels of technologies and business skill by combining business, academia, and government is the first requirement. Also, don’t overlook the part DARPA played in directing technology progress.

Technologist, engineer, poet, and long-time private equity investor Henry Kressel. & nbsp,

Continue Reading