| dc.description.abstract | In 2008 the financial tsunami devastated our country’s economy. In order to save the economy, the government implemented many financial stability plans and some bailout plans for enterprises under financial distress. After these bailout plans were announced and implemented, they immediately produced a big effect. Many domestic enterprises with business difficulties turned to the banking industry to apply for loan extensions. Among them, the loan extension of ProMOS Technology was the most prominently noticed case. The ProMOS Technology bailout plan aroused widely controversies, with voices of agreement and disagreement. However, the government emphatically requested the cooperation of the banks to enforce the bailout plans. Nevertheless, the banking industry had their professional assessments regarding the loans. If the banks were negatively affected by the bailout, the dangers produced by the bailout plan would be even greater. The purpose of this research is to explore whether the government’s request of the banks to extend loan payments (in order to relieve the enterprises) was reasonable? Is it worthy for the government to bailout the whole DRAM industry? Particularly, is it worthy for the government to bailout the ProMOS Technology?
This research analyzes the data of the DRAM industry and the ProMOS Technology, to determine whether the bailout plans are reasonable from government and banking industry’s perspectives. This study evaluate the three possible bailout plans based on the factors of economy, employment placement, financial market, business management, technological innovation, and environmental protection. The three plans were “not rescuing”, “rescuing to the end” (but would not incorporate or combine), and “incorporating through TMC”. The conclusions of this study are as follows. The plan of “rescuing to the end” was the worst in terms of the expected value of national competitiveness. And the outcome of the plan of “incorporating through TMC” was the most unpredictable. It would be the best plan, if the plan turn out to be successful. Otherwise, it would entail a bigger catastrophe. The first plan, which is a conservative method, would be the best, because it had the least damage to the nation as a whole.
| en_US |