顯示具有 Foreign 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章
顯示具有 Foreign 標籤的文章。 顯示所有文章

2012年5月18日 星期五

Why Foreign Banks Are Shunning American Millionaires

Affluent Americans need not apply. That’s what some of the world’s largest wealth management firms are saying in anticipation of Washington’s implementation of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, which seeks to prevent tax evasion by Americans with offshore accounts. HSBC Holdings (HBC), Deutsche Bank (DB), Bank of Singapore, and DBS Group Holdings (DBS) all say they have turned away business from U.S. clients. The attitude of American regulators is “Draconian,” says Su Shan Tan, head of private banking at Singapore-based DBS, Southeast Asia’s largest lender. “I don’t open U.S. accounts, period.”

The 2010 law, to be phased in starting on Jan. 1, 2013, will mean additional compliance costs for banks and fewer investment options for U.S. citizens living abroad. Known as Fatca, it requires financial institutions based outside the U.S. to obtain and report information about income and interest payments added to the accounts of American clients. The Internal Revenue Service held a hearing on the rules on May 15 and could change some aspects of the law.

No longer a U.S. citizen, Saverin may save on his Facebook tax billJim Spellman/WireImage/Getty ImagesNo longer a U.S. citizen, Saverin may save on his Facebook tax bill

Penalties for not complying will be stiff. Non-U.S. firms that don’t make ­required disclosures will be subject to 30 percent withholding of certain dividends, interest, or proceeds from the sale of assets they or their customers receive from U.S. sources, according to Richard Weisman, Hong Kong-based head of law firm Baker & McKenzie’s global tax practice. “Overwhelmingly, financial institutions outside the U.S. don’t like it, for obvious reasons,” says Weisman, calling the withholding tax a “stick” the U.S. is wielding. “The U.S. is outsourcing a tax-compliance function, which is enormously expensive.”

The U.S. government needs to be tougher on offshore tax crimes than it has been, says U.S. Representative Richard Neal, a Massachusetts Democrat and one of the sponsors of the legislation. Fatca, introduced after Zurich-based UBS (UBS) said in 2009 that it aided tax evasion by Americans and agreed to pay $780 million to avoid prosecution in the U.S., is already helping to improve banking transparency, he says. “The IRS should know what money is being held offshore and for what purpose,” Neal says. “I don’t think there’s anything unreasonable about that.” UBS hasn’t taken U.S. clients at its offshore wealth management units since 2008.

Bank of Singapore, the private-banking arm of Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp., has declined to accept millions of dollars from Americans because it doesn’t want to deal with the regulatory hassle, according to Chief Executive Officer Renato de Guzman. “It’s too complex, too challenging,” he says. “You probably should have a dedicated team to handle them or to understand what can be done or what cannot be done.”

Some U.S. citizens are sidestepping the new tax reporting concerns—and possibly saving money—by renouncing their citizenship. A record 1,780 gave up their U.S. passports last year, compared with 235 in 2008, according to the IRS. One of them was Eduardo Saverin, the billionaire co-founder of Facebook. The move may reduce his tax bill as Facebook completes an initial public offering that values the social network at more than $100 billion. Brazilian-born Saverin is a resident of Singapore.

If Americans choose to bank with a non-U.S. firm such as HSBC, their investment choices are limited. At the HSBC branch in the bank’s Asia regional headquarters in Hong Kong, Americans can only make savings deposits. HSBC decided last July that it would no longer offer wealth management services to Americans from locations outside their home country after tax authorities stepped up a probe of the London-based bank’s U.S. clients. Americans would be “better served” by private bankers in the U.S., Goh Kong Aik, a spokesman for the firm in Singapore, said in an e-mail.

Royal Bank of Canada (RY) says it sees a chance to pick up customers turned away by other banks. “We are one of the few wealth managers to hold a Securities and Exchange Commission license offering U.S.-compliant investment advice in Switzerland and London,” says Barend Janssens, the Singapore-based head of the bank’s wealth management unit for emerging markets. The bank sees “an opportunity in accepting tax-compliant U.S. persons as clients outside of the U.S.”

The growth in wealth in Asia makes it easier for banks to refuse Americans. Asia has the world’s ­fastest-growing number of people with more than $1 million in investable assets, according to a report last year by Bank of America and Capgemini, a management consultant. The number of millionaires in Asia climbed 9.7 percent in 2010, to 3.3 million, higher than the 8.6 percent growth in North America. The combined wealth of Asian millionaires increased to $10.8 trillion, topping Europe for the first time, the report said. At industry meetings he attends in Singapore, not accepting U.S. clients is “quite a prevailing sentiment,” says de Guzman of Bank of Singapore. “We have enough business in Asia, so we don’t want to make our lives too difficult.”

The bottom line: To avoid increased reporting costs and potential penalties, many foreign banks are restricting their dealings with U.S. clients.


View the original article here

2012年5月4日 星期五

Trouble for China's Foreign IPOs

The global appetite for Chinese stocks has encouraged more than 180 Chinese companies to hold initial public offerings on foreign exchanges since 2010. With equity markets in mainland China largely closed to foreign investors, the newly public companies seemed like an ideal way to invest in the China growth story. It hasn’t worked out that way. Many stocks of Chinese companies that went public abroad since 2010 have been plagued by accounting problems and profit warnings that have sent their stocks plunging and poisoned the market for new listings.

Confidence in overseas-listed Chinese stocks was undermined by scandals involving companies that went public in the U.S. through so-called reverse mergers, in which a firm buys a publicly traded shell company and obtains a listing without undergoing the regulatory scrutiny of the IPO process. The troubles of Chinese companies that conducted conventional IPOs have raised questions about the accuracy of financial reporting and the quality of due diligence by the firms underwriting them. “Investors have been concerned: Are these companies accurately portraying themselves?” says Kevin Pollack, a fund manager at Paragon Capital in New York who invests in Chinese companies trading on U.S. exchanges. “Unfortunately, having big-name auditors and bankers behind a company doesn’t guarantee it’s free of issues.”

In Hong Kong, the 110 Chinese companies that have gone public since 2010 have seen their stocks fall an average of 15.8 percent from the initial offer prices through April 26, while non-Chinese companies that had IPOs there have gained 6.5 percent, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Chinese stocks listed on U.S. exchanges have fared worse. The 53 companies that completed IPOs there in 2010, 2011, and so far this year are down on average 38 percent from their offer prices, compared with a 9.9 percent gain for other IPOs.

The problems extend beyond share-price declines. Four Hong Kong-listed Chinese firms, including Boshiwa International Holding (1698), a Shanghai-based Harry Potter apparel licensee, said their auditors resigned this year because of disputes over financial data or other information. Boshiwa, whose shares fell 66 percent from their September 2010 listing price, was suspended from trading on March 15 after accounting firm Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu resigned. Spokesmen for Boshiwa and Deloitte declined to comment.

More than a quarter of the 56 Chinese companies that raised a combined $32 billion in Hong Kong in 2010, including cellulose producer Sateri Holdings (1768) and manganese mining company Citic Dameng Holdings (1091), have lowered their growth forecasts, saying they expect “significant” or “substantial” declines in revenue. Sateri’s stock has fallen 66 percent since its December 2010 debut, and Citic Dameng’s has dropped 61 percent since listing in November of that year.

Officials are concerned about the performance of recent IPOs, Charles Li, chief executive officer of Hong Kong Exchanges & Clearing, told reporters on April 24. “We will continue to look into this area and aggressively enforce,” Li said.

In the U.S., the Securities and Exchange Commission announced on April 23 that it has sued SinoTech Energy (CTESY), a Chinese oil-field services company that went public in November 2010, for allegedly overstating the value of its assets and misrepresenting the use of IPO proceeds. It was delisted by Nasdaq in January. The company could not be reached for comment. “SinoTech’s brief life as a public company in the U.S. markets has been rife with falsehoods,” David Woodcock, director of the SEC’s Fort Worth regional office, said in a statement.

One result is that the pace of foreign IPOs by Chinese companies has slowed. In the first quarter of this year, foreign Chinese offerings accounted for 5.7 percent of the $11 billion raised worldwide. Overseas IPOs by Chinese firms in 2010 accounted for 16 percent of the $199 billion in global IPO proceeds, excluding mainland China deals. Only two Chinese companies have had IPOs in the U.S. this year: Internet retailer Vipshop (VIPS) and Acquity Group (AQ), an online advertising company. Both raised less than their target amounts and are trading below their offering prices. “People are concerned about corporate governance issues and bad press surrounding Chinese companies,” says Nicholas Yeo, head of China and Hong Kong equities at Aberdeen Asset Management (ADN) in Hong Kong. “China is still compelling in the long term, but how to get access to its growth is challenging.”

The bottom line: Profit warnings and accounting disputes have hurt many of the nearly 200 Chinese companies that have gone public abroad since 2010.


View the original article here