精品视频久久久_成人在线视频网_国产精区一区二区_福利视频电影

EB-5漲價的議題，繼續在發酵，今天來看看投資移民律師對于漲價方案的分析。Mona Shah律師的這篇文章，給我們很多思考，相信這些聲音也都會通過各種途徑傳到國會的政策制定者這里，畢竟無論怎樣從經濟學的角度分析，投資金額的上升不必然能帶來就業創造和經濟增長的成比例上升，更何況EB-5是要求“at risk”的。本文由業內朋友Dora義務翻譯，特此感謝。

EB5最低50萬美金投資額漲價是不可避免的嗎？

今年秋天的EB5區域中心計劃在國會進行延期已近在眼前，大家都在關注此計劃是否會增加合格的投資金額的可能性。延期本身是毫無疑問的，美國國會多次將區域中心計劃延期，并預計將再次這樣做，同時可能使其作為整體EB5投資計劃的一部分而永久化。然而，國會很可能將增加目前的最低投資50萬美元或完全取消TEA區域，從而使所有EB5項目的投資金額變為100萬美元。

取消在區域中心或TEA項目的50萬美元投資，存在一系列的未知數。所需的投資增加的后果是什么呢？更少的投資者？更多的資金注入美國？更少的就業？被開發商濫用?

本文綜述EB-5計劃的發展，并討論提高最低投資額的必然性及其影響。

EB-5計劃的發展及國會立法意圖

在EB5計劃設立的1990年，國會將所需的資本投資金額設置為100萬美元。計劃設立的目的是創造就業機會和刺激經濟。

目標就業區（TEA）的投資

對于位于目標就業區（TEA）的企業，國會確實創造了除100萬美元投資之外的一種選擇，TEA，被定義為鄉村地區或區域失業率至少為全國平均失業率水平的150%的區域。TEA項目的投資金額是50萬美元。國會增加此特例，目的在于鼓勵投資者在最需要經濟刺激的地區創造就業機會。

所以，就會期望TEA位于，農村地區和高失業率區域。然而，由于人口普查區，經常被操控用來符合TEA認定，所以，今天許多大型EB-5區域中心的項目，位于富裕的城市地區如曼哈頓、洛杉磯、邁阿密等。

雖然，操縱人口普查區可能被認為是不恰當的或玩弄選區概念，但是，EB-5項目的終極目標和目的是創造就業機會，進而刺激經濟。如果一個項目坐落在一個人口高度密集的區域，而不是建立在人口密度低的農村地區，那么更多的人將受到影響，它更有可能刺激經濟。此外，同一個項目，如果位于在商業上可行的主要城市，將更有可能吸引更多的外國投資者，因為其資本回報的可能性更大。

區域中心投資

在2005年，區域中心計劃剛剛出現的時候，區域中心將目光投向我們成功的加拿大鄰居，加拿大項目只需要40萬美元的投資，曾從亞太吸引了相當大的財富。因此，為了讓這些早期區域中心能夠吸引到亞太地區的投資者，EB-5區域中心假話的投資金額必須是有競爭力的，所以確定在50萬美元。

在紐約的第一個區域中心是NYCRC，成立于2007年；然而，NYCRC最初的項目，位于布魯克林安全、無爭議的TEA區域。第一個散發著無盡魅力，吸引了廣泛注意的曼哈頓中心項目是時代廣場酒店項目，由弗里德曼兄弟開發。這個項目募集了150個EB-5投資者，絕大多數來自中國。投資者都感到驚訝，這樣一個位于紐約時代廣場的迷人的項目，能位于一個TEA區域。

這個項目是一個前兆。在過去的一年中，曼哈頓聲稱擁有最多的50萬美元的投資者。

50萬美元投資的現狀

如今，大約90%的EB- 5項目的投資是處于50萬美元的水平。當前的EB-5投資計劃已經發展成為一個成熟的產業，圍繞著50萬美元投資，給美國帶來數十億美元。

投資金額設定在50萬美元是在25年前，然而，根據消費者價格指數（CPI），這一數額如今的購買力已經下降到只有275235美元。與EB-5區域中心項目有關的一個不可避免的問題是，無論國會是否增加計劃的投資金額，排除50萬美元的投資，應該是不可避免的。

投資增加對市場的影響

開發商已經表示，他們歡迎提高最低投資金額或完全消除它。這樣將降低融資工作的繁重度，也會避免合資格投資人問題（accredited investor，EB5Sir注：這是指SEC就合格基金購買人的規定術語）。盡管如此，EB-5計劃的核心目標是創造就業機會，引人注目的問題是如何創造就業機會，以及經濟會受到怎樣的影響。

投資金額的增加意味著更少的工作

目前，總共100萬美元投資于一個位于TEA區域的EB-5項目，代表著2個投資者的投資份額，進而需要創造出20個工作。如果最低50萬美元投資金額被取消，同樣的100萬美元投資將只需代表1個投資者，而不是2投資者的投資，這樣，只需要創造出10個工作。

因此，如果一個項目需要5000萬美元的資金，這將需要100名投資者創造1000個就業崗位。如果取消50萬美元的最低門檻，那么募集相同的金額，只需要50名投資者，這導致只需要創造500個就業崗位。募集相同的金額，需要創造的就業機會相對更少，這樣將降低開發商的成本。增加投資金額將有利于項目方。一些人認為這將導致這個項目的陰暗面：增加的資本，可能只是埋沒到軟成本中，再也找不到了!

投資金額的增加意味著減少或取消目標區域

大部分的EB-5從業人員、代理商、經紀人和律師一直持相對統一的意見，在他們看來，通過提高最低投資金額，許多投資者將會選擇遠離EB-5。“風險”因素無疑將使美國項目對于更高的投資金額缺乏吸引力，而50萬美元的投資金額，將鼓勵更多的投資者進行投資。

這些50萬美元投資者中的大多數人，通過購買房地產、雇用專業人員、為其全球收入納稅、為教育買單、投資到股票市場，以及擴大在美國的海外業務向美國注入新資本。舉例來說，在2010年，新移民的企業主的凈營業收入總額為1,212億美元，占國家凈營業收入的15%。此外，一旦初始投資的錢得到返回，有更大的可能性，將再次投資在美國。

投資金額的增加會嚴重影響美國的外國學生人數

大多數的EB-5投資者是外國學生和成功人士。報告顯示，美國學院和大學F-1簽證的外國學生數量大幅增長，從2001年的110,000人增加到2012年的524,000人。從2008年到2012年，這些學生貢獻了大約218億美元的學費和128億美元的其他支出。

送本國公民到美國學習的最多的3個國家分別是中國、韓國和印度。

此外，由于獲得美國永久居留權的其他途徑相當有限，EB-5項目已成為越來越受歡迎的選擇。父母的資金支持和資金饋贈，能使在美國留學的孩子進行EB-5投資。

來自外國學生的經濟效益與這些學生的家長是否能夠通過50萬美元的投資參與EB-5程序有著千絲萬縷的聯系。馬雪莉女士（Xueli Ma），一直在與中國投資者緊密合作，她表示：“如果投資金額從50萬美元增加到100瓦按美元，我將失去一半的投資者。他們中很多都是勤勞的小企業主，為孩子的教育和未來而進行投資。

現有的移民投資計劃替代品

2010年，當加拿大聯邦投資移民項目（IIP）將投資最低金額增加了一倍，從原來的40萬美元增加到80萬美元時，許多移民涌向現成的替代方案——EB-5計劃。但是目前，如果EB-5計劃投資金額增加，可以說，沒有現成的替代方案。

香港和加拿大的投資移民項目都關門。另一個替代方案，澳大利亞、新加坡、新西蘭和英國各有更高的投資金額要求。這一事實本身，可能會鼓勵立法者消除或增加50萬美元投資金額。

然而，需要注意的更重要的事情是，加拿大計劃“與其他國家競爭高凈值移民；然而，加拿大IIP所需的投資與其他國際項目相比是非常低的。”此外，“除了花費更少，加拿大IIP提供了優于其他國家包括美國…的顯著的激勵措施”。并且與EB-5項目要求投資處于“風險”不同，加拿大項目保證投資本金的回報。

結論

提高或完全取消EB-5計劃，最低50萬美元的投資金額，保留100萬美元的EB-5投資計劃，似乎不可避免的。雖然，這個數字確實使美國投資移民所需的資本投資更與其他國家的標準看齊，但是，它沒有考慮到EB-5項目風險元素帶來的劣勢，這可能會使EB-5項目與其國際競爭對手相比，缺乏吸引力。

EB-5投資移民只占總體投資移民的1%，但這是最有可能刺激經濟的類別。國會不應限制我們通過EB-5計劃可以吸引到的潛在投資者的數量，這本質上為美國企業提供廉價的資金來源。每年，超過200億美元的資金注入，數以千計的工作崗位被創造出來，只要國會不扼殺它的成長，EB-5項目將繼續茁壯發展。

更少EB-5投資者對經濟增長造成不利的多米諾效應表明：EB-5類別的外國投資者數量的減少并不符合美國的最佳利益。

原文作者：Mona Shah律師，原文來源：www.blog.mshahlaw.com。

Is an increase of the EB5 $500,000.00 minimum inevitable?
May 6, 2015 · by Mona Shah, Esq. · in General Blog

By Mona Shah, Esq.

The burning question on the table when the EB5 regional center program comes up before Congress for renewal this fall, concerns the likelihood of an increase in the qualifying investment that may be made to the program. Renewal itself is not in doubt, as Congress has extended the regional center program many times and is expected to do so again, possibly giving it permanent status as part of the overall EB5 investor program. However, it is likely that Congress will either increase the present minimum investment of $500,000 or eliminate the TEA designation altogether, leaving the EB5 investment amount as $1 million for all projects.

The potential elimination of the $500,000 investment in a regional center or TEA project presents a number of unknowns. What would be the ramifications of an increase in the required investment? Will it result in fewer investors? More cash infused into the US? Fewer jobs? Potential abuse by developers?

This article reviews the development of the EB5 program, and discusses the inevitability of an increase in the minimum investment and its impact.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EB5 PROGRAM AND CONGRESSIONAL INTENT

When the EB5 program was created in 1990, Congress set the required capital investment amount at $1,000,000.[1] The stated purpose of the program was to create jobs and stimulate the economy.

Targeted Employment Area (TEA) Investments

Congress did create an exception to the $1,000,000 investment for businesses located in a Targeted Employment Area (TEA), defined as either a rural area or an area experiencing unemployment of at least 150 percent of the national average rate. Investment in TEA projects was set at $500,000. Congress added this exception precisely to encourage investors to create jobs in areas that have the greatest need for economic stimulation.

Indeed, it would be reasonable to expect a target employment area to be in rural locations and areas experiencing higher rates of unemployment. Nevertheless, today, many of the large scale EB-5 regional center projects are found in affluent urban areas such as Manhattan, Los Angeles, and Miami, as census tracts are often manipulated to allow for a TEA designation.

Although manipulation of census tracts may be considered to be inappropriate scheming or gerrymandering, the ultimate goal and purpose of the EB-5 program is to create jobs and, in turn, stimulate the economy. If a project is located in a highly populated location where more people are affected, it is more likely to stimulate the economy than if it is established in a rural area with a low population density. Furthermore, the same project would be more likely to attract a higher number of foreign investors, as there is likely to be a greater probability of a return of capital in a commercially viable location such as a major city.

Regional Center Investments

In 2005, when the regional center program emerged, regional centers looked to the success of our Canadian neighbors, who had been attracting considerable wealth from the Asian Pacific with an investment amount of only $400,000. Accordingly, investments in EB5 regional center projects had to be competitively priced at $500,000 in order for these early regional centers to attract any Asian Pacific investors.

The first regional center in New York was NYCRC, established in 2007; however, NYCRC’s initial projects were in safe, uncontroversial TEA’s in Brooklyn.[2] The first Manhattan-centric project that oozed glamour and attracted attention was the Times Square Hotel, developed by the Friedman Brothers. The majority of the 150 EB-5 investors in this project were from China, and were amazed that such a glamorous project could be located within a TEA that was in Times Square, NYC.

This project was a precursor of what was to come. In the past year, Manhattan has claimed the lion’s share of $500,000 investors.

The Status of the $500,000 Investment

Today, around 90% of all EB-5 project investments are at the $500,000 level. The current EB-5 investment program has evolved into a full-fledged industry, revolving around the $500,000 investment, which brings billions into the US.

According to the Consumer Price Index, however, in the 25 years since the investment amount of $500,000 was set, the purchasing power of that amount has dropped to only $275,235. An unavoidable issue pertaining to the EB5 regional center projects is whether an investment increase by Congress, accomplished by eliminating the $500,000 investment, may be inevitable.

THE IMPACT OF AN INVESTMENT INCREASE ON THE MARKET

Developers have stated that they would welcome raising the minimum investment amount or erasing it entirely. It would make the job of fundraising less onerous, and also would erase any accredited investor issues. Nonetheless, at the very core of the EB5 program is the objective of creating jobs, compelling the question of how job creation and the economy would be affected.

An Increase Would Mean Fewer Jobs

Presently, a total of $1mm invested in an EB5 project located in a TEA represents 2 individual investments, which in turn requires the creation of 20 jobs. If the minimum $500,000 investment amount is eliminated, the same 1 million will represent an investment from 1 rather than 2 investors, and as such, only require the creation of 10 jobs.

Thus, if a project needed funding of $50 million, it would require 100 investors resulting in the creation of 1000 jobs. If the $500,000 minimum threshold is eliminated, only 50 investors would be required to generate the same amount, resulting in the creation of only 500 jobs. The same amount of capital is generated, but fewer jobs must be created, resulting in a reduced cost for the developer. The additional capital raised would inure to the developer’s advantage. Some argue that there is a dark side of this equation, in that the additional capital may simply disappear into soft costs, never to be seen again!

An Increase Would Mean Little or No Targeted Area Development

It also has been argued that without a TEA, investors and developers would have little or no motivation to create and develop projects in under-developed and rural areas. This would frustrate and could eliminate entirely any benefit that those communities receive from EB-5 investment, which stimulate both employment and business growth.

An Increase Would Mean Fewer Investors

The majority of EB-5 practitioners, agents, brokers and attorneys have been relatively unified in their view that by raising the minimum investment, many investors are going to be priced out of the market. The “at risk” element undoubtedly will make the US projects less attractive for a higher investment amount, whereas the $500,000 investment encourages a higher volume of investors.

The majority of these $500,000 investors infuse fresh capital by purchasing real estate, engaging professionals, paying taxes on their global income, paying for education, and making alternative investments into the stock market, as well as expanding their overseas business in the U.S. For example, in 2010, new immigrant business owners had a total net business income of $121.2 billion, representing 15 percent of all net business income in the country.[3] Furthermore, once the initial investment money is returned, there is a greater likelihood that it will be reinvested in the US.

An Increase Would Adversely Affect the US Foreign Student Population

The majority of EB5 investors are foreign students and high achievers. Reports indicate that the number of foreign students on F-1 visas in U.S. colleges and universities grew dramatically from 110,000 in 2001 to 524,000 in 2012. These students contributed approximately $21.8 billion in tuition and $12.8 billion in other spending[4] from 2008 to 2012.

The top 3 countries to send their nationals to study in the US are China, South Korea and India.

Moreover, as other avenues to obtain permanent residence in the US are rather limited, the EB-5 Program has become an increasingly popular option. Parents support and gift the funds enabling their children studying in the US to make the EB-5 investment.

The economic benefits derived from foreign students is inextricably linked to the ability of those students’ parents to participate as a $500,000 investor in the EB5 program. Ms. Xueli Ma, who has been working closely with Chinese investors stated that “I would lose half of my investors if the investment increases from $500,000 to $1,000,000. Lots of them are hard-working small business owners who save for their children’s education and future.”

EXISTENCE OF INVESTMENT PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES

When the Canadian Federal Immigrant Investor Program (IIP) doubled the investment threshold from $400,000 to $800,000 in 2010, many immigrants flocked to the ready alternative, the EB5 program. Arguably, today a ready alternative does not exist.

Canada[5] and Hong Kong[6] have both closed their doors. The other alternatives, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand and UK each have higher investment capital requirements. This fact in itself, may encourage legislators to eliminate or increase the $500,000.00 figure.

It is important to note, however, that the Canadian program “competes with a number of other countries for high net worth immigrants; however, the investment required under the Canadian IIP is significantly lower in comparison to international programs.”[7] Moreover, “in addition to costing less, the Canadian IIP offers significant incentives over other countries including the United States…”. Id. And, unlike EB5, the Canadian program guaranteed the return of the invested funds.

CONCLUSION

It appears inevitable that the minimum investment figure will either be raised or eliminated altogether, leaving the EB5 investment capital amount as $1mm. While this figure does bring the required capital investment amount more in line with that of other countries, it does not take into account the disadvantage created by the at risk element of the EB-5 program, which is likely to make it unattractive in comparison to its international competitors.

EB5 investment accounts for 1% of overall immigrant investment and yet this is the category that is most likely to stimulate the economy. Congress should not limit the number of potential investors we can attract to the EB5 program, which essentially provides a cheap source of financing for US businesses. With over $20 billion at stake and thousands of jobs being created every year, the EB-5 program will continue to thrive as long as Congress does not stifle its growth.

The adverse domino effect on economic growth resulting from fewer EB5 investors reveals that a reduction of the number of foreign investors in the EB5 category is not in America’s best interest.