Skip to main content

As EB-5 controversy surfaces in Virginia political battle, a new focus not just on fraud but on corporate welfare

There's been a shift in the public discussion of the EB-5 immigrant investor program, used in Atlantic Yards and many other projects, in which immigrants investing $500,000 in a purportedly job-creating project can get green cards for themselves and their families.

Often it's been described as a win-win-win for all--the immigrants, the investors, and the public--though with subordinate mention of potential fraud or corruption. See, for example, the 3/21/13 Washington Post article headlined Foreign citizens making big investments in U.S. in exchange for green cards.

Of late, however, that potential fraud has been highlighted, and at least one influential commentator, a Washington Post editorial writer, has looked beyond the issue of transactional integrity to declare the program itself a "dubious policy" of "corporate welfare."

That squares with my analysis of the Atlantic Yards EB-5 deal; after all, the ten jobs per investor need only to be projected in an economist's analysis, and documents suggest the $228 million in immigrant investor funds are not seed money but merely substituting for a higher-interest loan.

So local officials are helping get developers and entrepreneurs cheap capital at no cost--the lure to investors is the green cards, scarce commodities whose value gets downplayed.

And, yes, there were also signs of fraud with Atlantic Yards: potential investors were told they were investing in a basketball arena, though the money instead would go to infrastructure.

Longtime EB-5 critic David North wrote last month:
But, as a matter of policy, the EB-5 program is really a silly little program that lets rich people (and moderately rich ones) buy green cards on the open market. It is tacky. It should be allowed to die, or, if it is to continue, the cost per visa should be much higher, and the money should be used not for Marriotts, but to reduce the national debt.
The McAuliffe kerfuffle

EB-5 has surfaced as a flashpoint in a political fight, as the New York Times reported 4/25/13 Venture Threatens to Backfire in Virginia Governor’s Race:
CLIFTON FORGE, Va. — When Terry McAuliffe appeared with his good friend Bill Clinton at the ribbon-cutting for Mr. McAuliffe’s electric car company in July 2012, the campaign-style event, complete with “Born in the U.S.A.” blaring, was meant to supply the top line of his résumé as he positioned himself to run for governor of Virginia.

But less than a year later, the company, GreenTech Automotive, has become a potential embarrassment as Mr. McAuliffe campaigns on the slogan “Putting Jobs First” and seeks to keep the spotlight on the conservative social views of his Republican opponent, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the state attorney general.

Mr. McAuliffe resigned as GreenTech’s chairman last year but publicly acknowledged it only this month. Documents have surfaced questioning his explanation for why he located the plant in Mississippi, not Virginia, including memos from Virginia officials expressing “grave doubts” about his business model and suggesting its financing was a “visa-for-sale scheme” for Chinese investors.

...The path to GreenTech for Mr. McAuliffe, who has never held elective office, began in defeat in the 2009 primary for governor, when charges that he was a carpetbagger without Virginia ties proved devastating. In the four years since, he traveled the state extensively and raised $20 million to buy a Hong Kong-based electric carmaker, renaming it GreenTech and moving its headquarters to Northern Virginia, where he lives..... 
Officials also questioned GreenTech’s plan to attract Chinese investors using a visa program that awards green cards to foreigners who put up $500,000 or more for a start-up business. One development official wrote that she could not “get my head around this being anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme.”

...Asked how much of GreenTech’s financing was raised through foreign investors seeking green cards, known as EB-5 visas, [McAuliffe] referred the question to GreenTech’s current executives. Marianne McInerney, a vice president, said the EB-5 program was important to “our initial capital strategy” but did not represent the majority of current investments.
The National Review reported, in Virginia’s Fears of a ‘Visa-for-Sale Scheme’Economic advisers to Tim Kaine had concerns about McAuliffe’s green-car company.
But internal communications from VEDP now reveal that the state agency didn’t merely think that McAuliffe’s company had a risky business model. At least two high-ranking officials actually suspected that the company’s real aim was to make money by selling U.S. residency visas to wealthy foreigners.
In an e-mail dated November 17, 2009, Liz Povar, then the director of business development at VEDP, wrote to her colleagues:

Sandi et al. Even if the company has investors “lined up”, I maintain serious concerns about the establishment of an EB-5 center in general, and most specifically based on this company. Not only based on (lack of) management expertise, (lack of) market preparation, etc. but also still can’t get my head around this being anything other than a visa-for-sale scheme with potential national security implications that we have no way to confirm or discount. . . .

This “feels” like a national political play instead of a Virginia economic development opportunity. I am not willing to stake Virginia’s reputation on this at this juncture.
The e-mails were revealed pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PolitiFact; 79 pages of documents were posted online in January.
Note that Virginia officials were not questioning the fundamental nature of EB-5 as "visas for sale"--though that's certainly how it could be described--but whether it could work under the program rules. Also, state officials were alarmed that the regional center--the nongovernmental entity set up to recruit and pool immigrants' investments--seemed to be a potential conflict-of-interest, as it was created for just this project.

The latter is hardly an issue for most projects. But the issue seems to be that GreenTech was a riskier investment than most seeking regional center backing.

That raises a question. After all, if the EB-5 investment is totally safe, why they do they need cheap capital anyhow. (The documents are here.)
The critique in the Post

Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane, in a 4/15/13 column headlined Charles Lane: EB-5 visa immigration program is flawed, nailed it:
Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe is under fire because an electric-vehicle firm the Democrat formerly headed raised capital through a program that awards green cards to foreign investors in return for creating jobs in the United States — but it’s not clear how many jobs McAuliffe’s firm generated.
McAuliffe quietly resigned from GreenTech Automotive before e-mails surfaced and sparked questions about the company. I don’t know whether McAuliffe did anything especially wrong — and, in a way, I don’t care. The EB-5 visa-for-dollars program itself is the real scandal.

When Congress approved it in 1990, lawmakers saw a win-win: Investors and their families get to emigrate; the United States gets their money, talent and ambition.

Federal law sets aside 10,000 permanent-residency slots for EB-5 each year, along with 130,000 other employment-based immigrant visas and several hundred thousand additional green cards allocated for refugees, family reunification and the like. U.S. officials tout the $6.8 billion invested and 50,000 jobs created since the program’s start.

Sounds impressive — until you realize that foreign investment in the United States totals $2.5 trillion and that the program’s fuzzy job-creation count includes jobs “indirectly” attributable to the investment.

EB-5 would be dubious policy even if it could claim five times that impact. Simply put, it is corporate welfare — yet another attempt to subsidize the flow of capital into politically favored channels.
Lane registers the standard objection to EB-5--that we shouldn't be selling visas--and agrees, but calls it a misconception:
In other words, the government is leveraging its monopoly on green card-issuance into a source of artificially cheap capital for a few lucky companies.
I wonder how many jobs we could create if the government sold 10,000 visas to the highest bidder — then spent the cash on, say, infrastructure or aid to the poor, with their respective Keynesian multipliers.
What we do know is that EB-5 has created a lot of jobs — for consultants, brokers and other fee-seeking middlemen. Again, it’s an open question whether that’s the most productive use of scarce resources, domestic and foreign...
Capital steered to EB-5-favored business is capital not available to others who might have used it more efficiently. Demand for green cards far exceeds the limited supply. Every green card awarded to an immigrant who has already made his fortune abroad is a green card that can’t go to an immigrant who wants to make his fortune in the United States.
One commenter, Alysha Webb, observed,
Thanks for writing about this program. I cover China and electric vehicles, and have run into this program many times as a way companies in the EV sector -- many with Chinese ties or outright Chinese owners -- are able to stay here in the U.S. I have nothing against these companies -- they give me something to write about. But the EB-5 program does need to be more carefully supervised. And as you point out, there is a shortage of green cards for people who would actually work and pay taxes here.
Some of the documents and discussion also surfaced in conservative columnist Michelle Malkin's 4/15/13 column, Desperate Dem Terry McAuliffe sues Watchdog.org over green tech/cash-for-visas exposé.

The role of scams

The unseemly side of EB-5 has come to the fore, as Los Angeles Times reported 4/23/13, Scams blocking Chinese investors' path to U.S. green cards:
The North American Securities Administrators Assn., an advocacy group, now ranks EB-5-related scams as one of the top new threats to investors.

Overall, EB-5 visas are a small part of the 140,000 immigrant visas allotted annually on the basis of employment. But given the nation's budget crunch and continued high unemployment, lawmakers have called for expanding the EB-5 program.

...Canada, Australia and Britain have investor-visa programs similar to the EB-5. Portugal and Ireland, hard hit by the Eurozone debt crisis, offer residency papers for big property purchases. And Spain, suffering from a glut of unsold homes, is considering giving visas for house purchases of as little as $210,000.

"The underbelly is that once people started to see growth in this program, we started to see a lot more fraud," said Muzaffar Chishti, a director at the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan think tank based in Washington.
While EB-5 has become popular, the article reports, the program suffers when job creation is not met or projects are misrepresented, notably a proposed convention center and hotel project near the O'Hare airport in Chicago. The LA Times reported:
Officials from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agency, which had greenlighted Sethi's EB-5 regional center, would not discuss the case because it is pending. More generally, they said their oversight focuses on ensuring that EB-5 projects truly create jobs.
It is not the agency's role to evaluate the effectiveness of a regional center or make any assurances about the quality of the investment opportunities they offer, spokesman Christopher Bentley said.
(Emphasis added)

I don't think they focus on ensuring that EB-5 projects truly create jobs. I think they focus on ensuring that applicants have appropriate documents from economists projecting such jobs.

Another Forest City EB-5 role

Forest City Enterprises, the parent of Forest City Ratner, has been using EB-5 financing elsewhere. From City of Dallas Regional Center-Funded Projects Named Finalists in Dallas Business Journal’s “Best Real Estate Deals”:
Three projects financed by the City of Dallas Regional Center (CDRC), a public-private partnership between the City of Dallas and Civitas EB-5 Funds, have been named finalists in the Dallas Business Journal’s Best Real Estate Deals awards...

“Our practice is to invest in institutional-quality projects with top-tier sponsors to bring new jobs and economic growth to Dallas,” said Daniel J. Healy, CEO of Civitas Capital Group. “We are excited about these projects, and we congratulate Forest City Enterprises, Matthews Southwest, and Trammel Crow Residential on being named finalists.”

The Forest City-Cityplace West Village development began construction in 2013. Located in the heart of Uptown, the twenty-story residential tower also features a four-story wood framed building and will bring a new urban living experience to Dallas, complete with retail and restaurants.
According to the news release:
The City of Dallas Regional Center is the official EB-5 regional center of the City of Dallas. In a unique public-private partnership, the City collaborates with Civitas Capital Group to provide the highest quality EB-5 investment opportunities to investors around the world. The CDRC takes full advantage of the City of Dallas’ pro-business culture, steady growth and job creation, all of which have made the City and the surrounding region a magnet for corporate headquarters, business expansion and foreign trade.

A resonant scandal, from Chicago

The big scandal in the EB-5 world involves a Chicago project. According to EB5Info, How the ACCC Scandal has Disturbed the EB-5 Market in China:
On February 6, 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged the EB-5 project A Chicago Convention Center (ACCC) and its principal Anshoo R. Sethi with securities fraud. The project was marketed primarily in China, with great pomp and fanfare. It offered 499 limited membership interests to EB-5 investors and managed to sell more than $145 million in securities, unfortunately under misleading pretenses. There was $11 million in administrative fees collected from more than 250 investors. Despite a promise to refund this fee should the case collapse, more than 90 percent of the administrative fees have already been dissipated. Fortunately for the investors, the actual investment money was kept in escrow and thereby saved. However, as this event is unprecedented in EB-5 history and the first time an EB-5 transaction of this size has been put on the radar of the SEC. The ACCC case has had profound impacts in EB-5 marketing trends in China.
...The negative publicity surrounding ACCC certainly has contributed to pushing potential investors into the arms of the European competition. In the last month alone, we are aware of at least 20 confirmed investors, who had signed up for US EB-5 projects, withdraw, preferring to invest in Portugal instead. Based on our constant interaction with the Chinese investors, brokers and marketing consultants, issues such as the prolonged processing times (investors are tired of waiting for as long as 18 months to obtain a I-526 approval), the greater investment risks, unpredictability in policy making, not to forget the massive amount of negative publicity in China, following the ACCC debacle, have all contributed to this detachment. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forest City acknowledges unspecified delays in Pacific Park, cites $300 million "impairment" in project value; what about affordable housing pledge?

Updated Monday Nov. 7 am: Note follow-up coverage of stock price drop and investor conference call and pending questions.

Pacific Park Brooklyn is seriously delayed, Forest City Realty Trust said yesterday in a news release, which further acknowledged that the project has caused a $300 million impairment, or write-down of the asset, as the expected revenues no longer exceed the carrying cost.

The Cleveland-based developer, parent of Brooklyn-based Forest City Ratner, which is a 30% investor in Pacific Park along with 70% partner/overseer Greenland USA, blamed the "significant impairment" on an oversupply of market-rate apartments, the uncertain fate of the 421-a tax break, and a continued increase in construction costs.

While the delay essentially confirms the obvious, given that two major buildings have not launched despite plans to do so, it raises significant questions about the future of the project, including:
if market-rate construction is delayed, will the affordable h…

Revising official figures, new report reveals Nets averaged just 11,622 home fans last season, Islanders drew 11,200 (and have option to leave in 2018)

The Brooklyn Nets drew an average of only 11,622 fans per home game in their most recent (and lousy) season, more than 23% below the announced official attendance figure, and little more than 65% of the Barclays Center's capacity.

The New York Islanders also drew some 19.4% below announced attendance, or 11,200 fans per home game.

The surprising numbers were disclosed in a consultant's report attached to the Preliminary Official Statement for the refinancing of some $462 million in tax-exempt bonds for the Barclays Center (plus another $20 million in taxable bonds). The refinancing should lower costs to Mikhail Prokhorov, owner of the arena operating company, by and average of $3.4 million a year through 2044 in paying off arena construction.

According to official figures, the Brooklyn Nets attendance averaged 17,187 in the debut season, 2012-13, 17,251 in 2013-14, 17,037 in 2014-15, and 15,125 in the most recent season, 2015-16. For hoops, the arena holds 17,732.

But official…

Is Barclays Center dumping the Islanders, or are they renegotiating? Evidence varies (bond doc, cash receipts); NHL attendance biggest variable

The Internet has been abuzz since Bloomberg's Scott Soshnick reported 1/30/17, using an overly conclusory headline, that Brooklyn’s Barclays Center Is Dumping the Islanders.

That would end an unusual arrangement in which the arena agrees to pay the team a fixed sum (minus certain expenses), in exchange for keeping tickets, suite, and sponsorship revenue.

The arena would earn more without the hockey team, according to Bloomberg, which cited “a financial projection shared with potential investors showed the Islanders won’t contribute any revenue after the 2018-19 season--a clear signal that the team won’t play there, the people said."

That "signal," however, is hardly definitive, as are the media leaks about a prospective new arena in Queens, as shown in the screenshot below from Newsday. Both sides are surely pushing for advantage, if not bluffing.

Consider: the arena and the Islanders can't even formally begin their opt-out talks until after this season. The disc…

Skanska says it "expected to assemble a properly designed modular building, not engage in an iterative R&D experiment"

On 12/10/16, I noted that FastCo.Design's Prefab's Moment of Reckoning article dialed back the gush on the 461 Dean modular tower compared to the publication's previous coverage.

Still, I noted that the article relied on developer Forest City Ratner and architect SHoP to put the best possible spin on what was clearly a failure. From the article: At the project's outset, it took the factory (managed by Skanska at the time) two to three weeks to build a module. By the end, under FCRC's management, the builders cut that down to six days. "The project took a little longer than expected and cost a little bit more than expected because we started the project with the wrong contractor," [Forest City's Adam] Greene says.Skanska jabs back
Well, Forest City's estranged partner Skanska later weighed in--not sure whether they weren't asked or just missed a deadline--and their article was updated 12/13/16. Here's Skanska's statement, which shows th…

Not just logistics: bypassing Brooklyn for DNC 2016 also saved on optics (role of Russian oligarch, Shanghai government)

Surely the logistical challenges of holding a national presidential nominating convention in Brooklyn were the main (and stated) reasons for the Democratic National Committee's choice of Philadelphia.

And, as I wrote in NY Slant, the huge security cordon in Philadelphia would have been impossible in Brooklyn.

But consider also the optics. As I wrote in my 1/21/15 op-ed in the Times arguing that the choice of Brooklyn was a bad idea:
The arena also raises ethically sticky questions for the Democrats. While the Barclays Center is owned primarily by Forest City Ratner, 45 percent of it is owned by the Russian billionaire Mikhail D. Prokhorov (who also owns 80 percent of the Brooklyn Nets). Mr. Prokhorov has a necessarily cordial relationship with Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — though he has been critical of Mr. Putin in the past, last year, at the Russian president’s request, he tried to transfer ownership of the Nets to one of his Moscow-based companies. An oligarch-owned a…

Former ESDC CEO Lago returns to NYC to head City Planning Commission

Carl Weisbrod, Mayor Bill de Blasio's City Planning Commission Chairman and Director of the Department of City Planning, is resigning,

And he's being replaced by Marisa Lago, currently a federal official, but who Atlantic Yards-ologists remember as the short-term Empire State Development Corporation CEO who, in an impolitic but candid 2009 statement, acknowledged that the project would take "decades."

Still, Lago not long after that played the good soldier at a May 2009 Senate oversight hearing, justifying changes in the project but claiming the public benefits remained the same.

By returning to City Planning, Lago will join former ESDC General Counsel Anita Laremont, who after retiring from the state (and taking a pension) got the job with the city.

Back at planning

Lago, a lawyer, in 1983 began work as an aide to City Planning Chairman Herb Sturz, and later served as the General Counsel to the president of the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Weisbrod himself.