Skip to main content

Lawyer: because "the heart" of EB-5 is job creation, it's fine for foreign (government) developers to trade U.S. green cards for cheap capital

I'm catching up on a lot of news related to the EB-5 program, which has helped the developers of Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park raise $477 million in cheap capital, with another $100 million to go. Perhaps the clearest summary of the lure and sketchiness of the program came in a February 2012 quote from an EB-5 fundraiser to The Daily:“It’s just a way of being able to get free money, basically, to build all sorts of projects.”

Does it make a difference if American entrepreneurs seeking cheap capital from immigrant investors (who want green cards) take on foreign partners, or even foreign-government owned partners?

I've suggested that, in the case of the Greenland Group and Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park, the situation sounds like something out of The Onion: the Chinese government--Greenland is majority owned by the government of Shanghai--would profit by marketing a precious national asset (U.S. green cards) to Chinese immigrants.

The purported justification is job creation, but that's very fuzzy.

The EB-5 industry, unsurprisingly, disagrees. EB-5 attorney Victor Shum on 1/15/15 wrote Welcome International Developers to the EB-5 Project Marketplace for EB5 INVESTORS MAGAZINE:
Over the past few years, international developers have entered the United States market and launched development projects that incorporate EB-5 funding as part of the project's capital stack. This past February, Shanghai-based Greenland Group broke ground on its mixed-use Metropolis project in downtown Los Angeles. And in Oakland, the Brooklyn Basin Project is a more recently announced joint venture between Signature Development Group of Oakland and Zarsion Holdings Group Co. Ltd of Beijing, China—both with EB-5 offerings.
Greenland, of course, is also using EB-5 for Atlantic Yards/Pacific Park along with Forest City Ratner, raising $249 million and now in the process of raising $100 million. (Forest City raised the first $228 million before its partnership with Greenland emerged.

A new boost?

Writes Shum:
As a result of this beneficial arrangement, many projects that have languished for years due to lack of funding are suddenly greenlighted for development. Communities that have long-suffered from a deficiency in domestic investment have the opportunity to become revitalized with foreign investor funds—only a small portion of which may expressly be from EB-5 investors. Judging by the number of trade missions made to China by local and state leaders seeking foreign direct investment for their communities, our elected officials would appear to agree.
He portrays it as a win-win, with the Chinese development groups "achieving portfolio diversification in the United States," while U.S.-based developers not only "gain access to cheaper capital" but also--as I've noted--gain "a strong local partner to market EB-5 investments in China."

It's more than that. It's enhancing developer profits, by substituting cheap capital for existing capital, substituting for bridge financing.

No formal bar

For investors, Shum notes, there's little difference between this and other EB-5 projects, since the same requirements and paperwork apply.

Shum notes that the federal agency overseeing the program, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) "neither expressly nor implicitly precludes a foreign-owned company from participating in the EB-5 program, nor should they."

His rationale is that the "the heart of the EB-5 program is job creation in America for American workers." Based on that, the more players, the better. His conclusion:
Far from being a cause of concern, international developers investing money and developing U.S.-based projects is a vote of confidence in the United States. As Senator Patrick Leahy noted, "[a]t a time when so much American investment is incentivized off shore, isn’t it nice to see a government program [EB-5] that brings foreign investment onshore?"
Let me suggest another perspective. The heart of the EB-5 program is not job creation. The heart is selling visas cheap, providing profits for the developer/entrepreneur, and all the middlemen involved.

Yes, the Atlantic Yards EB-5 projects include public funding, and that is part of the sum used by an economist to magically calculate job creation.

If the heart actually were job creation, then there'd be a far more stringent way of measuring it, and--for example--immigrant investors wouldn't gain job-creation credit based on the entire pot of money, just their contribution. And maybe the government would require the investment be in government bonds, rather than allow a Rube Goldberg scheme in which the profits go to clever developers.

Leahy, a champion of EB-5, has gotten regular campaign contributions from the big EB-5 developer in Vermont.

Greenland on EB-5

As I wrote last November,  Crain's New York Business published an unsurprisingly gentle interview with I-Fei Chang, who leads Greenland USA, the U.S. arm of Greenland Holdings.

The closing passage:
What are your thoughts on the EB-5 program, which offers a U.S. visa to overseas investors?I think it's now become almost a conventional way [to raise capital] for large-scale developers in America. They utilize EB-5 because it is quick money, and it improves the employment rate. For the L.A. project and also Pacific Park, we used that method. EB-5 investors, especially some of the 2 million customers who already buy from us in China, know our brand. So they are very confident we will deliver.
As I wrote, it has become almost conventional because it's such a great deal. EB-5, however, does not "improve the employment rate." To quote Fortune:
A December 2013 study by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general found that the government “cannot demonstrate that the program is improving the U.S. economy and creating jobs for U.S. citizens.” A February 2014 paper by the Brookings-Rockefeller Project on State and Metropolitan Innovation concluded that “knowledge of the program’s true economic impact is elusive at best.”
There are two reasons for that. First, the government is exceedingly generous in its employment tally. It gives EB-5 investors credit for all the jobs theoretically spawned by a project even when EB-5 money represents only a sliver of its financing. Second, for many mainstream ventures, EB-5 money isn’t really creating jobs—it’s merely saving developers money for projects that would be financed anyway.
But Chang did affirm that a Chinese company has an edge in marketing an EB-5 project to Chinese investors.

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.