EB-5涨价的议题，继续在发酵，今天来看看投资移民律师对于涨价方案的分析。Mona Shah律师的这篇文章，给我们很多思考，相信这些声音也都会通过各种途径传到国会的政策制定者这里，毕竟无论怎样从经济学的角度分析，投资金额的上升不必然能带来就业创造和经济增长的成比例上升，更何况EB-5是要求“at risk”的。本文由业内朋友Dora义务翻译，特此感谢。

EB5最低50万美金投资额涨价是不可避免的吗？

今年秋天的EB5区域中心计划在国会进行延期已近在眼前，大家都在关注此计划是否会增加合格的投资金额的可能性。延期本身是毫无疑问的，美国国会多次将区域中心计划延期，并预计将再次这样做，同时可能使其作为整体EB5投资计划的一部分而永久化。然而，国会很可能将增加目前的最低投资50万美元或完全取消TEA区域，从而使所有EB5项目的投资金额变为100万美元。

取消在区域中心或TEA项目的50万美元投资，存在一系列的未知数。所需的投资增加的后果是什么呢？更少的投资者？更多的资金注入美国？更少的就业？被开发商滥用?

本文综述EB-5计划的发展，并讨论提高最低投资额的必然性及其影响。

EB-5计划的发展及国会立法意图

在EB5计划设立的1990年，国会将所需的资本投资金额设置为100万美元。计划设立的目的是创造就业机会和刺激经济。

目标就业区（TEA）的投资

对于位于目标就业区（TEA）的企业，国会确实创造了除100万美元投资之外的一种选择，TEA，被定义为乡村地区或区域失业率至少为全国平均失业率水平的150%的区域。TEA项目的投资金额是50万美元。国会增加此特例，目的在于鼓励投资者在最需要经济刺激的地区创造就业机会。

所以，就会期望TEA位于，农村地区和高失业率区域。然而，由于人口普查区，经常被操控用来符合TEA认定，所以，今天许多大型EB-5区域中心的项目，位于富裕的城市地区如曼哈顿、洛杉矶、迈阿密等。

虽然，操纵人口普查区可能被认为是不恰当的或玩弄选区概念，但是，EB-5项目的终极目标和目的是创造就业机会，进而刺激经济。如果一个项目坐落在一个人口高度密集的区域，而不是建立在人口密度低的农村地区，那么更多的人将受到影响，它更有可能刺激经济。此外，同一个项目，如果位于在商业上可行的主要城市，将更有可能吸引更多的外国投资者，因为其资本回报的可能性更大。

区域中心投资

在2005年，区域中心计划刚刚出现的时候，区域中心将目光投向我们成功的加拿大邻居，加拿大项目只需要40万美元的投资，曾从亚太吸引了相当大的财富。因此，为了让这些早期区域中心能够吸引到亚太地区的投资者，EB-5区域中心假话的投资金额必须是有竞争力的，所以确定在50万美元。

在纽约的第一个区域中心是NYCRC，成立于2007年；然而，NYCRC最初的项目，位于布鲁克林安全、无争议的TEA区域。第一个散发着无尽魅力，吸引了广泛注意的曼哈顿中心项目是时代广场酒店项目，由弗里德曼兄弟开发。这个项目募集了150个EB-5投资者，绝大多数来自中国。投资者都感到惊讶，这样一个位于纽约时代广场的迷人的项目，能位于一个TEA区域。

这个项目是一个前兆。在过去的一年中，曼哈顿声称拥有最多的50万美元的投资者。

50万美元投资的现状

如今，大约90%的EB- 5项目的投资是处于50万美元的水平。当前的EB-5投资计划已经发展成为一个成熟的产业，围绕着50万美元投资，给美国带来数十亿美元。

投资金额设定在50万美元是在25年前，然而，根据消费者价格指数（CPI），这一数额如今的购买力已经下降到只有275235美元。与EB-5区域中心项目有关的一个不可避免的问题是，无论国会是否增加计划的投资金额，排除50万美元的投资，应该是不可避免的。

投资增加对市场的影响

开发商已经表示，他们欢迎提高最低投资金额或完全消除它。这样将降低融资工作的繁重度，也会避免合资格投资人问题（accredited investor，EB5Sir注：这是指SEC就合格基金购买人的规定术语）。尽管如此，EB-5计划的核心目标是创造就业机会，引人注目的问题是如何创造就业机会，以及经济会受到怎样的影响。

投资金额的增加意味着更少的工作

目前，总共100万美元投资于一个位于TEA区域的EB-5项目，代表着2个投资者的投资份额，进而需要创造出20个工作。如果最低50万美元投资金额被取消，同样的100万美元投资将只需代表1个投资者，而不是2投资者的投资，这样，只需要创造出10个工作。

因此，如果一个项目需要5000万美元的资金，这将需要100名投资者创造1000个就业岗位。如果取消50万美元的最低门槛，那么募集相同的金额，只需要50名投资者，这导致只需要创造500个就业岗位。募集相同的金额，需要创造的就业机会相对更少，这样将降低开发商的成本。增加投资金额将有利于项目方。一些人认为这将导致这个项目的阴暗面：增加的资本，可能只是埋没到软成本中，再也找不到了!

投资金额的增加意味着减少或取消目标区域

大部分的EB-5从业人员、代理商、经纪人和律师一直持相对统一的意见，在他们看来，通过提高最低投资金额，许多投资者将会选择远离EB-5。“风险”因素无疑将使美国项目对于更高的投资金额缺乏吸引力，而50万美元的投资金额，将鼓励更多的投资者进行投资。

这些50万美元投资者中的大多数人，通过购买房地产、雇用专业人员、为其全球收入纳税、为教育买单、投资到股票市场，以及扩大在美国的海外业务向美国注入新资本。举例来说，在2010年，新移民的企业主的净营业收入总额为1,212亿美元，占国家净营业收入的15%。此外，一旦初始投资的钱得到返回，有更大的可能性，将再次投资在美国。

投资金额的增加会严重影响美国的外国学生人数

大多数的EB-5投资者是外国学生和成功人士。报告显示，美国学院和大学F-1签证的外国学生数量大幅增长，从2001年的110,000人增加到2012年的524,000人。从2008年到2012年，这些学生贡献了大约218亿美元的学费和128亿美元的其他支出。

送本国公民到美国学习的最多的3个国家分别是中国、韩国和印度。

此外，由于获得美国永久居留权的其他途径相当有限，EB-5项目已成为越来越受欢迎的选择。父母的资金支持和资金馈赠，能使在美国留学的孩子进行EB-5投资。

来自外国学生的经济效益与这些学生的家长是否能够通过50万美元的投资参与EB-5程序有着千丝万缕的联系。马雪莉女士（Xueli Ma），一直在与中国投资者紧密合作，她表示：“如果投资金额从50万美元增加到100瓦按美元，我将失去一半的投资者。他们中很多都是勤劳的小企业主，为孩子的教育和未来而进行投资。

现有的移民投资计划替代品

2010年，当加拿大联邦投资移民项目（IIP）将投资最低金额增加了一倍，从原来的40万美元增加到80万美元时，许多移民涌向现成的替代方案——EB-5计划。但是目前，如果EB-5计划投资金额增加，可以说，没有现成的替代方案。

香港和加拿大的投资移民项目都关门。另一个替代方案，澳大利亚、新加坡、新西兰和英国各有更高的投资金额要求。这一事实本身，可能会鼓励立法者消除或增加50万美元投资金额。

然而，需要注意的更重要的事情是，加拿大计划“与其他国家竞争高净值移民；然而，加拿大IIP所需的投资与其他国际项目相比是非常低的。”此外，“除了花费更少，加拿大IIP提供了优于其他国家包括美国…的显著的激励措施”。并且与EB-5项目要求投资处于“风险”不同，加拿大项目保证投资本金的回报。

结论

提高或完全取消EB-5计划，最低50万美元的投资金额，保留100万美元的EB-5投资计划，似乎不可避免的。虽然，这个数字确实使美国投资移民所需的资本投资更与其他国家的标准看齐，但是，它没有考虑到EB-5项目风险元素带来的劣势，这可能会使EB-5项目与其国际竞争对手相比，缺乏吸引力。

EB-5投资移民只占总体投资移民的1%，但这是最有可能刺激经济的类别。国会不应限制我们通过EB-5计划可以吸引到的潜在投资者的数量，这本质上为美国企业提供廉价的资金来源。每年，超过200亿美元的资金注入，数以千计的工作岗位被创造出来，只要国会不扼杀它的成长，EB-5项目将继续茁壮发展。

更少EB-5投资者对经济增长造成不利的多米诺效应表明：EB-5类别的外国投资者数量的减少并不符合美国的最佳利益。

原文作者：Mona Shah律师，原文来源：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.