Senator Casey asks SEC about protection for American investors
American investors face “significant risks” from Chinese Internet companies that use Cayman Island partners to trade on U.S. stock markets, Sen. Bob Casey Jr. said on Thursday.
Casey, D-Scranton, sent a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission this week asking for details on what the agency is doing to protect Americans from companies using these investment structures. Typically, Chinese companies in protected industries raise money from American investors through offshore intermediaries.
“They get the benefit of our markets, and they get the benefit of the dynamism of our economy,” Casey told the Tribune-Review. “The least that we should do is hold them to the highest possible standard.”
Casey's inquiry follows an investigation by the Trib showing how Americans who invest in some Chinese Internet companies help make it easier for hackers and other criminals to hide their online communications from the FBI.
Chinese law prohibits foreigners from investing directly in Internet companies. So to raise money from American investors, mainland firms — called variable interest entities, or VIEs — form offshore companies in the Cayman Islands to trade on U.S. stock markets.
While the offshore company has contracts with the Chinese operator, it typically has few direct assets. Echoing other experts, Casey warned that these contracts might not be enforceable in Chinese courts.
Casey specifically cited concerns about a proposed initial public offering, or IPO, by Chinese online company Alibaba. Investment analysts have said the Chinese competitor to eBay could have the largest-ever offering in the United States if it goes public later this summer.
An Alibaba spokeswoman declined to comment, citing restrictions caused by the proposed IPO.
The company warns investors in its prospectus that its corporate structure has risks: “These contractual arrangements may not be as effective as direct ownership.”
If a contract dispute comes up, the company says, the offshore partner can pursue the case in court “subject to uncertainties in the (Chinese) legal system.”
Investing in Alibaba is risky, but all investments have some risk, Matthew Turlip, a Wall Street analyst with PrivCo in New York, told the Trib on Thursday.
With VIEs, investors are at the mercy of the mainland company's CEO and the Chinese government, Turlip said. But in the case of Alibaba, at least, the top executive and government have strong incentives to make the relationship work, he said.
“These are things that the American public should be aware of whenever they decide to invest or not invest in Alibaba,” Turlip said. “That said, when you weigh the risks of investing, there is a large amount of upside in an investment in Alibaba.”
The Trib's investigation found that Chinese military officials accused of computer hacking have used free email services provided by companies that receive money from American investors. During investigations of criminal activity, the FBI and other American law enforcement authorities cannot access communications that take place on these offshore Internet services.
Allegations of Chinese military hacking add to the country's history of being a “bad actor,” Casey said.
“It's particularly pernicious,” he said, “because you have the fusion, or the combination, of the Chinese military and Chinese corporate actors coming together to hack into some of the leading companies not only in Pennsylvania but in the world.”
Andrew Conte is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-320-7835 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Add Andrew Conte to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Trib 30 index of stocks gains 0.7% in May
- Delay sought in enforcing regulation to make mortgages easier to understand
- GMC Sierra is part workhorse, part command center
- Fuel and potential fires for U.S. economy ahead
- Vehicle won’t run if sensor is on the fritz
- West Coast port slowdown a $100M blow to apple growers
- Female CEOs’ pay outpaces male colleagues
- Looking to save fuel? Check online
- Honda thinks outside box
- GDP data, consumer sentiment drop slash stocks
- Chevron settles fatal shale well fire lawsuit, state claims for nearly $6M