500万澳元重大投资者签证项目改革得到了各种不同的反应。有不少风险投资集团表示赞同，但同时大多数的基金经理和移民机构都不以为意。政府对移民澳洲的新要求是500万澳元投资中至少要有50万澳元是合法的风险投资，或投资于初创企业、小型私人公司的私募股权发展基金。

“虽然对于改革有些负面的反应，但是我们支持政府为经济吸引资本和人才的目标，”莫里斯澳洲签证基金（Moelis Australia Visa Fund）首席执行官安德鲁·马丁（Andrew Martin）说。“定数为50万澳元，这个平衡是很合理的。这或许会在短期内影响一些潜在的SIV申请人，但是那些相信澳洲稳定监管环境的投资人依然存在。”

过往重大投资者签证的要求是500万澳元符合资格的投资，限制直接投资于房地产。7月1日起，投资人需投资于风险投资基金，并且要求有150万澳元投资于受管理基金，即澳大利亚证券交易所上市的新兴企业。

“一段时间以来，澳大利亚私募股权与创业投资协会提倡SIV项目的改革，以更好地帮助资金从境外高资产人士流通到推动我们国家创新潜力的经济部分，”首席执行官亚西尔·埃尔（Yasser El-Ansary）说。

反对改革的人担心，那些寻找安全的投资天堂的富裕投资者，例如中国移民，会因强制投资高风险资产而退出。“总体来看，中国投资人目前已经成为SIV投资者的主体，他们更倾向于安全的资产类别，而风险投资可能会是一个棘手的问题，”另一个SIV基金Sumo董事会主席苏伦·帕瑟（Suren Pather）说。

置业移民集团澳信集团的主管马克·马高斯（Mark Morcos）担心，这些新的改革或许会导致“项目叫停”。“根据既定规则，移民顾问建议投资者回避SIV项目，并转向更可行的替代方案，例如商务签证或是投资类签证，” 马高斯说。“对于加拿大和美国类似签证项目的关心可能会增加，因为它们更实惠。”

马高斯又说，中国投资人占SIV申请者的91%，他们最倾向于投资债券和住宅物业，因为他们对于这些更熟悉。“取消项目的资本要求，并且允许客户通过他们选择的资产类型来平衡剩余的投资组合，这或许可以保证SIV仍然是外国人可选的澳洲投资项目。”

Comasters律师事务所的杰弗里·李（Jeffrey Lee）并不同意这一说法，他认为50万澳元并不会成为一个问题。“即使是100万澳元仍然不成问题。确实，他们喜欢持有资金不要消失，但同时他们也明白像风险投资这种伴随着越高的风险就会有越高的回报，”他说。

亚洲商业研究组基点主任大卫·钦（David Chin）指出，那些反对风险投资的人忽略了一个关键点：中国人自身也在转向风险投资。“最近几周，中国政府其实也正在加快计划发展自己的风险投资行业。他们正试图成为亚洲的硅谷。”

“阿里巴巴自身在进行风险投资，并且在创立自己的风投基金。如果澳洲可以领略这种观念思想，那么政策改革将会产生更广泛的影响。”

点击下一页查看英文原文

本文系居外网度独家稿件，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。

关注居外网官方微信:居外资讯（juwai-com），每日阅读精选海外文章。

Significant Investor Visa changes will not scare off rich migrant

Changes to the $5 million Significant Investor Visa program were met with mixed reactions on Friday.

There were cheers from venture capital groups, while most fund managers and migration agents were unperturbed by the government's new requirement for migrants bringing $5 million into Australia to invest at least $500,000 in eligible Australian venture capital, or growth private equity funds investing in start-up and small private companies.

"There has been negative self-interest reactions to the changes, but we support the objectives of the government to get capital into the economy and attract talent," Moelis Australia Visa Fund chief executive Andrew Martin said.

"At $500,000, the balance is sensible. It might impact some prospective SIV applicants in the short term but there will be those who will still apply because they trust the stable regulatory environment of Australia."

Migrants who qualify for the significant investor visa are currently required to invest $5 million into complying investments with a restriction on investment in direct property. On July 1, they have to invest in venture capital funds and be required to deposit $1.5 million in managed funds, which invest in emerging companies listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.

"For some time, the Australian Private Equity & Venture Capital Association has advocated for these changes to the SIV program in order to help better align the flow of capital from high net worth individuals offshore into those parts of our economy that can really drive our nation's innovative potential," chief executive Yasser El-Ansary said.

Those who opposed the changes were concerned that wealthy investors looking for safe havens to invest their money, such as migrants from China, would be turned off by the mandatory investment in riskier assets.

"Typically, Chinese investors, who have formed the majority of SIV investors so far, prefer safer asset classes, and VC investment may be an issue," said Suren Pather, director of another SIV fund, Sumo.

The director of property and migration group Ausin Group, Mark Morcos, feared the changes have the potential to "shut the program down".

"Under the proposed rules Ausin's immigration consultants expect investors to shun the SIV program and start looking for more viable alternatives, such as business visas or the Investor Stream Visa," he said.

"Interest in Canada and the USA's comparable visa programs could increase as they are more affordable."

Mr Morcos said Chinese, who make up 91 per cent of the SIV applications, were mostly comfortable with bonds and residential property because they understand them.

"Eliminating the small cap requirement and allowing clients to balance their remaining portfolio with assets of their choice would ensure SIVs remain a viable foreign investment alternative in this country."

Jeffrey Lee of Comasters legal firm disagreed, saying $500,000 would not be an issue.

"$1 million is still OK. True, they like to keep their money so it won't disappear, but they also understand that with high risks such as VCs come high returns," he said.
The director of Asian business research group Basis Point, David Chin, pointed out that those who oppose VC investments have missed a critical point: Chinese themselves are veering towards VCs.

"In recent weeks, the Chinese government had in fact escalated plans to develop their VC industry. They are trying to become the Silicon Valley of Asia.

"Alibaba themselves are investing in VCs and creating their own VC funds. If Australia can tap into that mindset, there are wider repercussions from this policy change."