Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Will the changes to the investor visa programme effectively mark it’s end?
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2958
- 4 Comments
Will the changes to the investor visa programme effectively mark it’s end?
Some investment analysts are saying that the changes to the SIV program which are set to be announced today could have a deterrent effect on the program with investors likely to shop elsewhere for their visa.
Details of the revamped Significant Investor Visa program are set to be released today, according to a report in The Australian. Under the changes, investors will be expected to invest about half of their funds in high-risk investments.
It is expected that at least $2.5 million of the $5million will have to go into investments in start-up and emerging companies, notes the report, as the new program wants to ‘divert the billions of dollars raised from the scheme away from ultra-safe investments such as government bonds and commercial property to more risky areas such as the start-up sector, which is cash-starved.”
“Foreign investors will need to invest at least half a million dollars, or 10 per cent of their total investment, in eligible Australian venture capital or growth private equity funds. Investors also need to set aside at least $1.5m for investing in ASX-listed small companies.”
The report states that there has been push-back from the property sector and some fund managers are expected to lose business as a result of the new change.
Tana Xuren, managing director of Lodestone Capital, a Melbourne-based financial advisory firm, told The Australian that the changes were likely to have a “deterrent effect” on her Chinese clients, who made up more than 90 per cent of all SIV applicants.
“Many SIV clients are in their 50s. They have made their money from manufacturing and real estate; they are risk-averse. For some of them, putting money into venture capital is the same as paying fees to the Australian government,” she said, “They don’t expect to get their money back.”
Comments
-
Friday, 15 May 2015Hi Jerry,
KILL THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG
The article is now online in 'The Australian', see: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/revamped-siv-visa-scheme-channels-25m-into-start-ups/story-e6frg8zx-1227355579697 -
Friday, 15 May 2015
I just read the Significant Investor Visa (SIV) and Premium Investor Visa (PIV) Programmes as released. These are frameworks. Note that agricultural land development is not a real estate investment. Do these frameworks hurt the investments? Probably not because most substantial investors opt for the $15 million threshold. The PIV will be by government invitation only, nominees selected by Austrade and only open to a few "highly talented" entrepreneurs. That last bit is unnecessary to have been put in the regulations. You don't pick up $15 million by honest work in a foundry. I would expect a heavy demand for the entry visas. What I would like to see is the Department opening its eyes beyond China.
-
Friday, 15 May 2015
For that amount of money one could live in luxury for the rest of one's life In Malaysia (Malaysia My Second Home program). Cheap cost of living, excellent medical facilities, wonderful climate, relatively cheap condos, cheap domestic help, cheap international airfares, excellent choice of cuisines (Malay, Chinese, Indian, western), most people speak English. And why do Australian business move offshore? If they can't make a go of it, can a non-native speaker succeed? Safer than Sydney. No wonder Aussies are flocking to Penang, KL etc.
Immigration blog
Tana Xuren may be correct in part of her analysis, but I believe that there will be more visa requests over the next three years, not less.
Australia is a very cheap buy. The dollar is depressed and may go lower; Australia needs the investment; and with the exception of a few yahoos, this is a Chinese-friendly country. Anyone looking at land development over the vast expanses of the country is struck by the potential value of agricultural development. "Risk" is a relative term. Investing A$5 million or more in syndicates and partnerships established for development is not really that much money. Perhaps if the investor has only A$6 million, it might be. But anyone who invested 5/6 of his or her dollars in a foreign gamble probably would not actually have the kind of money or be the investor that the government needs.
Also, China is not the only country in the world that has enormous wealth in "private" hands. Our current refusal to consider seriously Russian, Iranian and Central Asian investment reminds me of the way the Department used to consider mainland Chinese businessmen. Their applications were always scrutinized by petty officials looking for drug or bribe or public theft money. We have overcome that prejudice. Perhaps we can start to look with less of a jaundiced eye at the other countries.