New Capital Requirements for Banks Postponed

By King & Wood's Finance Group

The China Banking Regulatory Commission (the "CBRC") issued Guiding Opinions of the China Banking Regulatory Commission on the Implementation of the New Regulatory Standards by the Chinese Banking Industry (Yin Jian Fa [2011] No. 44) (the "Guiding Opinion") on April 27, 2011, which clearly creates new rules for liquidity and capital held by banks in accordance with the "Basel Accord III" ("Basel III"), and on the basis of comprehensively assessing the effectiveness of the current prudent regulatory system, to improve the capital adequacy ratio, leverage ratio, liquidity, loan loss reserve and other regulatory standards. The four new regulatory standards for capital listed above will be implemented on January 1, 2012.

 

According to the Guiding Opinion, the CBRC continuously published Administrative Measures for Leverage Ratio of Commercial Banks (June 1), Administrative Measures for Loan Loss Provisions of Commercial Banks (July 27), then Administrative Measures on Commercial Banking Capital (Draft for comments) (August 12) and Administrative Measures on Commercial Banking Liquidity Risk (tentative) (Draft for comments) (October 12), to solicit public opinions. The four above administrative measures all provide for implementation from January 1, 2012.


The new regulatory standards are stricter than Basel III with respect to key regulatory indicators. The CBRC requires the tier 1 capital adequacy ratio to be not less than 5%, higher than Basel III's requirement of 4.5%, which is the international standard. The CBRC requires commercial banking leverage ratios to be not less than 4%, higher than the 3% that is the international standard. With respect to requirements for loan loss reserves, the CBRC requires a new indicator of the "loan provision ratio" (the ratio of loan loss reserves to outstanding loans shall not be less than 2.5%), which places a great deal of pressure on many small and medium-sized banks.


According to the International Finance News this week, among the above four new regulatory standards, the CBRC may postpone implementation of the capital adequacy ratio, loan loss reserve and liquidity indicators, while the leverage ratio will be still implemented as planned. News of the decision was welcomed by the banking industry. Although this action can not be regarded as loosening the restrictions of regulatory policy, it provides adequate preparation for regulatory authorities, commercial banks and capital markets, which helps the successful implementation and smooth transition of the new regulatory policies. As to the extent of influence on the credit supply capacity of the banking system as well as on the macro economy, only time will tell.  (Written by Su Meng)

商业银行资本监管新规暂缓实施

作者:金杜律师事务所融资


中国银行业监督委员会(“银监会”)于2011年4月27日发布了《中国银监会关于中国银行业实施新监管标准的指导意见》(银监发[2011]44号)(“《指导意见》”),明确将根据《第三版巴塞尔协议(Basel III)》确定银行资本和流动性监管新制度,在全面评估现行审慎监管制度有效性的基础上,提高资本充足率、杠杆率、流动性、贷款损失准备等监管标准,并提出上述四项新资本监管标准从2012年1月1日开始执行。

 

根据《指导意见》,2011年银监会连续公布了《商业银行杠杆率管理办法》(6月1日)、《商业银行贷款损失准备管理办法》(7月27日),之后又公布了《商业银行资本管理办法(征求意见稿)》(8月12日)和《商业银行流动性风险管理办法(试行)(征求意见稿)》(10月12日),向社会公开征求意见。上述四项管理办法均规定自2012年1月1日起实施。


在关键监管指标上,新监管标准较第三版巴塞尔协议标准更为严格。银监会要求核心一级资本充足率不得低于5%,高于第三版巴塞尔协议规定的4.5%的国际标准;要求商业银行杠杆率不低于4%,高于3%的国际标准;而在贷款损失准备要求上,银监会还提出贷款拨备率(贷款损失准备与各项贷款余额之比不得低于2.5%)这一新指标,更让不少中小银行倍感压力。


据《国际金融报》本周最新消息,上述四项新监管标准中,银监会可能推迟执行资本充足率、贷款损失准备和流动性指标,而杠杆率指标仍按时执行。消息一出,银行业内人士多表示支持,虽然此举无法被视为监管政策的放松,但为监管机构、商业银行和资本市场都提供了更充分的准备时间,有利于新监管政策的顺利实施和平稳过渡。至于新监管制度将在何种程度上对银行体系的信贷供给能力以及宏观经济的运行产生影响,我们将拭目以待。(作者:苏萌)

RMB FDI Goes to Fast Track

by King and Wood's Finance Group

Further to Circular No. 145, on 14 October 2011 PBOC released new rules on RMB FDI, the Measures on Administration of the RMB Settlement in relation to Foreign Direct Investment ("PBOC Rules") to roll out PBOC's detailed management system.  The PBOC Rules cover all the FDI aspects denominated in RMB, including capital injection, payment of purchase price in the acquisition of PRC companies, repatriation of dividends and distribution as well as RMB denominated cross-border loans.  The PBOC Rules adopt similar methodology applied by SAFE to foreign currency FDI but appear to be more friendly.  On the same day, MOFCOM also issued a circular ("MOFCOM Circular") to clarify certain issues in relation to cross-border RMB FDI transactions.
We highlight the following aspects we deem of significance:

A.  Establishment of an FIE and acquisition of PRC companies by using RMB

MOFCOM takes the role as the regulatory authority to approve RMB FDI transactions, including greenfield FIE project, capital increase or acquisition of PRC companies.  The local counterparts are authorized to approve such transactions with the following exceptions which require the preliminary approval by the provincial counterpart of MOFCOM and final blessing of the head office of MOFCOM: (i) the capital contribution is more than RMB 300m; (ii) the transactions involving investment in guarantee companies, finance lease companies, micro-finance companies and auction houses; (iii) the transactions involving investment in foreign-invested holding companies, venture capital or equity investment enterprises; or (iv) the transactions involving investment in iron & steel, electrolytic aluminum, shipbuilding and other policy sensitive sectors.

B.  PBOC's approaches to regulate the RMB FDI transactions

RMB Registration: PBOC requires FIEs (newly-established or PRC companies acquired by foreign investors) to conduct a registration with the local branch of PBOC after the completion of the relevant RMB FDI transaction.

Account Control: PBOC sets out the RMB accounts that foreign investors, FIEs and PRC parties selling stake in their companies to foreign investors should open for different types of transactions.  The account control system is quite similar to that adopted by SAFE.  For example, a foreign investor is free to open a RMB Expense Account (人民币前期费用专用存款账户) to reimburse some expenses before the establishment of an FIE and the balance in such an account can be transferred to the RMB Capital Account (人民币资本金专用存款账户) of the FIE when it is established.  If a foreign investor intends to use its RMB proceeds from distribution (dividends or otherwise) by its existing FIE subsidiaries, the foreign investor may open a RMB Re-investment Account (人民币再投资专用账户) to pool the RMB proceeds.  Considering its nature being a non-resident account, the SAFE's approval for RMB re-investment may not be required anymore.  The PBOC Rules also allow the PRC parties selling stake in their companies to foreign investors to open RMB accounts and receive the purchase price in RMB.  This will help resolve the situation where PRC sellers had to open a foreign currency account to receive the purchase price in foreign currency under SAFE Circular No. 142 if they want to sell their companies to foreign investors.

C.  Usage of RMB Capital

PBOC Rules provide that all RMB proceeds should be used for any legitimate purpose but keep silent on the specifics.  The MOFCOM Circular clarifies that such proceeds may not be used towards investment in securities, financial derivatives or entrustment loans.

D.   Entities will benefit from the new rules

The PBOC Rules and MOFCOM Circular clarify that foreign investment in real estate sector may be denominated in RMB although RMB foreign debt remains unavailable to FIEs in this sector.  We anticipate that this would incentivize the developers to money via issuing CNH bonds.

It is worth noting that foreign-invested partnership enterprises ("FIP") are also allowed to receive RMB capital contribution from foreign investors and in turn use RMB to invest in portfolio companies.  This new scheme to some extent may cool down the appetite of foreign investors to set up RMB funds using the pilot QLFP scheme in Pudong, Shanghai, whose primary objective is to help convert the foreign currency capital injected by foreign limited partnersinto RMB for the purpose of portfolio investment.

E.   RMB-denominated shareholder loan and foreign debt

The PBOC Rules clarify that an FIE can borrow foreign RMB debt from its parent, offshore affiliate and offshore financial institutions so long as it has sufficient foreign debt quota.  PBOC special approval for RMB shareholder loan which is required by PROC Circular No. 145 is no longer necessary.  We understand that MOFCOM will not approve the specific foreign debt transaction and instead it will only state in its approval whether RMB foreign debt can be used to solve the funding issue of the FIE when approving the relevant RMB FDI transactions.  The PBOC Rules do not release the FIE's obligation to follow SAFE’s existing rules to complete the foreign debt registration.

F.    Repatriation

Based on the PBOC Rules and MOFCOM Circular, we tend to view FIEs may pay dividend/liquidation proceeds to its foreign parent in RMB regardless the capital contribution is made in RMB or not.  This may not be applicable to RMB shareholder loan or foreign debt as the flexibilities of such transactions would provide too much room to arbitrage the appreciation of RMB exchange rate.

Contacts
For further information on the matters covered in this newsletter, please contact:

BEIJING OFFICE

Wang Ling
King & Wood
40th Floor Office Tower A, Beijing Fortune Plaza
7 Dongsanhuan Zhonglu
Chaoyang District Beijing 100020
China
Tel: +86 10 5878 5016
Fax: +86 10 5878 5599
Email: wangling@kingandwood.com

SHANGHAI OFFICE

Roy Zhang / Zhong Xin
King & Wood
16-18/F, One ICC, Shanghai ICC,
999 Huai Hai Road (M),
Shanghai, 200031,
China
Tel: +86 21 2412 6053 / 6055
Fax: +86 21 2412 6350
Email: roy.zhang@kingandwood.com
            zhongxin@kingandwood.com

人民币外商直接投资进入快车道

金杜律师事务所 融资

继银发(2011)145号文之后, 2011年10月14日中国人民银行就人民币外商直接投资出台新规则《外商直接投资人民币结算业务管理办法》(“人行办法”), 规定了有关人民币结算的具体操作。 人行办法涉及到以人民币进行外商直接投资的方方面面, 包括资本注入、并购中国企业购买价款的支付、股息和利润分配的汇出以及人民币跨境贷款。  人行办法延续了外管局对外汇直接投资的监管思路, 但程序更为简便。 同一天, 商务部也出台通知(“商务部通知”)规定了跨境人民币直接投资交易的相关问题。

我们认为比较重要的方面包括:

一、以人民币设立外商投资企业和并购中国企业

商务部在批准人民币外商直接投资交易中扮演审批机关的角色, 包括新设外商投资企业项目、增资或并购中国企业。 地方商务主管部门被授权批准上述交易, 但属于下列情形的需经省级商务主管部门初步批准后报商务部审核: (i) 出资金额达3亿或3亿人民币以上; (ii) 交易涉及投资于融资担保公司、融资租赁公司、小额信贷公司和拍卖行; (iii) 交易涉及投资于外商投资性公司、外商投资创业投资或股权投资企业; 或(iv) 交易涉及投资于钢铁、电解铝、造船等政策敏感行业。

二、人民银行监管人民币外商直接投资交易的方式

登记: 人民银行要求外商投资企业(新设或并购中国企业设立的)在完成相关人民币直接投资交易后, 向人民银行地方分支机构办理登记。

账户监管: 人民银行规定, 外国投资者、外商投资企业和中方股东向外国投资者出售其股权时, 应开设不同类型的交易账户。该账户监管系统与外管局所采用的十分类似。 例如, 外国投资者可以开立人民币前期费用专用存款账户用于支付外商投资企业设立之前产生的费用, 该账户的剩余资金可以转入外商投资企业的人民币资本金专用存款账户或原路退回。 如果外国投资者希望使用其从现有外商投资企业获得的人民币利润进行再投资, 外国投资者可以开立人民币再投资专用账户以归集该等人民币资金。由于该账户具有非居民账户的性质, 外管局的人民币利润再投资批准有可能不再需要。人行办法也允许向外国投资者出售股权的中方股东开立人民币账户以收取人民币股权转让对价款。这将有助于解决中方股东根据外管局142号文必须开立资产变现账户收取外汇转让对价款的问题。

三、人民币资本金的用途

人行办法中规定, 所有人民币资金均应当用于合法用途, 但并未作出更具体的规定。 商务部通知则明确指出, 该等资金不得用于投资证券、金融衍生品或委托贷款。

四、受益于新规的企业

尽管外资房地产企业仍不被允许借取人民币外债, 但根据人行办法和商务部通知, 境外人民币可投资于房地产行业。 我们预计, 该等规定将会鼓励开发商通过发行CNH债券募集境外人民币资金进行融资。

值得注意的是, 外商投资合伙企业("外资合伙")也可接受境外投资者的人民币出资。 外资合伙可将人民币用于对被投资公司的股权投资。上述新规在一定程度上可能会削弱境外投资者通过在上海浦东试行的合格外资有限合伙设立人民币基金(该机制下, 境外投资者投入的外币资本金可以结汇进行股权投资)的积极性。

五、人民币股东贷款及外债

根据人行办法, 只要外商投资企业拥有足够的外债额度, 其可从母公司、境外关联企业和境外金融机构借取人民币外债。 银发(2011)145号文项下规定的针对人民币外债的人行特批已不再需要。 我们理解, 商务部将不会对人民币外债进行个案审批, 而仅会审批在相关人民币直投交易时明确外商投资企业可否通过人民币外债解决其资金问题。人行办法并未免除外商投资企业根据外管局现有规定进行外债登记的义务。

六、对外汇出

根据我们对于人行办法和商务部通知的解读, 我们倾向于认为, 无论投资是以人民币进行还是外币进行, 外商投资企业均可向其境外母公司以人民币形式分配利润或支付清算资金。但鉴于该等交易的灵活性, 在人民币升值的大背景下, 较容易被用于套利, 前述观点未必适用于股东贷款或外债。

 

联系方式

如您需要任何进一步的信息,请联系:

北京
王玲
北京市朝阳区东三环中路7号
北京财富中心写字楼A座40层
100020
电话:+86 10 5878 5016
传真:+86 10 5878 5599
Email: wangling@kingandwood.com

上海
张宁/ 钟鑫
上海市淮海中路999号
上海环贸广场写字楼一期16-18层
200031
电话:+86 21 2412 6053 / 6055
传真:+86 21 2412 6350
Email: roy.zhang@kingandwood.com
             zhongxin@kingandwood.com

 

 

银监会出台新的商业银行理财产品销售规则

金杜律师事务所 融资

2011年10月9日,经过广泛征求意见和多次的讨论,中国银行业监督管理委员会颁布了《商业银行理财产品销售管理办法》(简称"销售管理办法")。销售管理办法在很多方面保留了银监会之前于2005年发布的《商业银行个人理财业务管理暂行办法》和《商业银行个人理财业务风险管理指引》的内容,同时,也在一些很重要的领域提出了新的要求。在目前的资金市场面临较大短缺和存款收益较低、投资渠道不足的情况下,商业银行的理财产品销售会是银行和客户都很关注的一项业务,因此,销售管理办法的出台需要引起商业银行的重视和仔细研究,需要银行作出具体的方案,调整业务的模式和程序,以避免发生合规和其他风险。

与之前的有关管理规则相比,销售管理办法提出新的要求或作出调整的领域主要包括:

监管范围:与之前的规则集中于针对商业银行个人理财业务的管理不同,办法涵盖了针对机构客户的理财产品的销售行为。因此,银行今后对机构客户销售理财产品的行为要受办法相关内容的约束,这意味着商业银行需要对向机构客户销售理财产品的业务程序和制度进行调整。

监管方式:尽管销售管理办法中要求商业银行向监管机构提交的报告文件比之前显著增加了,但对理财产品的监管从之前的审批制和报告制改为全部报告制,这意味着商业银行在理财产品的设计方面需要更加谨慎和自担责任。

银行内部程序:与之前的规则相比,销售管理办法在银行的理财产品内控制度方面作出了更为详细具体的规定,如对分支机构的授权内容、客户投诉的处理体系的具体机制。这些新规应该是之前发生的诸多争议事件在规则中的反映,也要求商业银行在内部管理制度上做出调整。

销售行为和文件:与之前的规则相比,销售管理办法在销售行为的要求上更具体,在与客户之前需要签署的文件方面也更严格。例如,办法规定:经客户签字确认的销售文件,商业银行和客户双方均应留存。这一新规定的出现,应该是和之前发生的理财产品的诉讼案件中的事实有很大的关联。再如,办法明确了销售文件的种类包括:销售协议书、产品说明书、风险揭示书和客户权益须知,这就要求商业银行需要进一步丰富和完善相关的业务文件。

费用的收取:办法规定,银行需要对与理财产品销售有关的费用进行调整的,应该按照有关规定进行信息披露后方可调整,客户不接受的,应当允许客户按照销售文件的约定提前赎回理财产品。我们注意到,目前许多的银行理财产品文件中的相关内容都是与此不相符的,因此需要作出调整。

联系方式
如您需要任何进一步的信息,请联系:

 

北京

刘志刚
北京市朝阳区东三环中路7号
北京财富中心写字楼A座40层
电话:+86 10 5878 5126
传真:+86 10 5878 5599
Email: liuzhigang@kingandwood.com

 

上海

陈运
上海市淮海中路999号
上海环贸广场写字楼一期16-18楼
电话:+86 21 2412 6052
传真:+86 21 2412 6250
Email: chenyun@kingandwood.com

中国人民银行新规则助推人民币跨境业务

金杜律师事务所融资

自2009年7月跨境贸易人民币结算试点工作启动以来,相关业务的容量、复杂性及银行业务经历了飞速的发展。在2年的时间内,试点范围在20多个省(区、市)得以实施,中国人民银行计划在今年内将试点范围扩大至全国。为满足企业和银行对政策透明度的强烈需求,外汇管理局、商务部等监管当局已经颁布了一系列的规则和指引以促进人民币跨境业务。2011年6月8日,中国人民银行颁布了《中国人民银行关于明确跨境人民币业务相关问题的通知》(银发[2011]145号)(简称“通知”)。该《通知》从积极的角度阐明了与跨境人民币业务相关的若干重大问题。迄今为止,该《通知》被市场称为“实现人民币国际化的重大进步”。 

以下是《通知》中值得关注的要点:

人民币贸易负债: 跨境贸易人民币结算项下涉及的居民对非居民的人民币负债,包括与跨境贸易人民币结算相关的远期信用证、海外代付、协议付款、预收延付及其他类型的贸易负债将不纳入现行外债管理。这将有利于构建链接境内外资本市场的人民币自由通道。

人民币外商直接投资: 《通知》强调目前人民币外商直接投资尚处于试点阶段,出于防范热钱流入的考虑,个案申请须取得中国人民银行总行的批准。《通知》明确了如何获得中国人民银行批准的详细申请流程,即外国投资者或境内外商独资企业可以通过其境内结算银行向所在地中国人民银行分支机构提交人民币外商直接投资申请和事先已经获得的商务部的批准文件或批准证书。上述申请文件将由中国人民银行分支机构上报总行进行最终审批。上述审批程序适用于新设立企业出资、并购境内企业(不含返程并购)、股权转让以及对现有企业进行增资、提供股东贷款。目前,人民币外商直接投资业务试点对国家限制类和重点调控行业的人民币外商直接投资项目暂不受理(可能涉及金融和房地产领域)。现实中,国家外汇管理局和商务部在实践操作中对中国人民银行新规的反应尚未可知,但境内银行很有可能将会积极的依照中国人民银行的要求进行操作。

真实性审查: 境内银行有义务审核客户提出的人民币结算需求是否有真实交易所支持。境内结算银行及境外参加银行通常情况下不得向无真实跨境交易背景仅以套汇为目的(如人民币无本金交割远期合约)的申请者提供人民币结算服务。另外,境内企业进口支付的人民币不得在境外(含香港)直接购汇后支付给境外出口商,且境内结算银行不得提供此种人民币结算服务。

为便于理解,我们准备了下表列明了目前跨境人民币相关业务的审批机关及相应审批权限。

联系方式

如您需要任何进一步的信息,请联系:

北京
王玲
北京市朝阳区东三环中路7号
北京财富中心写字楼A座40层
电话:+86 10 5878 5016
传真:+86 10 5878 5599
Email: wangling@kingandwood.com

上海
张宁/ 钟鑫
上海市淮海中路999号
上海环贸广场写字楼一期16-18楼
电话:+86 21 2412 6053 / 6055
传真:+86 21 2412 6250
Email: roy.zhang@kingandwood.com
            zhongxin@kingandwood.com

PBOC New Rules to Boost RMB Cross-border Transactions

By King & Wood's Banking Group

Since the launch of the pilot program of RMB settlement in cross-border trade transactions in July 2009, the volume and complexity of the said transactions and the ancillary banking businesses have been rapidly increasing. During the past two years, the pilot program was carried out in 20 provincial regions. PBOC plans to expand the pilot program to the whole country within this year. In order to satisfy business and banking industry's strong needs for policy transparency, regulatory authorities such as SAFE and MOFCOM have issued various rules and guidelines aiming to streamline cross-border flows of RMB. On June 8, 2011, PBOC published a most recent circular (1)("Circular") which clarifies several major issues relating to cross-border RMB transactions. Industry feedback regarding the Circular has been positive and the Circular has been interpreted as "a significant step towards the internationalization of RMB" by the market.

We highlight the key points of the Circular worth noting as follows:

  • RMB Trade Indebtedness: Payment obligations owed by PRC residents to offshore counterparties under cross-border RMB trade transactions, including without limitation the issue of RMB usance L/C, offshore advance payment and deferral payment and other forms of trade indebtedness would not be deemed as foreign debts.  This will make it easier to create a free-flowing channel of RMB funds between the onshore and offshore capital markets.
  • RMB Guarantee or L/C issued by onshore banks in favor of offshore entities would not fall within the regime of foreign security/guarantee.  It would relieve onshore banks from the foreign security quota concerns.  More opportunities may be explored where the offshore entities are willing to accept RMB guarantee or RMB L/C to back offshore lending.  The RMB guarantee or L/C, if structured properly (mainly using RMB guarantee/L/C as a vehicle for offshore lenders to gain a pari passu position with onshore lenders), may resolve the traditional pitfall embedded in the onshore/offshore structure where offshore lender cannot get access to onshore collateral.
  • RMB FDI: The Circular emphasizes that so far the RMB FDI transactions is still at its pilot stage and should be subject to PBOC head office approval on a case-by-case basis, primarily for prevention of hot-money inflows. However, it does provide a detailed step-by-step process on how to obtain PBOC's approval. According to the process, foreign investors or WFOEs shall ask their settlement banks in China to submit the RMB FDI applications to particular PBOC offices together with pre-obtained MOFCOM approvals for the same transaction.  Complete applications will be handed over to PBOC head office for final approval. This approval requirement applies to greenfield projects, M&As of onshore enterprises (excluding round-trip investments), equity transfer and shareholder loans.  At this moment PBOC does not accept applications for transactions falling within the "restricted" category or under policy control (presumably this refers to financial and real estate sector).  Although it remains yet to be seen how in practice SAFE and MOFCOM will react to the PBOC requirement, it is likely that onshore banks will be keen to follow the PBOC requirement, thus making it a requirement for banks' client to comply with.
  • Genuine Trade Review: PBOC requires onshore to verify whether there are genuine transactions behind RMB settlement request from customers.  Onshore settlement banks as well as offshore participation banks are generally not allowed to provide RMB settlement services if the applicant is pursuing arbitrage (such as RMB-NDF contracts) without any genuine RMB cross-border trade background. Moreover, onshore settlement banks are kept from providing RMB settlement services to onshore importers under the situation where the onshore importers intend to do currency conversions outside mainland China and settle the transaction with offshore exporters.

For you ease of reference, we summarize in the appendix a matrix which identifies the relevant regulatory authorities for various types of RMB cross-order capital-account transactions and regulatory authorities' discretions on specific businesses.


Contacts

For further information on the matters covered in this newsletter, please contact:

Beijing Office

Wang Ling
King & Wood
40th Floor Office Tower A, Beijing Fortune Plaza
7 Dongsanhuan Zhonglu
Chaoyang District Beijing
China
Tel: +86 10 5878 5056
Fax: +86 10 5878 5599
Email: wangling@kingandwood.com

Shanghai Office

Roy Zhang / Zhong Xin
King & Wood
16-18/F, One ICC, Shanghai ICC
999 Huai Hai Road (M), Shanghai
China
Tel: +86 21 2412 6053 / 6055
Fax: +86 21 2412 6250
Email: roy.zhang@kingandwood.com
             zhongxin@kingandwood.com

 

Notes:

(1) The PBOC Circular on Clarifying Relevant Issues of Cross-border RMB Transactions (《中国人民银行关于明确跨境人民币业务相关问题的通知(银发[2011]145号》).

Financing Mergers & Acquisitions in China Today

Interview of Roy Zhang of King & Wood's Banking Department by Zhang Tianhui and He Ran of King & Wood's Publications Group

Financing is a critical consideration in M&A transactions. For a long period of time, financing large scale strategic M&As of listed companies in China has been a bottleneck. As such, it is important for companies to study successful M&A experiences from abroad and develop additional venues and tools for financing and venues for such transactions.

 Q: What are the features of M&A financing transactions engaged by domestic banks?

Since Chinese commercial banks have excessive capital liquidity, they are inclined to take sizeable projects such as those sponsored by large state-owned enterprises or central or local governments. In deciding whether to issue a loan, these Chinese commercial banks tend to focus on the credit standing of the sponsors instead of credit or financials of the projects themselves.

The loans issued by Chinese commercial banks are typically corporate lending rather than M&A loans. Thus the loans will be charged at low interest rates (all-in) of 5% - 7% p.a. In comparison, foreign banks would charge much higher rates in a range of 15% - 17% p.a. with a benchmark of possible return on equity investments. Foreign banks are not competitive in the M&A loan market in terms of funding costs when compared to Chinese banks. Moreover, simpler documentation requirements and quicker credit approval process also offer the Chinese commercial banks unparalleled advantages. Chinese private equity funds share the same advantages in swift deal closing, quick exits and high returns. Companies seeking financing therefore are inclined to choose Chinese banks and local investment funds for financing in their M&A transactions.

Q: Will foreign financial institutions be gradually marginalized in the fast growing China capital markets?

Yes, this marginalization may happen. But not all foreign banks and fund companies are uncompetitive. There are two types of foreign banks and/or fund companies. Some foreign financial institutions are market oriented and they are willing to customize lending products according to the needs of the customers and reduce lending costs with advanced technologies and methods. On the other hand, some foreign financial institutions are not market oriented, and they are unwilling to change their rigid business models and do not have technical expertise. For the second type of foreign financial institutions, localization is an obstacle and they have difficulties in obtaining transactions in China.

Q: The Opinions of the State Council on Promoting Mergers, Acquisitions, and Reorganization of Enterprises ("Decree No. 27") encourages Chinese commercial banks to engage in M&A loan businesses, and offer loan support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). In practice, are there any specific supportive policies regarding this?

We do see enormous demand from SMEs for financing. But bank lending requires KYC ("know your customer"), credit approval and risk management after loan drawdowns. Hence the process can be lengthy and costly. SME loans also require a much higher tolerance for bad debt rates while the Ministry of Finance has strict write-off regulations for bad debts which apply to both large corporate borrowers and SMEs. Traditional commercial banks rely on stable cash flow in issuing loans now need to resolve the conflict between their lending practices and regulations and SME loans. They now face higher lending costs and higher risks in the SME loan market. These problems are difficult to resolve because they are rooted in traditional practices. As a result, it is necessary to introduce special policies and specific new business models to reduce the costs and risks in the SME loan market. For example, one of our clients intends to establish a purely online bank, which aims to issue loans to micro-sized enterprises. With the help of the internet, tracking the credit standing and consumer behaviors of the borrowers becomes an efficient and cost-saving task. Another client intends to establish a new type of bank that specializes in debt-financing for small and medium-sized high-tech enterprises. For serving these clients, some commercial banks already have established their high-tech branches.

Q: Decree No. 27 also discusses cross-border M&As. Are there any supportive policies regarding this matter?

The Circular of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange on the Administration of External Guarantees Provided by Domestic Institutions ("Circular No.39") has a profound impact on cross-border M&A. It initially encourages outbound investments and overseas M&A transactions with the backing of the investors' Chinese onshore assets or operations, but now goes even further. There have been dramatic changes to the bank guarantee quota system etc, e.g. the guarantor and the debtor are not necessarily parent and subsidiary. The debtor does not need to be profitable.

Q: What are the roles of the lawyers in the robust M&A market of China?

There are many. First, we should understand what is in the minds of the regulators and market players, as well as the current changes to the market. The key is to communicate effectively with them to develop business models and products that cater to their business needs and get deals done. After the global financial crisis, the China Banking Regulatory Commission and the other authorities have stipulated stringent loan-deposit ratio requirements for the commercial banks. The lending abilities of the commercial banks are greatly restricted. Chinese banks have taken various measures, such as issuance of bonds and subordinated debt in Hong Kong and domestic markets, to increase their liquidity. Foreign-funded banks also attempt to conduct asset securitization and credit assets transfer for better liquidity. Apparently, these commercial banks have accumulated abundant capital and client bases and they are seeking arbitrage opportunities. Besides the commercial banks, Renminbi-denominated private equity funds, insurance companies, and trust companies also strive to enter this turbulent financing market, which create both opportunities and challenges for law firms and lawyers. Legal professionals play indispensible roles in these transactions. We have excellent client resources, and we act as one integral team (including Insurance, banking, securities and private equity practice groups), to assist clients in formulating practical business solutions customized to their specific needs.

SAFE Circular to Improve Forex Administration on Offshore Lending

On June 9, 2009, the State Administration for Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) issued the Notice on Certain Issues Relating to Foreign Exchange Administration on Offshore Lending by Domestic Enterprises (the “Notice”) effective as of August 1, 2009, in an effort to deal with the difficulties faced by offshore Chinese-funded enterprises that have “gone abroad” in obtaining financing offshore and increasing working capital, to encourage more domestic enterprises with strong capital strength to “go abroad”, and to enhance the use of funds by domestic enterprises.
 

King & Wood's Finance Group

 

Previously, regulatory requirements with regard to offshore lending were mainly found in the 2004 SAFE Notice on Certain Issues Relating to Internal Management of Foreign Currency Funds by the Multinational Companies (the “2004 Notice”). The purpose of the 2004 Notice was to optimize the allocation of foreign currency funds and to facilitate the utilization of foreign currency inter- company loans between members of multinational companies headquartered in the PRC. In accordance with Clause 23 of the new Notice, if there is any inconsistency between the 2004 Notice and the new Notice, the new Notice shall prevail. We set out below an introduction on the key features of the Notice and its relevant provisions.

Key Features of the Notice

1. Lender and Borrower under an Offshore Lending
In accordance with the Notice, eligible domestic enterprises of any type would be permitted to provide foreign currency loans to their wholly owned subsidiaries or for the equity of enterprises legally incorporated offshore.

 

2. Qualification Requirements for Offshore Lending
The requirements set out in the Notice for offshore lending by domestic enterprises to their offshore wholly-owned subsidiaries or equity interests include: Both the lender and the borrower have been legally incorporated with fully paid-up registered capitals; All foreign direct investment projects of the lender in the past years have been verified by the regulatory authorities in charge of foreign investments and filed with SAFE under foreign exchange registrations, and the lender (incorporated and existing for more than one year) has gained a second (or above)-grade ranking in the latest joint annual inspection of foreign investments, etc.

 

3. Forms of Offshore Lending
The forms of offshore lending as provided in the Notice are as follows:
(1) Direct lending, namely the domestic enterprise extends loan facilities directly to its wholly-owned subsidiaries or equity interests legally incorporated offshore;
(2) Entrustment loans, namely lending in the form of entrustment loans through a designated foreign exchange bank or the finance company of an enterprises group duly incorporated and qualified to conduct foreign exchange business.

 

4. Lending Threshold
The Notice supervises the offshore lending outstanding balance amount, and provides that the outstanding balance of a lender's offshore lending shall be limited to the lower of: (i) 30% of the lender's owner equity, and (ii) the duly registered investment amount of the Chinese party as agreed.

 

5. Verification of Outbound Remittance of Funds
The Notice simplifies the verification procedure of outbound remittance of foreign exchange funds. Subject to the verified offshore lending threshold and the effective term of lending, domestic enterprises engaged in offshore lending are permitted to re-lend the funds that have been repaid without the need to obtain SAFE verification for each of the loans.

 

6. Sources of Funds for Lending
The sources of funds for offshore lending as provided in the Notice have been expanded to not only include the self-owned foreign currency funds of the lender (as provided in the 2004 Notice), but also includes foreign currency funds converted from RMB funds and the funds in the foreign exchange capital pool as verified by SAFE.

 

7. The Income and Payment Scope of the Special Account for Lending
Compared to the 2004 Notice, the Notice has enlarged the income and payment scope of the Special Account for Lending.

 

8. Domestic Transfer of Funds
The Notice simplifies the verification procedure for domestic transfer of funds under offshore lending. Except for the outbound remittance of funds under the offshore lending from the Special Account for Lending and the inbound remittance of funds for repayment of principal and interest or enforcement of security to the Special Account for Lending, other domestic transfers of funds between the relevant foreign exchange accounts and the Special Account for Lending would not be subject to verification by the local SAFE. The lender may proceed with such transfer with the designated foreign exchange bank by presenting the relevant verification documents in respect of the offshore lending.

 

9. Statistical Monitoring and Risk Precaution under Offshore Lending
The Notice improves the statistical monitoring and risk precaution mechanism under offshore lending. For example, matters such as the verification of the offshore lending threshold, the opening of the Special Account for Lending, the domestic transfer of foreign exchange capital and the outbound and inbound remittance are supervised under the SAFE foreign exchange administration information system for foreign direct investments. Meanwhile, the Notice provides SAFE with the discretion to make timely adjustments to the qualification requirements for offshore lending, the sources of funds, the amount and the term of the lending etc., according to the balance of payments and the development in the offshore lending business.
 

 

Conclusion
Compared to the 2004 Notice, the Notice has reduced the qualification requirements for offshore lending, expanded the sources of funds, and simplified the verification and remittance procedure for offshore lending. Currently, domestic enterprises have achieved great success in their offshore investments. However, the difficulty in obtaining financing offshore and the shortage of floating capital has been an obstacle to the further developments of offshore Chinese funded enterprises. The issue of the Notice would encourage more Chinese enterprises with strong capital strength to “go abroad”, further facilitate investment and trading so as to stabilize the offshore demands and to deal with the international financial crisis in an effective way.

 

背景
为解决已“走出去”的境外中资企业在境外融资难和流动资金不足的问题,支持更
多有资金实力的企业“走出去”,提高境内企业的资金使用效率,国家外汇管理局(以
下简称“外管局”)于2009 年6 月9 日发布了《关于境内企业境外放款外汇管理有关问
题的通知》(以下简称“《通知》”),并将于2009 年8 月1 日起开始实施。
《通知》发布以前,与境外放款有关的外汇管理方面的规定主要为外管局于2004
年10 月18 日颁布的《国家外汇管理局关于跨国公司外汇资金内部运营管理有关问题
的通知》(以下简称“汇发【2004】104 号文”)。汇发【2004】104 号文旨在优化外汇
资源配置,便利和支持总部设在中国的跨国公司成员之间进行外汇资金的拆放。根据
《通知》第23 条的规定,汇发【2004】104 号文中涉及境外放款的外汇管理条款与
《通知》有冲突的,以《通知》为准。
我们将在下文介绍《通知》的主要特征及其相关规定。本简报旨在做出一般性的
指引,而不构成对某一特定案例的具体意见。
《通知》的主要特征
一、境外放款的主体和对象
根据《通知》的规定,只要符合一定条件,任何类型的境内企业均可为其在境外合法
设立的全资附属企业或参股企业发放外汇贷款。
二、境外放款的资格条件
《通知》规定的境内企业向其境外全资附属企业或参股企业放款的条件包括:放款人
和借款人均依法注册成立,且注册资本均已足额到位;放款人历年的境外直接投资项
目均经国内境外投资主管部门核准并在外管局办理外汇登记手续,且参加最近一次境
外投资联合年检评级为二级以上(成立不足一年的除外)等。
三、放款形式
《通知》规定的境外放款形式有:
(1)直接放款,即由境内企业直接向其境外合法设立的全资附属企业或参股企业提供
放款;
(2)委托贷款:即通过外汇指定银行或经批准设立并具有外汇业务资格的企业集团财
务公司以委托贷款的方式进行放款。
四、放款额度
《通知》对境外放款实行余额管理,并规定放款人的境外放款余额不得超过其所有者
权益的30%,同时不得超过借款人已办妥相关登记手续的中方协议投资额,以低者为
限。
五、资金汇出的核准
《通知》简化了外汇资金汇出的核准手续,在核准的境外放款额度和有效期内,从事
境外放款的境内企业可将已回收的境外放款额度循环使用,而无需就每次放款单独取
得当地外管局的核准。
六、放款的资金来源
《通知》规定的放款资金来源由汇发【2004】104 号文的自有外汇资金扩大到企业
的自有外汇资金、人民币购汇资金以及经外管局核准的外币资金池资金。
七、放款专用账户的收支范围
《通知》在汇发【2004】104 号文的基础上扩大了境外放款专用账户的收支范围。
八、放款资金的境内划转
《通知》简化了境外放款所涉及的境内划转核准手续,除放款资金由境外放款专用
账户汇出境外或还本付息、担保履约等资金由境外汇入境外放款专用账户需当地外
管局核准外,资金在境内相关外汇账户与境外放款专用账户之间的划转,放款人可
持境外放款核准文件等到外汇指定银行直接办理,无需当地外管局的另行核准。
九、境外放款的统计监测与风险防范
《通知》完善了境外放款的统计监测与风险防范机制,主要体现在:将境外放款的
额度核准、境外放款专用账户、境内外汇资金划转以及汇出、汇入等纳入国家外管
局直接投资外汇管理信息系统;设定了国家外管局可以根据我国国际收支形势和境
外放款情况,对境内企业放款资格条件、来源、数量以及期限等进行适时调整的保
障条款。
总结
相较汇发【2004】104 号文,《通知》在保证风险可控的前提下,最大程度地
降低了放款人的资质门槛,对资金来源明显放宽,同时简化了境外放款的核准
和汇兑手续。目前我国境外投资取得了积极成效,但境外融资难和流动资金不
足的问题一直影响了境外中资企业的进一步发展壮大。《通知》的及时出台将
有利于支持更多有资金实力的企业“走出去”,进一步促进投资贸易便利化,
以稳定外需,更好地应对国际金融危机。
 

New York: Current Trends Lead to Overseas Expansion

Duncan Hwang, Foreign Lawyer, King & Wood's FDI Practice

class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt">After the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor scheme (QDII) was implemented in April of 2006 to help relieve pressure on the RMB by promoting capital outflows and Chinese companies in various industries in the private sector were encouraged to go abroad, China’s outbound investment totaled approximately $20 billion in 2007.

 

In the first half of 2008, overseas investment of Chinese companies has more than doubled from last year. This year, Chinese outbound investment has already reached 16 billion euros (nearly $23 billion) according to Bloomberg.

Correspondingly, we have seen an increasing number of our domestic Chinese clients invest abroad for both market seeking and resource seeking opportunities. We expect this trend to accelerate in the coming years as outbound rules continue to be relaxed and domestic companies shift their strategies to compete globally.

This trend, coupled with close working relationships with a significant number of American companies and law firms have lead King & Wood to establish its New York office opening September 9th, 2008. As a firm with an extensive client list in the banking industry, our location on Madison Avenue will serve as serve as a local presence for many of our American clients and also provide international support for our clients at home. Since 2001, King & Wood has made a series of international moves such as San Francisco, Hong Kong, Tokyo and most recently with our Sydney Strategic Alliance at the end of 2007.

For years we have seen U.S. and European law firms expand into China. As the global clout of Chinese companies grows, we will see continue to see Chinese law firms expand with them.