Residency by investment in New Zealand 2.0
Henry Brandts-Giesen
Specialist in the organisation and regulation of private wealth
The New Zealand Government has announced changes to the residency by investment programme. The Investor Plus Visa and the Investor 2 Visa have been discontinued and replaced with a single “Active Investor Plus” Visa.
In my view, the changes are well intended but misconceived.
The purpose of this article is to highlight the reasons why I think the new visa will have less economic and social benefit - and also draw attention to some wider issues. Rather than leave it there I make some suggestions for future policy makers to improve New Zealand’s marketability as place of residence for economic and social influencers.
Please bear with me, I know it is a Long Read, but I don’t want to be critical without providing some context and suggested solutions. Here is an executive summary:
Globalisation has led to a significant increase in human and capital mobility in recent decades
There has been a significant increase in human mobility in recent decades. This is caused by factors such as globalisation, the relaxation of exchange controls and visa restrictions in certain regions, the pursuit of political and economic safe havens, the avoidance of real or perceived geopolitical risk, war and social unrest, climate change, and a desire for geographic investment diversity.
There is now global competition for human and financial capital in the form of economic residency/citizenship programmes. These allow people with liquid investment funds to acquire residency/citizenship rights in another country in addition to their usual country of residence/citizenship.
In exchange, countries administering these programmes and providing these rights receive a significant financial investment in their domestic economies. It is a simple, legitimate, and mutually beneficial trade.
Economic citizenship/residency programmes are a proven and legitimate economic accelerator
Economic citizenship programmes are offered by a growing number of small states in the Caribbean and Europe. These programmes are somewhat controversial because the lack of any residency requirements or commitment to the social fabric of the issuing country, if not properly regulated, can provide opportunities for malevolent activity in economically vulnerable developing nations.
Economic residency programmes are quite different and, generally, uncontroversial. These programmes are offered in a number of European countries, including Austria, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and Switzerland. Almost half of EU member states now have a dedicated investor visa. Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States have had immigrant investor programmes since the late 1980s or early 1990s. Closer to home, Singapore and Australia (the Significant Investor Visa) also competes for this invaluable human and financial capital.
This is a proven and legitimate way for countries to attract capital, skills, and networks to grow the economy. The financial inflow to countries from these programmes can be significant and lead to significant macroeconomic benefits for many sectors of the economy.
New Zealand encourages foreign investment through its own residency by investment programme
One of the ways in which the New Zealand Government encourages foreign investment in New Zealand is through its own residency by investment programme.
The policy settings have changed slightly over the years but, until recently, there were two visa types:
The investment must contribute to the New Zealand economy
Sensibly, there are restrictions around what constitutes an “acceptable investment” for the purposes of the programme. Broadly, the investment must be capable of a commercial return under normal circumstances, and able to contribute to the New Zealand economy.
Under the original criteria, investments could include bonds (of a certain type), equity in New Zealand businesses, commercial property, residential property development(s), philanthropic donations (up to 15% of total investment), and commitments to New Zealand investment funds that invested in these asset classes.
Extensive due diligence is done to verify the applicant’s bona fides and clean source of funds
Preserving the credibility of any residency by programme is perhaps the biggest challenge. A stringent due diligence process is essential to avoid integrity and security issues and the use of the investment options as routes for money laundering and criminal financing.
Extensive information and documentation is required to be submitted to Immigration New Zealand and verified as evidence of the applicant’s bona fides and clean source of funds. In my view, Immigration New Zealand is a very effective regulator and guardian of New Zealand’s reputation. Other countries, including the UK, have suffered reputational damage due to systemic issues with their due diligence processes, but to its eternal credit, Immigration New Zealand is extremely thorough in vetting applicants and has had no such issues. ??
Residency by investment is a proven accelerator for the New Zealand economy
As a direct result of the residency by investment programme, over NZD 12 billion has been invested/committed for investment into the New Zealand economy since 2009, with over NZD 2 billion in each of the 2020, 2021, and 2022 calendar years. ?
There are many other non-financial benefits which are not as easily quantified but more significant. These include the intellectual capital, commercial experience, business acumen and professional networks that these migrants bring to New Zealand. There is an undeniable multiplier effect which accelerates many areas of the economy and stimulates all regions of New Zealand, when effectively harnessed.
To attract and shepherd this human and financial capital the Investment Attraction team at Immigration New Zealand proactively makes introductions to local influencers and businesses to help both sides of the trade to benefit from all that New Zealand and the migrants have to offer. Their service to the applicants and the New Zealand is commendable.
Over the years a wider spread of nationalities have applied for residency
Over the years there has been a trend towards a wider spread of nationalities applying for residency by investment in New Zealand.
The percentage of Chinese applicants reduced significantly as the Chinese Government imposed more controls to prevent the loss of capital from the country.
The percentage of applicants from the United States (notably since the election of President Trump and the coronavirus pandemic), United Kingdom (especially following Brexit) and Germany increased significantly in recent years.
There have also been an increasing number applicants from Malaysia, Korea, the Philippines, South Africa, Japan and India.
There is no downside to having a globally competitive and marketable investor visa programme
An unintended consequence of the success of these programmes in some other countries is that a large and rapid influx of investment can lead to rising wages and asset valuations, with negative repercussions on the rest of the economy. There is no evidence of this yet occurring in New Zealand. This is probably due to the relatively low numbers of applicants who ultimately make it through the process as a proportion of the total population. It is also very difficult for new migrants to buy real estate in New Zealand unless and until they commit to living here permanently.
The New Zealand residency by investment programme has been very successful
There are several reasons why the New Zealand residency by investment programme has been successful.
One reason is that New Zealand is perceived globally as a socially cohesive, safe, stable and well-functioning country with a mild climate and stunning natural beauty.
Another reason is the very good work carried out by the Immigration New Zealand Investment Attraction team.
A further reason was that the visa criteria was relatively simple to understand, allowed some capital protection, and was comparable to the criteria set by other competing countries.
This is important because New Zealand is a pure lifestyle choice compared to many of the other countries competing for this capital who can offer much more from a business and financial perspective. New Zealand has many deficiencies from an economic and commercial perspective. It is a micro-economy with a tiny population, high corporation tax rates, basic infrastructure, volatile currency, shallow capital markets, low levels of productivity, high cost base, a diaspora of skilled citizens, no world renowned tertiary institutions, basic public services, and isolated in time and geography.
Another factor is that New Zealand does not enjoy the same levels of financial and trade market access as competitor countries. Furthermore, unlike many other countries New Zealand does not generally offer fiscal or regulatory incentives to attract industries (e.g. financial services), asset classes (e.g. private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds) and corporations to set up here. There are some exceptions (e.g. film production but, evidently, not game development).?
I still lament that a report in the late 2000s by global management consulting firm, Oliver Wyman, which endorsed New Zealand's credentials as a global finance administration centre was never followed up by bold Government policy (but that is an article for another day).
But New Zealand’s residency by investment programme has been losing is lustre recently
The New Zealand Government’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 was, initially, acclaimed throughout the world. This resulted in a surge of applications for residency by disaffected people in other countries – especially in the US and Europe – searching for a safe haven in troubled times.
During this period Immigration New Zealand’s Investment Attraction team, together with private sector advisors and financial institutions, marketed New Zealand remotely and electronically throughout the long and hard lockdowns - and the visa applications flooded in. All of this seemed very positive for New Zealand’s future as the number and calibre of applicants (quite apart from the value of the capital) being attracted was on a level never seen before in the history of the programme.
The problem was, however, whilst the private sector worked from home during the lockdowns to keep their businesses on life support, the processing of visas by Immigration New Zealand ground to a halt. One of the reasons is that visa processing in New Zealand remains paper based and all the relevant documents and files were sitting in hard copy in locked up government buildings. Many applicants and advisors in the private sector were incredulous that this once in a generation opportunity could be squandered. A consequence is that there is now a huge backlog of applications to be processed. I have some Investor 2 clients who applied in 2020 and haven’t even been allocated a case officer. In fairness to Immigration New Zealand there were genuine legal reasons which also caused them to stop work, but adverse perceptions were formed and continue to linger.
Another factor relevant to the global perception of New Zealand’s residency by investment programme was that when the borders were shuttered in March 2020 many people who had already been issued Investor Plus and Investor 2 visas (but not yet had the opportunity to activate them) were denied entry into the country.
Others whose visas had been activated were lawfully permitted to enter but could not get places in New Zealand’s notorious Managed Isolation & Quarantine (MIQ) facilities. Some others who could get places in?MIQ felt guilt for doing so because so many New Zealand citizens were denied entry into their own country often in circumstances of bereavement and medical need.
For many of these people a Black Swan event like a global pandemic was precisely the circumstance that they had been preparing for by applying for New Zealand residency. When they really needed to use the visa they were not able to do so.
Meanwhile, Immigration New Zealand’s Investment Attraction team continued to promote the residency by investment programme. Some of my clients and foreign advisor connections subsequently formed the view that this was disingenuous at best and misleading and deceptive conduct at worst.
In reality, like everything that happened during the pandemic, it was unprecedented, complex and nuanced. But New Zealand’s reputation was harmed in the eyes of some applicants and, significantly, foreign advisors with influence and networks. Many withdrew their applications and/or started parallel applications in other countries (notably Portugal, Australia, Canada, the UK and Ireland).
There are other reasons why New Zealand’s residency by investment programme is imperfect
New Zealand has complex rules relating to foreign ownership of real estate. Residential property is classified as “sensitive land” for the purposes of these rules and cannot be purchased by an “overseas person” without consent from the Overseas Investment Office.
This is an issue for many investor migrants because even when they have a residence class visa (and eventually acquire permanent resident status) they are often not “ordinarily resident” in New Zealand. Counter intuitively, a person can have permanent resident status under immigration law but not be ordinarily resident under property law.
There are ways to deal with this under special rules that relate to buying one home to live in, but that requires them to become tax resident in NZ (among other things). That is not necessarily an issue for many migrants because New Zealand has an extensive network of double tax agreements. But by their very nature investor migrants are usually successful business owners with assets and entities all over the world and dual tax citizenship creates many compliance challenges and administrative complexities – not just for the migrant but also their advisors, business entities and associated persons.
This problem is made worse because New Zealand has very complex and idiosyncratic rules relating to the taxation of these assets and entities known as the foreign investment fund (or FIF) rules which, when applied to many of my client’s circumstances, usually make it undesirable for them to make New Zealand their “centre of vital interests” for the purposes of the relevant double tax agreement.
This is not because these clients want to avoid or even optimise their tax position (most would much rather pay money to the New Zealand treasury than any other revenue authority) but simply because the New Zealand FIF rules are so complex and lead to mismatches of New Zealand and foreign income that make the compliance process overwhelming for many of them and their advisors.????
Granted, New Zealand has a temporary tax exemption which allows new migrants four years to take foreign and New Zealand tax advice to organise their affairs without the risk of double taxation. This is some of the most complex, time consuming, and expensive work that I am involved with. It requires an army of expensive tax advisors in multiple countries and can have serious implications for some of the most significant and complex multi-national corporations in the world whose founders have connections to New Zealand.
New Zealand is the only country in the world that uses the FIF rules.
Other countries are better at dealing with these tax complexities:
领英推荐
Despite the success and challenges the Government was determined to change the settings
The original visa criteria settings were, in my view, quite satisfactory. But not everyone agreed with that assessment and the inclusion of Government bonds and other debt securities in the class of “acceptable investments” was often criticised by commentators as having limited economic impact.
I have never shared that view because, in my view, even where some applicant’s portfolios were insulated from downside risk by Government bonds, that is still good clean capital flowing into our economy to fund public services and infrastructure projects without diluting or divesting ownership and control of strategic or impactful assets.
Furthermore, in my experience, capital was inevitably recycled into more active investments (such as public and private equities) once the migrant became more familiar with the local economic, legal, regulatory, and investment landscape and socially integrated into New Zealand society. Very often that recycling of the initial investment funds was supplemented by tens of millions of dollars of additional investment made outside the visa programme into angel, venture, and private equity investments.
There was also some media commentary suggesting that migrant investors are miserly when it comes to philanthropy. My experience is quite the opposite. It may be true that only one applicant has ever included a charitable donation in their visa application but I have personally been involved in advising investor migrants who have donated tens of millions of dollars to charitable causes outside of the visa programme.
Some of the most significant and impactful philanthropists in New Zealand are investor migrants. They just choose not to broadcast their benevolence.
Some changes to encourage economic and social impact investment is good
Nevertheless some adjustment of current policy settings to attract people willing to contribute positively to society - rather than merely acquire a bolthole to escape whence they came – is aspirational, ambitious, and worth considering.
I was expecting and not opposed to some changes. But for the past 18 months or so I have been saying that any changes to the current policy settings should be considered carefully in light of the global competition for migrant capital and the ability to properly assess any qualitative criteria. The challenge is to maintain an appropriate balance so that New Zealand remains an attractive destination for migrant capital and the direct and indirect benefits continue for years to come.
The changes to the residency by investment programme have finally been announced
Finally, after a gestation period of about 18 months the New Zealand Government announced changes to the residency by investment programme. The Investor Plus Visa and the Investor 2 Visa have been discontinued and replaced with a single “Active Investor Plus” Visa. Although the full eligibility requirements will be announced before applications open on 19 September 2022 this is what we know now:
The objective of these new criteria is, plainly, to direct migrant capital into direct investments in private markets which might otherwise not have easy access to capital. That is a laudable and noble goal and I sincerely do not wish these paragraphs to be read as curmudgeonly, self-interested, or critical of well-intentioned policy makers. They are, rather, my own views formed from experience representing the interests of dozens of investor migrants.?
In my view, the new visa is well intended but misconceived
As noted above the Investor Plus and Investor 2 programmes were already deficient because, among other things, investor migrants couldn’t purchase real estate without committing to living here permanently (which is not always practical for business reasons). Then of course the Government shut out investor visa holders during a global pandemic (for some of them having a backup plan for Black Swan events was a primary reason for entering the programme in the first place).
These deficiencies were starting to be noticed by applicants and their advisors around the world.
The new programme, whilst well intended and to be admired for its ambition, is going to make it even more challenging for even the most determined potential applicants to gain approval from their trusted advisors and gatekeepers (such as lawyers, financial advisors, accountants, etc). It just isn’t marketable against alternatives like Australia, Canada, Portugal, Ireland, Singapore, etc and New Zealand will need to rely even more heavily on lifestyle factors to attract migrant capital.
Lifestylers are not usually the most impactful migrants, in my experience.
I appreciate that any programme which provides a pathway to residency for wealthy people was never going to sit well with a government elected with a strong mandate on a social democratic platform. Because of that I reckon the Government should have just mothballed the programme altogether rather than expend so much time, money, and energy repurposing something that plainly does not align with its policies and is not marketable.
Unfortunately, I think the new programme will only appeal to potential applicants who are already fanatical about New Zealand and not attracted to comparable alternatives, like Australia, Canada, Portugal, or moving to another state in the US (e.g. Montana, Wyoming, etc). Or those who have family or other compelling reasons drawing them specifically to New Zealand. In those situations then it might be an adequate pathway.
Even then, I suggest, because of the issues and limitations discussed in previous paragraphs some people would be better to come into New Zealand for three months at a time under New Zealand’s relatively generous visitor visa. This would allow them to enjoy many of the lifestyle benefits of New Zealand and, if they felt so inclined, they could invest any amount, in any asset classes (subject to Overseas Investment Office rules), for as long as they desire without Government scrutiny, professional fees, and the other complications discussed in this article.
Afterall, even if they go through all that is necessary to achieve permanent resident status they may not be able to buy a house to stay in when they are here. Many investor migrants only discover this (and the issues related to the FIF Rules) after they are heavily committed to the process.
The new visa will only be viable for the ultra-rich or those with an (un)healthy risk appetite
I think the criticism of bonds as an investment option was misconceived. In my view, foreign investment is valuable capital, whether debt or equity. An advantage of debt financing to the recipient business is that the owners don’t have to give away equity/control. Shouldn’t we be encouraging homegrown founder control and ownership?
I would have allowed some downside risk protection for applicants by leaving bonds in the list of acceptable investments. In my experience, investor migrants invariably recycle their capital into more active, direct, equities once they become more familiar with the territory and done due diligence. However, if politically necessary, I would allow investor migrants to invest in some newly minted, Government guaranteed thematic bonds or social impact bonds to finance social policies such as: Affordable Housing, Maori Enterprise, Provincial Growth, Healthcare, Financing the Transition to Sustainable Agriculture, Funding the Conservation Estate, Predator Free New Zealand, etc.
Ironically, for a policy setting of a socially democratic government, the new visa is intrinsically elitist and imperious. It requires applicants to invest NZD 5,000,000 to NZD 15,000,000 in equities denominated in a single (volatile) currency (NZD, for the avoidance of doubt). This is myopic and views the world only through a New Zealand lens rather than that of the country from which migrants come and the wider macro-economic perspective of most successful people and their advisors.
A prudent financial planner adhering to Modern Portfolio Theory (or one of its variants) might say that alternative assets classes like venture capital should comprise no more than 5% of a diversified portfolio. The other 95% of a person’s net worth should be invested more prudently in a geographically diversified spread of property, private equity, funds, funds of funds, bonds, public equities, commodities, cash etc.
By removing Government bonds from the list of acceptable investments there is no ability for investor migrants to build any downside risk protection into their New Zealand asset allocation strategy. This means investor migrants must take substantially more investment risk and sacrifice even more liquidity in their portfolios. This change is being made at a time when financial markets are extremely volatile and every investment manager I follow is taking a risk off approach.
There are potential reputational risks to the New Zealand Government because, inevitably, many migrants will lose capital (some might lose it all). In the years I have been advising investor migrants (admittedly coinciding with the longest bull market run in modern history) this is something I have rarely seen in any of the balanced investment portfolios for investor migrants I advise.
The policy makers who devised the visa might counter by saying applicants can invest in blue chip listed equities. But that approach requires a significantly greater investment than under the previous criteria and comparable countries. Furthermore, the New Zealand Stock Exchange is miniscule and there is significant currency and asset class concentration risk in that strategy. It also undermines the economic benefit proposition of the new policy settings because acquiring shares in listed equities contributes no new capital to those businesses but simply creates a liquidity event for the institution or person on the sell side of that trade.
Granted, some of the specific investment concentration risk can be mitigated and the significant due diligence and administrative burden can be outsourced by investor migrants committing capital to the small group of approved fund managers. In my view, that is a far more prudent approach than trying to pick individual winners. But again there is no downside risk protection and the liquidity issues remain.?
That means, in my view, New Zealand’s new residency by investment scheme is only a sensible option for people with a net worth of at least NZD 100 million or more. That makes this government policy more elitist than any prior to it because, quite apart from abolishing the Investor 2 visa (NZD 3,000,000 minimum investment) visa, only the ultra-rich or those with significant appetite for risk can apply.
This takes out many potentially impactful migrants who are more likely to move here permanently, become part of the social fabric, and start or invest in operating businesses - because they are still actively creating wealth - rather than just accumulating it through passive investments. I can give numerous examples of migrants who arrived here on Investor 2 visas who have done just that. Other Investor Plus migrants I have advised over the years have liquidated their entire net worth to reach the NZD 10,000,000 threshold. They have transferred it to New Zealand, invested actively, and made significant contributions to the New Zealand economy and social fabric.
But for the ultra-wealthy there are other significant issues for consideration
Another problem is that most of the investor migrants that I advise whose net worth is greater than NZD 100 million will be actively involved in foreign businesses and investments such that it will be difficult for them to move permanently to New Zealand. If they do, then the issues I referred to earlier arising from New Zealand’s idiosyncratic foreign investment fund (or FIF) rules and the (admittedly more universally applied) controlled foreign company (or CFC) rules may cause immeasurable disruption to their business operations. This will be very lucrative work for New Zealand accounting and tax firms but ultimately I don’t think will be productive for anyone else or any other country.
Some ultra-high net worth potential applicants would be well advised to consider other residency options. One approach which some of my clients and contacts are taking is to set up a family office in Singapore and apply for residency or citizenship in Singapore. Other successful, well networked and motivated potential migrants could move to Australia and consider setting up business in Australia. ??
Both options may provide back door market access to New Zealand assets under the exemptions to the Overseas Investment Office rules relating to foreign investment and they can take a easy flight to New Zealand and stay for three months at a time any time without having to apply for a visa before they travel or risk any capital.
In any event, doing business in New Zealand is relatively straightforward, even for non-residents, and the issues raised in this article suggest that it is not materially easier for resident visa holders.
The involvement of NZTE in executing the new programme is generally a good thing
That the Investment Attraction team responsible for marketing New Zealand’s residency by investment programme was part of Immigration New Zealand, the regulator of the programme, was always slightly incongruous. So it is a good move to assign this team to New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (NZTE) whose stated aim is to grow a productive, sustainable and inclusive economy. Presumably the NZTE Live Deals Platform will have a important facilitation role to play in matching investor migrants to opportunities.
NZTE is well placed to help investor migrants find investment opportunities and guide capital to impactful destinations. In my experience, NZTE is an exemplar government agency that does commendable work for New Zealand exporters and in foreign markets by flying the flag and opening doors for New Zealand business in all corners of the world. NZTE’s people generally have real world, private sector experience and genuine commercial acumen and ability.
However, there is something slightly uncomfortable about a Government agency having the power to (1) select specific investments (note, not asset classes, as previously) which meet the criteria and (2) influence investors on where to place capital. The policy makers will say this is a concierge service designed for the benefit of all involved (investors and capital raisers). But some foreign advisors have expressed strong reservations to me in recent weeks. One influential global consulting firm stated that it was a recipe for cronyism at best and outright corruption at worst. Others are more measured but have expressed reservations about data protection, commercial sensitivities, and the creation of an artificial capital market in which valuations will be distorted. Even if integrity measures are in place (which I expect) it will be a challenge to build trust and adverse assumptions and perceptions will persist.
I don’t know how this will play out but I think it is instructive that the only other countries that I am aware of that take this approach are developing nations.
The English language requirement is inherently discriminatory
The new visa rules require applicants to speak, read, write, and understand English to at least Level 5 under the International English Language Testing System. This is plainly a thinly veiled but targeted counter-measure to curb Chinese migration to New Zealand which seems difficult to reconcile with political and social encouragement of diversity and inclusion in society. Nevertheless, the Government has concluded that the billions of dollars of migrant capital brought to New Zealand by Chinese migrants is not the type of investment that we want or need in New Zealand.
Granted, some of this capital was brought to New Zealand by Qualified Domestic Institutional Investors (QDII) and much of that was dragged straight back to China after permanent residency was granted. This should not have been allowed but Immigration New Zealand was complicit in this activity and actively and knowingly hosted events in China to attract this capital to New Zealand.
I think a better approach would have been to crack down on QDII specifically than to make a blanket rule that punishes not only Chinese migrants but also many from Korea and Japan (whence some of our most impactful and benevolent investor migrants have come) and parts of South East Asia and even Europe (I expect many business people in Ukraine would relish the opportunity to bring capital to New Zealand).
Rather than negatively screening non-English speakers I think it would be more appropriate to mandate some te reo Māori and related cultural competency training.
To be more marketable more Government agencies must align their policies and rules
Currently, Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (the Government department in which?Immigration NZ is located) makes and enforces the immigration rules in a vacuum which only considers one aspect of an investor migrant’s broader experience.
There is no alignment with Land Information New Zealand which, effectively, bans foreign ownership of New Zealand real estate. Similarly, the Inland Revenue is the government agency which makes and enforces the FIF and CFC rules and is an important government agency to all investor migrants.
I think New Zealand’s residency by investment scheme would be far more marketable if:
In other countries with which I am familiar there is alignment across the government agencies to ensure that investor migrants can, quite reasonably, purchase a home to live in and avoid major disruption to global business operations arising from a move to the jurisdiction.
It can be fixed and New Zealand can pivot to a more marketable programme
On a positive note, there is NZD 5 billion of committed capital from investor migrants flowing into New Zealand over the next few years. Immigration NZ is so far behind in processing visas (for the reasons explained earlier and probably others) that many who applied in early 2020 will not even have a case officer until 2023. I heard some worrying comments from NZTE that applicants for the new visa will be prioritised over those already in the queue. I hope I misheard that because New Zealand’s reputation would be tarnished and the integrity concerns raised by some already will be validated if that happens.?
In the meantime, I expect there will be very few applications for the new visa. But, fortunately, the rules are going to be reviewed in 12 months’ time. Future policy makers could revive and improve the programme easily enough and there would likely be no lasting damage.
In summary, this is what I would have policy makers do:
Executive Director, AmCham New Zealand. Connecting Companies with Opportunities.
2 年Your make some great recommendations Henry. Hope someone from the government is listening.
Well said Henry. Especially the points on the appropriateness of a concentration in high-risk, government-designated investments for the moderately wealthy in order to qualify for this scheme. Its a recipe for disaster, and will result in lots of finger-pointing when the inevitable business failures start to happen. I feel for the NZTE/NZGCP execs who will be making the calls on which businesses qualify as target investments... As a country we need to be much more open to the positive impact of wealthy immigrants. We are no longer in the 2015 situation of a long line of people waiting to come here, and the competition for skills and talent around the world is heating up. Creating and enforcing bespoke hoops for our immigrants to jump through is not going to lead to an outcome anyone will be happy with.
Director at Kauri Immigration
2 年Great article, Henry. Directionally the new category makes sense, though I'm disappointed Gov't didn't apply the (positive) lessons learned from the policy refresh in 2017: incentivising investment down the risk spectrum can efficiently influence migrant investor behaviour. Time will tell if requiring higher-risk investments will be palatable...
Attorney/President at SchulzLaw, PC
2 年Great article about how to get resident status in one of the most beautiful places on our planet.
?中国律师资格 ?新西兰持牌移民中介 ?高级经济师（副教授） ?厦门仲裁委仲裁员 Licensed Immigration Adviser / Arbitrator at Xiamen Arbitration Commission / Lawyer's Qualification Certificate of China / Senior Economist of China
2 年The comparative law is a realistic place to start; because billionaires face so many choices all the time. NZ is only one of the options.