今天繼續(xù)玩高深的，學(xué)金融的朋友們別笑。還是紐約大學(xué)STERN商學(xué)院房地產(chǎn)金融研究中心的EB-5融資分析報(bào)告，該報(bào)告主要是以研究者的態(tài)度，向開(kāi)發(fā)商和區(qū)域中心解釋?zhuān)瑐鹘y(tǒng)房地產(chǎn)市場(chǎng)如何融資，開(kāi)發(fā)商又應(yīng)該怎樣進(jìn)行EB-5融資的，非常有技術(shù)含量。出國(guó)移民網(wǎng)將其中關(guān)于房地產(chǎn)融資的關(guān)鍵部分，慢慢翻譯給各位業(yè)內(nèi)朋友參考。上次發(fā)過(guò)一篇優(yōu)先股和夾層貸款的介紹和區(qū)別，今天發(fā)關(guān)于過(guò)橋融資的。
過(guò)橋融資
為緩解投資者(希望使用監(jiān)管銀行來(lái)保護(hù)投資)和開(kāi)發(fā)人員(他們希望EB-5資金無(wú)需等待直接釋放到項(xiàng)目)之間的緊張關(guān)系，一些開(kāi)發(fā)商轉(zhuǎn)向過(guò)橋融資。在EB-5項(xiàng)目中，過(guò)橋融資是過(guò)度融資或臨時(shí)融資 - 以債務(wù)或股權(quán)的形式 - 在開(kāi)發(fā)商收到EB-5資金之前。
過(guò)橋融資描述了資金的用途 - 也就是說(shuō)，項(xiàng)目的一部分是過(guò)橋融資，直到最終計(jì)劃的資金來(lái)源成為可用的。過(guò)橋融資不是特指融資的類(lèi)型。類(lèi)似于EB-5投資，過(guò)橋融資可能的結(jié)構(gòu)可以是高級(jí)債務(wù)，次級(jí)債、無(wú)擔(dān)保債務(wù)或股權(quán)。不過(guò)，過(guò)橋融資通常采用貸款的形式。
USCIS長(zhǎng)期以來(lái)一直擔(dān)心，過(guò)橋貸款可能是開(kāi)發(fā)商用EB-5資金，通過(guò)替代融資來(lái)降低資本成本，從而成為一個(gè)事后的借口，這就會(huì)對(duì)創(chuàng)造新的就業(yè)影響最小。USCIS認(rèn)為，EB-5過(guò)橋融資只是增加開(kāi)發(fā)商的利潤(rùn)率。因?yàn)?，USCIS是否會(huì)計(jì)入在EB-5資金釋放到項(xiàng)目之前的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造，存在不確定性，所以直到最近，EB-5資金的過(guò)橋貸款市場(chǎng)一直疲弱。
然而，在2013年5月的政策備忘錄中，USCIS在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上采用了一種非常有利的觀點(diǎn)。這帶來(lái)了一定程度的確定性，導(dǎo)致對(duì)EB-5項(xiàng)目的過(guò)橋融資需求增加。
政策備忘錄在相關(guān)的部分說(shuō)明：“開(kāi)發(fā)商或新商業(yè)企業(yè)(NCE)實(shí)體，直接或通過(guò)一個(gè)單獨(dú)的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造實(shí)體(JCE)，可以利用…過(guò)橋融資…如果項(xiàng)目在收到EB-5資金之前，是基于使用過(guò)橋融資開(kāi)始，并在隨后用EB-5資金取代過(guò)橋融資，NEC仍然可以享受這些就業(yè)創(chuàng)造機(jī)會(huì)…即使在獲取臨時(shí)融資之前沒(méi)有考慮EB-5融資，只要融資是作為短期臨時(shí)融資考慮的，并且在隨后是要被替換的，那么EB-5資金的注入仍可能導(dǎo)致和享有新的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)創(chuàng)造。開(kāi)發(fā)商不應(yīng)該排除使用EB-5資本作為代替短期融資的替代資金來(lái)源，僅僅因?yàn)樗讷@得過(guò)橋或臨時(shí)融資之前沒(méi)有考慮EB-5資金。”
因此，即使在取得過(guò)橋融資之前沒(méi)有考慮EB-5資金，但是只要臨時(shí)融資(最終被取代)被視為最終要被取代的，開(kāi)發(fā)商隨后就可以使用EB-5資金作為重置資本的來(lái)源，并仍然享有所創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)。這種解釋?zhuān)炔徽J(rèn)可EB-5資金釋放到項(xiàng)目之前產(chǎn)生的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造，能支持募集更多潛在的EB-5資金。
基于USCIS該解釋?zhuān)殡S著EB-5資金作為一種融資工具的日益流行，越來(lái)越多的銀行和其他機(jī)構(gòu)愿意借出過(guò)橋貸款來(lái)填補(bǔ)資金缺口，直到EB-5資金從監(jiān)管賬戶(hù)中釋放出來(lái)。一些銀行，如花旗銀行，已經(jīng)成立了一個(gè)特殊的部門(mén)來(lái)提供這些貸款。即使意識(shí)到，USCIS對(duì)于批準(zhǔn)I-526申請(qǐng)的不確定性，這些銀行仍然給沒(méi)有EB-5資金的項(xiàng)目發(fā)放貸款。因此，過(guò)橋融資借款者必須準(zhǔn)備好，不依賴(lài)于EB-5資金作為替換資金來(lái)源的，退出戰(zhàn)略。
同樣，EB-5監(jiān)管資金不能作為抵押品的來(lái)源。根據(jù)花旗銀行，過(guò)橋貸款占EB-5項(xiàng)目所有資金來(lái)源的比例，從50%最多到80%。
必須強(qiáng)調(diào)的是，USCIS不限制EB-5已經(jīng)在監(jiān)管銀行中的過(guò)橋融資情況。USCIS的解釋沒(méi)有提到監(jiān)管銀行，按照其解釋條款，甚至允許在考慮EB-5資金之前就已經(jīng)到位的過(guò)橋融資。
很顯然如果使用過(guò)橋貸款，項(xiàng)目的成本將高于，EB-5資金能夠在需要的時(shí)候立即注入的情況。通常過(guò)橋貸款會(huì)被使用在工程建設(shè)花費(fèi)上。即使最終NCE提供給JCE的貸款是夾層貸款的情況下，過(guò)橋融資貸款人通常用高級(jí)抵押貸款來(lái)?yè)?dān)保。
不同地區(qū)抵押貸款稅率不同。例如，在紐約，稅率接近于貸款本金的3%，這一點(diǎn)是很重要的，特別是考慮到過(guò)橋貸款的短期性。將帶來(lái)額外的交易成本。此外，過(guò)橋貸款的利率也會(huì)高于EB-5資金貸款。
因此，過(guò)橋貸款增加了一層成本并使融資交易復(fù)雜化。相應(yīng)地，在評(píng)估是否使用EB-5資金作為資金來(lái)源時(shí)，開(kāi)發(fā)商必須考慮過(guò)橋貸款是否會(huì)是必要的，如果是必要的，那么必須估計(jì)采用過(guò)橋貸款帶來(lái)的相關(guān)的額外資金成本。
過(guò)橋貸款也為開(kāi)發(fā)商創(chuàng)造了一個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)，來(lái)減少在高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的項(xiàng)目建設(shè)階段，募集移民投資者資金而承擔(dān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)。過(guò)橋貸款借款人最初注入的資金將由EB-5資金替換。雖然開(kāi)發(fā)商可能希望移民資金能盡早進(jìn)項(xiàng)目，并且最好沒(méi)有過(guò)橋貸款及其附加成本，不過(guò)，從投資移民者的角度，過(guò)橋融資看起來(lái)是有利的，尤其是被替換的過(guò)橋融資所創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)能夠分配給EB-5投資者。
在政策備忘錄發(fā)布之后，USCIS已經(jīng)表明，在對(duì)由過(guò)橋融資創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)的自由解釋是有限制的。例如，如果EB-5資金用于替換，最初考慮為長(zhǎng)期貸款，那么EB-5資金就不能享有所創(chuàng)造的就業(yè)。不過(guò)，政策備忘錄的寬泛解釋?zhuān)瑸镋B-5資金開(kāi)放很多創(chuàng)造就業(yè)機(jī)會(huì)的渠道，即使這些就業(yè)是在EB-5資金釋放到項(xiàng)目之前創(chuàng)造的。
從技術(shù)上講，在大多數(shù)情況下，過(guò)橋貸款人向NCE提供貸款，因?yàn)镹CE是接收從監(jiān)管賬戶(hù)釋放的EB-5資金的實(shí)體。然后，NCE將過(guò)橋貸款轉(zhuǎn)移給JCE。由于EB-5資金是從監(jiān)管賬戶(hù)釋放，所以EB-5資金應(yīng)用于減少過(guò)橋貸款余額。
同樣還存在其他的過(guò)橋融資來(lái)源。開(kāi)發(fā)商子公司或其他相關(guān)方有時(shí)也會(huì)提供過(guò)橋貸款。例如，Lightstone REIT，開(kāi)發(fā)商的子公司，給 Lightstone的EB-5項(xiàng)目提供過(guò)橋融資?；I集了占據(jù)EB-5募資額75%的4500萬(wàn)美元的過(guò)橋融資。很明顯，這個(gè)選擇不是很多開(kāi)發(fā)商會(huì)具備的。
不同類(lèi)型的“過(guò)橋”融資：EB-5用于公共基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目融資缺口
如上所示，不僅私人開(kāi)發(fā)商利用EB-5資金為它們的大型項(xiàng)目融資，地方政府也正越來(lái)越多地利用這個(gè)資金來(lái)源來(lái)資助它們自己的大型公共基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施項(xiàng)目。然而，地方政府以稍微不同的方式利用EB-5資金。
對(duì)于大型項(xiàng)目，一些地方政府獲得聯(lián)邦資金來(lái)支持，可能是由地方政府承擔(dān)，一部分資金成本。項(xiàng)目總成本與政府資金之間的差距通常通過(guò)發(fā)行市政債券來(lái)彌補(bǔ)。然而，在一些情況下，地方政府通過(guò)創(chuàng)造性的方式利用EB-5資金來(lái)填補(bǔ)全部或部分的資金差距。這些項(xiàng)目明顯依賴(lài)貸款模式，因?yàn)閭€(gè)人不能擁有當(dāng)?shù)卣驒C(jī)構(gòu)的權(quán)益。
EB-5資金可以與稅收減免(Tax Credit)計(jì)劃相結(jié)合
一些開(kāi)發(fā)商選擇，將EB-投資與稅收減免計(jì)劃相結(jié)合來(lái)滿(mǎn)足資金缺口，或減少對(duì)其他資金的需求。這些稅收減免計(jì)劃，包括新市場(chǎng)稅收減免(NMTC)，低收入住房稅收減免(LIHTC)，歷史性稅收減免(HTC)和/或布朗菲爾德稅收抵免(Brownfield Tax Credits)。
討論如何將這些稅收抵免計(jì)劃與EB-5資金結(jié)合來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)資金來(lái)源超出了本文的范圍。然而，需要指出的是，EB-5資金的適用范圍遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)通過(guò)這些稅收減免計(jì)劃獲得的資金。
NMTC只適用于“低收入社區(qū)”，即基于獨(dú)立的“低收入”的人口普查區(qū)(比EB-5的TEA范疇更窄)。LIHTC僅限于一種資產(chǎn)類(lèi)別：住宅項(xiàng)目，有收入的局限性 - 低于市場(chǎng)利率。HTC可以適用于多種資產(chǎn)類(lèi)別，但它有非常有限的應(yīng)用方面，因?yàn)樗ǔＶ贿m用于歷史和某些其他老建筑的修復(fù)。布朗菲爾德稅收抵免額度，通常涉及工業(yè)場(chǎng)所，并僅限于需要廣泛的環(huán)境修復(fù)的資產(chǎn)。這些項(xiàng)目提供了稅收減免的發(fā)行，其所有者可以出售稅收減免，來(lái)轉(zhuǎn)為項(xiàng)目股權(quán)，盡管這在布朗菲爾德稅收方面并不常見(jiàn)。
相比之下，EB-5資金不涉及稅收減免或任何政府補(bǔ)貼。不像稅收優(yōu)惠程序僅可用于有限的資產(chǎn)類(lèi)別或特定條件下的現(xiàn)有資產(chǎn)，EB-5資金可用于更廣泛領(lǐng)域，更少的限制。另一方面，項(xiàng)目的就業(yè)創(chuàng)造能力作為限制EB-5資金的因素，但不構(gòu)成稅收抵免計(jì)劃的限制。
本文來(lái)源：紐約大學(xué)STERN商學(xué)院房地產(chǎn)金融研究中心的EB-5融資分析報(bào)告。
“A Roadmap to the Use of EB-5 Capital: An Alternative Financing Tool for Commercial Real Estate Projects”
Bridge Financing
To relieve the tension between investors (who desire escrow protection of their funds) and developers (who wish to proceed with the project without waiting for release of the EB-5 capital), some developers have turned to bridge financing. Bridge financing
in the EB-5 context is interim financing or temporary financing – in the form of debt or equity – prior to the developer’s receipt of EB-5 capital.
Bridge financing describes the use of the funds – that is, to bridge the financing of a portion of a project until the ultimate intended source of financing is available. Bridge financing does not refer to the type of financing. Similar to EB-5 capital, bridge financing could be structured as senior debt, subordinated debt, unsecured debt or equity. However, bridge financing typically takes the form of a loan.
The USCIS had long been concerned that bridge loans might be an after-the-fact pretext by an EB-5 developer for lowering its cost of capital by replacing financing, with minimal impact on new job creation. It had been argued that EB-5 bridge financing simply increases the profit margin of developers. Until recently, the bridge loan market for EB-5 capital was weak due to uncertainty about whether USCIS would count, for EB-5 purposes, jobs created before the EB-5 capital was released into the project.
However, the USCIS took a very favorable view on this issue in its May 2013 Policy Memorandum. This has brought a measure of certainty to the area and has resulted in an increase in demand for bridge financing for EB-5 projects.
The Policy Memorandum states in pertinent part: “[T]he developer or the principal of the new commercial enterprise, either directly or through a separate job-creating entity, may utilize…bridge financing… If the project commences based on the bridge financing prior to the receipt of the EB-5 capital and subsequently replaces it with EB-5 capital, the NCE may still receive credit for the job creation… Even if the EB-5 financing was not contemplated prior to acquiring the temporary financing, as long as the financing to be replaced was contemplated as short-term temporary financing which would be subsequently replaced, the infusion of EB-5 financing could still result in the creation of, and credit for, new jobs. Developers should not be precluded from using EB-5 capital as an alternative source to replace temporary financing simply because it was not contemplated prior to obtaining the bridge or temporary financing.”
Thus, even if the EB-5 financing was not contemplated prior to placement of the bridge financing, so long as the financing to be replaced was viewed as temporary financing (which would ultimately be replaced) the developer could later use EB-5 capital as the source of replacement capital and still obtain credit for the job creation. This interpretation supports a potentially far greater EB-5 capital raise than if the EB-5 capital were not credited with job creation generated for the period prior to the release of the EB-5 capital to the project.
Based on this interpretation and the increased popularity of EB-5 capital as a financing tool, more banks and other institutions are willing to make bridge loans to fill the financing gap until the EB-5 funds are released from escrow. Some banks, such as Citibank, have formed a special division to provide these loans. These banks still underwrite the loan based on the project without EB-5 capital, in recognition that USCIS approval of the I-526 petitions is uncertain. Thus, the bridge lender must be prepared to have an exit strategy that does not rely upon the EB-5 capital as the takeout source.
Similarly, the EB-5 escrowed funds are not available as a source of collateral. According to Citibank291, the principal amount of the bridge loan is a percentage, from 50% to at most 80%, of the project’s total EB-5 capital component.
It must be emphasized that the USCIS does not limit bridge financing to situations where the EB-5 capital is being held in escrow. The USCIS interpretation does not mention escrow and by its terms allows the bridge financing to be in place before EB-5 capital is even contemplated.
Where a bridge loan is required, obviously the costs to the project will be higher than where the EB-5 capital could be immediately funded when needed. The bridge loan proceeds are typically used to fund project construction costs. The bridge lender typically secures the loan with a senior mortgage loan, even if the ultimate loan to the JCE by the NCE will be a mezz loan.
The mortgage tax rate varies by jurisdiction. For example, in New York City the rate approaches 3% of the loan’s principal amount, which is significant especially given the short duration of the bridge loan.294 Additional closing costs will apply. Furthermore, the interest rate on the bridge loan might be higher than on the EB-5 capital loan.
Thus, the bridge loan adds a layer of costs and complexity to the financing transaction. Accordingly, in evaluating whether to use EB-5 capital in its capital stack, a developer must take into account whether a bridge loan will be necessary and, if so, must estimate the additional costs of capital associated with that bridge loan.
The bridge loan also creates an opportunity for the developer to reduce the risk that the immigrant investor assumes by funding capital during the risky construction phase of a project. The bridge lender initially funds some of the costs that otherwise would be funded by the EB-5 capital. Although the developer presumably desires that the immigrant fund these costs as early as possible, and preferably without the necessity of a bridge loan and its additional costs, bridge financing arguably might be viewed favorably by the immigrant investor, particularly since the jobs created during the period the bridge financing is in place are allocated to the EB-5 investor. Subsequent to the issuance of the Policy Memorandum, USCIS has indicated that there are limits on its liberal interpretation of job creation funded by bridge financing. For example, if EB-5 funds are used to refinance debt initially contemplated as longer-term debt, then the EB-5 funds would not be credited with job creation.295 Nevertheless, the broad terms of the Policy Memorandum open many avenues for EB-5 capital to be credited with job creation, even where the jobs are created before the EB-5 capital is released to the project.
Technically, in most cases, the bridge lender makes the loan to the NCE as that is the entity that will be the recipient of the EB-5 capital upon its release from escrow. The NCE then transfers the bridge loan proceeds to the JCE. As the EB-5 capital is released from escrow, the funds are applied to reduce the bridge loan balance.
Other sources of bridge financing are also available. Affiliates or other related parties to the developer sometimes fund the bridge loan. For example, the Lightstone REIT, an affiliate of the developer, is providing bridge financing for the Lightstone’s EB-5 project. There the bridge financing of $45 million represents 75% of the EB-5 capital raise.297 Obviously, this alternative is not available to many developers.
A different type of “bridge” financing: EB-5 gap financing utilized for public infrastructure projects
As indicated above, not only are private developers tapping EB-5 capital to finance their large-scale projects, but local governments are increasingly utilizing this source to fund their own large-scale public infrastructure projects. However, the local governments utilize the capital in a slightly different manner.
For large projects, some local governments obtain Federal funding to support part of the capital improvement cost that may be borne by the local government. The gap between the total project cost and the government funding is often filled by the issuance of municipal bonds. However, in a few instances, local governments have used EB-5 capital in creative ways to fill all or part of this gap. These projects obviously rely upon the loan model because individuals do not own interests in the local government or agency.
EB-5 capital may be combined with tax credit programs
Some developers choose to combine EB-5 capital with tax credit programs to close a funding gap or reduce the need for other capital. These tax credit programs include New Market Tax Credits (NMTC)302, Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC),303 Historic Tax Credits (HTC)304 and/or Brownfield Tax Credits.
A discussion of how these programs can be combined with EB-5 funds in the capital stack is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is noted that the availability of EB-5 capital has much broader application than capital provided through those tax credit programs.
NMTC is restricted to “low-income communities” based on an individual census tract in a “low income” area (a much narrower category than EB-5 TEAs). LIHTC is restricted to an asset class and has income limitations - below market rate, residential projects. HTC is not limited to an asset class, but it has very limited application since it applies generally only to the rehabilitation of historic and certain other older buildings. Brownfield credits typically involve industrial sites and are limited to properties that require extensive environmental remediation. Each of these programs provides for the issuance of tax credits that can be sold by the owner to generate equity for the project, although it is not common in the Brownfield context.
NMTC is restricted to “low-income communities” based on an individual census tract in a “low income” area (a much narrower category than EB-5 TEAs). LIHTC is restricted to an asset class and has income limitations - below market rate, residential projects. HTC is not limited to an asset class, but it has very limited application since it applies generally only to the rehabilitation of historic and certain other older buildings. Brownfield credits typically involve industrial sites and are limited to properties that require extensive environmental remediation. Each of these programs provides for the issuance of tax credits that can be sold by the owner to generate equity for the project, although it is not common in the Brownfield context.