US-China commission warns of fraud risk
US government hears recommendations on Chinese sovereign wealth funds
WASHINGTON, DC – The US-China Economic and Security Review Commission has recommended to US Congress increased controls over Chinese sovereign wealth funds, to reduce insider fraud risk.
National security questions have been raised by recent injections of Chinese capital into the US economy in the form of sovereign wealth funds; increasingly becoming a political rather than economic debate.
“The US economy must remain open for investment. I think we all agree on that. However, some observers have questioned whether one nation’s sovereign investments could lead to influence over key industries, access to technology, or influence over another nation’s policies,” said the Commission’s chairman, Larry Wortzel, to Congress.
Sovereign wealth funds could have access to government officials and information that is not available to other investors.
“We are concerned that some sovereign wealth funds, or persons associated with them such as some hedge funds, might undermine market integrity by engaging in insider trading or other market abuses,” said Linda Chatman Thomsen, director in the division of enforcement at the SEC.
“We are concerned that if the government from which we seek assistance is also controlling the entity under investigation, the nature and extent of co-operation could be compromised,” said Thomsen.
Sovereign wealth funds have invested $44.3 billion in US banks, brokers and financial firms since 2006, according to consultancy Federal Financial Analytics.
The SEC has already highlighted Chinese insider-trading risks. On February 5 it said it had settled with a former Dow Jones board member and three other Hong Kong residents accused of insider trading and illegal tipping before news of an unsolicited buyout offer by News Corporation sent Dow Jones shares soaring last year.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (point 2.4), printing is limited to a single copy.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. As outlined in our terms and conditions, https://www.infopro-digital.com/terms-and-conditions/subscriptions/ (clause 2.4), an Authorised User may only make one copy of the materials for their own personal use. You must also comply with the restrictions in clause 2.5.
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
Double, but no trouble? CVA capital hit may lack clout
Industry opinion mixed around Basel III endgame derivatives charge
Amid debanking drama, banks try to say ‘no’, safely
A basic risk management tool – the ability to turn a customer away – has become a political football
Erba myth: will US banks choose new capital measure?
B3E gives US banks a dilemma – adopt expanded risk-based approach, or a new standardised alternative
Illiquid assets pricing still needs expert judgement, say banks
EU regulators want more transparency in valuations, but some asset prices remain elusive
Fed to move tailored-capital goalposts soon, says Bowman
Banks hope agencies will index triggers for harsher capital rules to economic growth
Will SEC reporting proposal supercharge alt data providers?
Move that would allow companies to opt out of quarterly reporting disclosures welcomed
EU lawmaker calls for review of Luxembourg’s cross-border rules
Grand Duchy accused of side-stepping rules aimed at prising away banking business from London
Un-American or un-JPM? Surcharge rethink divides G-Sibs
Some see sense in rethink to funding indicator, others call for a backtrack