[HN Gopher] Cayman Islands offshore finance: Anglo-America, Japa... ___________________________________________________________________ Cayman Islands offshore finance: Anglo-America, Japan, and hedge funds (2016) Author : walterbell Score : 55 points Date : 2023-04-02 18:27 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.tandfonline.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.tandfonline.com) | yieldcrv wrote: | Caymans is just a better jurisdiction. A lot of their financial | regulations make sense. | | It requires complete nationalistic hubris to dismiss that. | | Its not _just_ a tax blocker. That's just happenstance because | some countries know how to balance their budget. I could think of | two dozen other things that Caymans does better than large | nations like the US or other financial haven microstates, for | business incorporation, capital formation, audits and more. | | The regulators in Caymans are very meticulous, many are educated | in the US at top universities or had careers in the US. | markus_zhang wrote: | I guess "making more sense" is purely subjective. | xrd wrote: | I'm reading the comments above and see the reminder to not be | snarky. I'm not trying to be snarky with the following | question. | | I can understand their financial regulations make more sense. | | But, they aren't contributing to the roads that US hedge fund | operators drive on, right? Or, the airports out of which they | fly? | | If I go further with your statement that their financial | regulations make sense, should I interpret that as "US does | taxation wrong" (or, it is incompetent with second order | effects, etc)? | | But, even if the US taxation is wrong or not optimal, how do | things like roads and airports get funded in the country in | which the person resides? | | Is this completely wrongheaded? I don't understand how a | citizen of one state can opt out of the taxation structure | while still reaping the benefits of living there? | | Is this perspective incorrect? | simple-thoughts wrote: | Your perspective is correct but missing a critical fact. The | hedge fund manager still pays taxes in his home country for | his earnings abroad. So he still pays the taxes for those | services. | | Where it gets more crazy is if the hedge fund manager is a US | citizen but hasn't lived in the US for decades. The USG still | requires he pays taxes, even though he isn't using any | services. That's because taxes aren't a free agreement to | purchase services but are rather an exercise of force. | sokoloff wrote: | The taxes in country A get paid when person Pa brings their | earnings home as income. The taxes in country B get paid when | Pb does the same. | germinalphrase wrote: | " I could think of two dozen other things that Caymans does | better than large nations like the US or other financial haven | microstates, for business incorporation, capital formation, | audits and more." | | By all means - proceed... | yieldcrv wrote: | Not sure where to start | | Its mostly about the master feeder structure, other times | about a sandwich, learn about those | | You have a feeder for domestic tax persons, and a feeder for | non-domestic tax persons and domestic tax exempt persons | | Its usually dumb and pointless to have non-domestic tax | persons to use your domestic feeder, because the regulations | are poorly thought out and counterproductive and actually | serve no purpose. | | all feeders are partnerships or limited by shares, and send | capital to the master entity which does the trading | | the difficulty is that comparison is not _just_ about the US | or any insulting any one country, many old world countries | have withholding done on investment-in which even US people | would find absurd. or the accredited investor requirements | are much lower. | | The attentiveness and accessibility of the regulators is a | boon. | | Dunno where to start but I hope that inspired on the depth of | how deep to look. Its a great financial center. | yt-sdb wrote: | Can I make a suggestion? Most people in this thread will | think you are wrong about the Cayman Islands. In this | context, your comment, "Caymans is just a better | jurisdiction," is provocative. You also claim you can think | of 24 things that are better. Fine. But then this rambling | comment with jargon and the all-too-common implication to | "do your own research" is, from a rhetorical perspective, | not persuasive. I'd be genuinely curious to hear a more | detailed, layman-oriented answer. | MichaelZuo wrote: | Well having a law code that's readable and understandable | within a single human lifetime would already be several | hundred things done better. | rr808 wrote: | I heard too a lot of wealthy people have money in Caymans. Its | not hidden from taxes, its just to prevent random people in the | US suing for crazy amounts as they're prone to do. | throwaway1777 wrote: | Classic schemes like the cayman sandwich are getting broken by | bank failures like svb. The cayman division was not fdic insured | afaik. | chollida1 wrote: | > Classic schemes like the cayman sandwich are getting broken | by bank failures like svb. The cayman division was not fdic | insured afaik. | | This seems wrong to me based on my understanding but i'd be | willing to be educated. | | Based on the fact that everyone got their money back from FDIC | in what way have these bank failures caused "Cayman sandwich | are getting broken by bank failures like svb" | | The Cayman's had one purpose for most hedge funds. Move assets | off shore so all gains would be tax free. Once you want your | money you onshore it again in and pay tax on that total. This | allows your money to grow tax free, which means if you're good | at it, it grows faster. | | It's just like a tax free retirement account that lets you | deduct your contributes but makes you pay tax on the money you | withdraw. | | As far as for companies using the cayman sandwich, what i've | read says everyone got their assets out, no? | kgwgk wrote: | > Based on the fact that everyone got their money back from | FDIC | | Did they? | | https://twitter.com/mdudas/status/1641959202078720001 | whitemary wrote: | According to the shared documents, they will. They just | need to file a claim first. | kgwgk wrote: | What documents? | | (Edit to add: If you meant the letter in that link what | it says doesn't sound like "you will definitely get your | money back, you just need to file a claim first" at all: | | "Balances held by customers in accounts at the Cayman | Islands Branch at failure are not deposits under the | Federal Deposit Insurance Act [...] Your status as a | result of the Institution's failure is that of general | unsecured creditor.") | yorwba wrote: | Second screenshot in the tweet you linked? | kgwgk wrote: | What do you think that "general unsecured creditor" | means? | whitemary wrote: | It means "to be determined." To be clear, it does _not_ | mean their claim will be denied. And if very recent | history, politics, presidential speeches are to be | believed, it means their claim will be accepted. | | The first clue about contemporary political economy could | tell us that the entire SVB meltdown would be socialized | by the US state. See my comments in this thread for my | predictions pre-bailout: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35094447 | goatsi wrote: | The key point isn't if a claim is accepted or denied (the | people getting the letters almost certainly have standing | to be accepted), it's if there is money to pay the | claims, and how soon they can get it. Having an unsecured | claim isn't "Show up on Monday and the FDIC will hand you | a bag of cash", it's "The bankruptcy court and trustees | expect the final settlement to be in 3-5 years, with a | haircut of 10-30%". | whitemary wrote: | Source? | kgwgk wrote: | https://www.fdic.gov/consumers/banking/facts/priority.htm | l | | "By law, after insured depositors are paid, uninsured | depositors are paid next, followed by general creditors | and then stockholders. In most cases, general creditors | and stockholders realize little or no recovery. Payments | of uninsured funds only, called dividends, depend on the | net recovered proceeds from the liquidation of the bank's | assets and the payment of bank liabilities according to | federal statute. While fully insured deposits are paid | promptly after the failure of the bank, the disbursements | of uninsured funds may take place over several years | based on the timing in the liquidation of the failed bank | assets. " | kgwgk wrote: | Of course the claims won't be denied. | | The acceptance of the claims means that they will share | the proceeds from the liquidation of the assets of the | non-acquired remains of the bank with the other general | unsecured creditors. | | As far as I can see, those Cayman Islands "not-deposits" | will be paid just like the outstanding invoices owed to | furniture distributors, etc. They'll get at least part of | it but there is no guarantee about how much - and it will | take time. [Of course they could (?) still decide to | treat them differently. But the current outlook is not | bright.] | sokoloff wrote: | And if the investments do grow, the governments still get | their money, just later (but in greater sums at that time). | lordnacho wrote: | As a hedge fund guy, you stick your money on an island for tax | reasons, but it's not always the nefarious reason everyone | thinks. | | It's the tax neutrality that matters. Once an investor takes | money back to their own country, they are responsible for the | taxes themselves. Rather than a system where for instance you | might pay the country of residence and every investor from around | the world needs to fill in forms to get their difference back. | tomatocracy wrote: | Yes - I'm also in the asset management industry. The ultimate | point is, investors in a fund don't want to end up in a worse | tax position than if they'd made the investments in the fund | directly and not via a fund. The worst of all worlds are paying | tax at the fund level and not being able to offset that against | local tax due - this is surprisingly more common than you might | think; not to mention tax-exempt investors like some pension | funds (sovereign wealth funds are a bit different again). | | Some jurisdictions for fund tax residence/incorporation are | much much better for this than others. If you then also look at | jurisdictions which have a predictable and fair legal system | and an efficient admin setup for funds you end up with quite a | short list of places (Cayman, Luxembourg, Ireland, etc). | whitemary wrote: | > _it 's not always the nefarious reason everyone thinks_ | | We know for an actual fact that some people shoplift to feed | hungry babies. Should we legalize shoplifting? | | https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/parenting/walmart-greete... | | I tend to think there's a better solution. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | Recently I saw that baby formula in our nearby store is now | in the plastic box, with a tracker to make sure it's not | stolen. Made me really sad. I asked the store employees, and | apparently it's a common problem. | | We have already established, that 'just following orders' is | not valid, and there does come a point where the law is so | inhumane that you must disobey it. | | I don't think the line is at 'Hitler is in charge', I think | it comes much earlier. For example 'The law' in Britain has | castrated Allan Turing for being gay after he won a Nobel | prise and helped win the war. Would you follow those orders? | meindnoch wrote: | >Allan Turing for being gay after he won a Nobel prise and | helped win the war | | - Alan, not Allan | | - prize, not prise | | - Turing never received a Nobel Prize | whitemary wrote: | Right. Ironically, Great Britain, who financed the | construction of the Nazi's military infrastructure, did in- | fact draw the line at 'Hitler is in charge.' | | Under capitalism, the line is drawn by the owning class. | Unfortunately, working people don't get a say. | yt-sdb wrote: | Isn't this analogy wrong? The question implied is: if | shoplifting were legal and if some people shoplifted to feed | hungry babies, should we make shoplifting illegal? | whitemary wrote: | If it weren't wrong, it would not be an analogy. Most | intelligent people will realize that the current state of | the law is irrelevant, but if you really can't get past | that: | | If shoplifting were undesirable and if some people | shoplifted to feed hungry babies, is shoplifting then | desirable? | yt-sdb wrote: | From the guidelines [1]: | | > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't | cross-examine. Edit out swipes. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html | [deleted] ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-04-02 23:00 UTC)