Attracting Global Investment
Ideas for making Japan a top financial center
Listen to this story:
Two recent papers produced by committees of the American Chamber of Commerce in Japan (ACCJ) have highlighted the considerable opportunities that would result from changes to regulations that currently hinder Japan’s financial sector from attaining its full potential. And with the Japanese government committed to raising Tokyo’s profile as one of the world’s top financial centers, the committees are hopeful that regulatory authorities here might embrace some of the proposals.
The Investment Management Committee published a viewpoint entitled Relax or Eliminate Unrelated and Onerous Regulatory Requirements for Marketing of Offshore Funds to Professional Investors Conducted by Global Investment Managers, while the Financial Services Forum released a white paper headlined Reimagining Japan as a Global Financial Center, the latter proposing changes that would drive the nation’s long-term economic growth.
License to Sell
Japan’s financial regulations are designed to protect investors, both retail and institutional, which is a “worthwhile goal” according to David Nichols, executive advisor at EY Strategy and Consulting Co., Ltd. The type of investment is determined by the definition of the investment and the sales license held by the distributor.
“The licenses entail certain responsibilities—some fiduciary and some customer best-interest,” said Nichols, who also chairs the Investment Management Committee.
“While distributors do not have a fiduciary duty to their clients, they are holding their customers’ security purchases in firm accounts,” he added. “As such, the state of the distributors’ balance sheets can impact the client holdings. If the distributor goes bankrupt, clients may have difficulty accessing their investments.” As a result, the Type 1 license required by a distributor has capital adequacy requirements to safeguard investors.
While offshore funds fall under the definition of securities that can only be sold by distributors with a Type 1 license, the fund assets are not part of a distributor’s balance sheet and, therefore, are not impacted by the health of that balance sheet, Nichols pointed out.
“So, the reason the regulations are in force is that offshore funds have been classified as a security but do not hold the same dependency on the distributor’s balance sheet as a normal security does, since the fund assets are held by an independent custodian,” he explained, describing the situation as “an unintended consequence of regulations intended to protect investors.”
To correct the situation would require a root-and-branch revision of the 2006 Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, which would be a major undertaking and would require an amendment approved by the national Diet. Instead, the ACCJ is proposing some administrative changes that the Financial Services Agency can enact and “that would get us to materially the same place,” Nichols said.
Norihiko Tsukada, managing director and head of compliance at BlackRock Japan Co., Ltd. and vice-chair of the Investment Management Committee, identified “certain off-site monitoring items, including daily calculations of capital ratios” as one regulation that is unnecessarily obstructive, although he points out that regulations in Japan are broadly equivalent to those of other jurisdictions. In the United States, however, limitations are less of a concern, as the market there is sufficiently large to make it economically feasible to package investments in US onshore vehicles.
Lost in Translation
Distributors in Japan also face administrative hurdles and language requirements that make it more complicated to set up and run an asset management business. That should be a concern since Tokyo has designs on a larger role in the global financial services market.
The committee has recommended that regulations surrounding the offsite monitoring of investment management companies (IMCs) should be relaxed, as certain reporting items are not relevant to the activities of global IMCs, along with the initial registration process for distributors of standard Type 1 Financial Instruments Business (FIB).
“Tailoring regulatory requirements to address relevant business risks will not impact client protection,” the paper emphasizes, adding that “such relaxation of regulatory requirements would improve the appeal of Japan to foreign investment managers interested in establishing a presence in Japan, and would be consistent with the [government of Japan’s] objectives to promote Tokyo as a global financial city.”
The solution, the committee suggests, would be the creation of a new type of FIB, that might be called a “solicitation-only” Type 1 FIB.
Seize the Moment
Aaron Lloyd, director of Sompo Japan DC Securities Inc., said the regulations are not new, “but you could say that dissatisfaction has reached a tipping point, as many foreign investment management companies would like this regulation changed.”
Failure to seize this opportunity, he believes, may have lasting negative implications—particularly with Tokyo and Singapore competing to attract companies that might be considering leaving Hong Kong as a result of the Chinese government’s recent crackdowns in a city that, until now, has been the Asia–Pacific region’s preeminent financial center.
“Japan should introduce changes,” Lloyd told The ACCJ Journal. “The government should be making it easier for foreign asset managers to solicit their funds, not more difficult. With the costs of maintaining an investment management business high in Japan, it would be a boon to the industry if overburdening regulatory requirements were reduced.”
Driving Disruptive Innovation
The Investment Management Committee’s aims have a good degree of crossover with those of the ACCJ Financial Services Forum, which is confident that Japan can position itself as one of the leading financial gateways for Asia, and prosper were the region to become the leader in global economic growth.
“Financial services firms ultimately help grow capital markets and the economy, which creates jobs and a higher standard of living. They also help solve the financial wellness challenges of institutional and retail investors’ clients in a way that creates confidence and [encourages] participation in capital markets,” said Derek Young, a Chartered Financial Analyst charterholder who is president and representative director for Japan at FIL Investments (Japan) Limited.
Relative to its size and the diversity of its economy, at present Japan’s finance industry “punches far below its weight,” according to Young, who also serves as vice-chair of the ACCJ Financial Services Forum and is a member of Fidelity International’s Global Operating Committee.
Introducing more competition in this sector also helps to drive disruptive innovation in the pursuit of expanding Japan’s capital markets and helping Japanese investors solve the challenges that they face, Young added.
“Japan is the third-wealthiest country in the world, and is a super-aging society,” he pointed out. “The need for assets to last for longer and to provide income makes Japan a prime target for financial services firms that want to help solve that challenge.”
Roadmap
The Financial Services Forum has drawn up an extensive list of recommendations for the Japanese government that can be distilled into six main areas:
- Make it easier to live and work in Japan, as well as to enter and return
- Improve governance, transparency, and stewardship
- Address the need for more specialized professionals
- Broaden market participation for individual investors
- Address shortcomings in selected financial regulations
- Facilitate development of key financial infrastructure functions
In conclusion, the report states that, “Japan possesses the necessary attributes to achieve this goal: a highly educated and motivated population, a diverse and large economy and corporate base to support it, high levels of technological development and adoption, and a stable political environment underpinned by commitment to the rule of law.”
Critically, however, what has been missing to date is a coordinated commitment, across the government and corporate sectors, to address legacy structural shortcomings that are impeding the development of a financial center that leads rather than follows. On its current trajectory, Japan is likely to fall further behind nimbler centers.
“Many of the issues needing attention are challenging to address,” the report concludes. “Nevertheless, developing a more robust financial ecosystem in Japan demands that policymakers take up this challenge with a sense of urgency and determination. Doing so not only would establish Japanese leadership in global finance, but also make a vital contribution to Japan’s long-term economic growth.”
And Young is optimistic that change is in the air.
“One of the most encouraging facets of this white paper exercise was meeting with prominent Japanese government officials about the findings,” he said. “It’s clear that there is existing momentum to change the business environment in Japan, [and] to make it more friendly to foreign investors.
“Change is not easy—especially in a tradition-rich country such as Japan—but we met with very little resistance in a general sense and, instead, were greeted with a friendly acknowledgment that Japan is thinking about ways to improve its positioning as a global financial center.”
