Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Antique China Debt 古董中國債券
#1
Trump’s New Trade War Tool Might Just Be Antique China Debt
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...china-debt

[Image: -1x-1.jpg]

Collectors of pre-Communist debt are lobbying the White House to force Beijing to make good.

President Donald Trump’s next move in an increasingly fraught trade war with China could be one for the history books, literally. The Trump administration has been studying the unlikely prospect of reviving century-old claims on Chinese bonds sold before the founding of the communist People’s Republic.

The defaulted China bonds can be found in the attics and basements of thousands of Americans, or on EBay, where the certificates sell as collectibles for as little as a few hundred dollars each. The PRC, which succeeded the Republic of China after it replaced the imperial dynasty, has never recognized the debt, though that hasn’t stopped decades of attempts to collect payment on it.

Now, with Trump ratcheting up the trade rhetoric with China, holders of the antiquarian bonds are hoping he’ll press their case, even as other parts of the U.S. government are accusing people of fraudulently selling the same paper.

Perhaps the only thing more peculiar than the story of the Chinese debt and the bid to seek payment on it, is the cast of characters drawn into its orbit. President Trump, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross have met with bondholders and their representatives. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of a Texas megachurch and spiritual adviser to George W. Bush, has been charged by the U.S securities regulator for selling the debt to elderly retirees. (Caldwell has pleaded innocent and maintains that the bonds are legitimate.)

“With President Trump, it’s a whole new ballgame,” says Jonna Bianco, a Tennessee cattle rancher who leads a group representing pre-revolutionary China bondholders and who has met with the president. “He’s an ‘America First' person. God bless him.”

The Hukuang Railway bond is a thing of beauty. Printed with an ornate border and carrying a large chop, the debt was sold in 1911 to help fund construction of a rail line stretching from Hankou to Szechuan.

The U.S. once referred to the money that flowed into China at the turn of the 20th century as “dollar diplomacy”—a way of building relations with the country (and its massive untapped market) by helping it industrialize. The Chinese have another term for it: For them it fits squarely into China’s “Hundred Years of Humiliation,” when the Middle Kingdom was forced to agree to unfair foreign control.

Soon after the imperial dynasty was overthrown in 1911, the Republic of China began tapping the international capital markets for funding too. That included selling a series of gold-backed notes to fund the nascent country. It’s these bonds that Bianco, who co-founded the American Bondholders Foundation in 2001 to represent holders of pre-communist debt, is hoping could be a useful political leverage in Trump’s fight with China.

“The People’s Republic of China dismisses its defaulted sovereign obligations as pre-1949 Republic of China debt, but doing so contradicts the PRC’s claim that it is sole successor to the ROC’s sovereign rights,” Bianco said in an emailed statement in response to this story.

Bianco says she’s spent years researching the issue and recruiting high-profile proponents to the ABF team, including Bill Bennett, who was U.S. Secretary of Education under Ronald Reagan; Brian Kennedy, senior fellow at the Claremont Institute; and Michael Socarras, Bush’s nominee for Air Force general counsel.

She argues that China is in selective default, having paid out on bonds held by British investors in 1987 as part of the Hong Kong handover deal negotiated by former Prime Minister and ‘Irony Lady’ Margaret Thatcher. If China doesn’t pay out, she says, it should be blocked from selling new debt in international markets. By Bianco’s reckoning, China now owes more than $1 trillion on the defaulted debt, once adjusted for inflation, interest, and other damages—a sum roughly equivalent to China’s holdings of U.S. Treasuries.

“What’s wrong with paying China with their own paper?” says Bianco.

She met with Trump at his sprawling golf course in Bedminister, N.J., last August, in an encounter she describes as “wonderful.” Since then she’s met with Mnuchin, though she won’t reveal what was discussed. ABF reps, including Bennett, Kennedy, and Socarras, met with Commerce Secretary Ross in April, Bianco says.

People familiar with the Treasury Department say the China bonds have been studied, but ABF’s suggestions—including the possibility of selling the defaulted debt to the U.S. government to then exchange with China—aren’t legally viable. Spokespeople for Treasury and Commerce declined to comment. People familiar with the views of Chinese officials say they’re aware of the meetings, but they don’t think the claims can be revived.

At issue is a statute of limitations that has long run its course and the fuzzy legal obligations of governments that inherit their predecessor’s debts following civil upheavals. In one of the most famous cases, the Soviet Union repudiated bonds sold under the Tsar, inflicting losses on thousands of investors who had snapped up the paper. Still, most agree that as a legal principle, political regimes inherit their predecessors’ debt; most governments choose to honor old bonds, in part because they don’t want to alienate investors who might buy new ones.

“I think everyone who works for Trump at the Treasury Department thinks this is loony,” says Mitu Gulati, law professor at Duke University and a sovereign-debt restructuring expert. “But I can’t help but be tickled pink, because at a legal level these are perfectly valid debts. However, you’ve got to get a really clever lawyer to activate them.”

Clever lawyers have tried before. The closest anyone got to wringing payment out of China was a class action suit brought by holders of Hukuang railway bonds in 1979 that managed to bring the PRC to court to defend itself for the first time. Gene Theroux, formerly senior counsel at Baker & McKenzie LLP, helped represent the Chinese government in court.

Theroux, now retired, remembers the landmark case well. “The requests of us as lawyers were occasionally unusual,” he says, including China nixing any citation of previous cases with “Republic of China” in the title, given its refusal to recognize the regime under its “One China” policy. (Eventually, Baker & McKenzie resolved the problem by citing old cases as “Republic of China [so-called].”)

The suit was thrown out on the basis that the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which allows U.S. courts to hear cases against foreign governments for commercial claims, could not be retroactively applied to bonds issued at the turn of the century.

Since then, a 2004 Supreme Court decision ruled that the FSIA could apply retroactively in a case immortalized in the movie Woman in Gold. The ruling paved the way for Maria Altmann to reclaim paintings by the famous Austrian artist Gustav Klimt decades after they’d been seized by the Nazis.

That still leaves the problem of reactivating modern legal claims on debt that is now decades old. Gulati argues that this could perhaps be done—for instance, by arguing that China making payments on modern bonds violates pari passi (equal payment) clauses embedded in the historic debt. Such clauses were successfully used by hedge funds seeking payment from Argentina a few years ago. It’s a legal long shot, but one that Gulati has assigned to his law students as a theoretical exercise.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is studying the debt, too. In a 2018 complaint against Pastor Caldwell and a self-described financial planner named Gregory Alan Smith, the SEC accused the pair of raising at least $3.4 million by persuading 29 investors to buy the pre-revolutionary bonds. Some of the buyers, mostly elderly retirees, liquidated their annuities to invest, the SEC said.

Messages left for Caldwell’s lawyer, Dan Cogdell, weren’t returned. In a press conference in March, Cogdell said the charges against his client were “false.” Caldwell, who was educated at Wharton before working as a bond salesman at First Boston and going on to officiate at Jenna Bush’s wedding, said the bonds are “legitimate” and has returned money to investors at their request. Smith entered a plea agreement to the charges last month.

“Defendants falsely represented to these investors that the bonds were safe, risk-free, worth tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars, and could be sold to third parties,” the SEC said in its complaint. “In reality, the bonds were mere collectible memorabilia with no investment value.”

—With Saleha Mosin, Jennifer Jacobs, and Steven Yang.

(Updates with a U.K. bondholders agreement from 1987 in 11th paragraph . Clarifies that ABF represents ROC bondholders in eighth paragraph, includes response from ABF in ninth paragraph.)
Reply
#2
美謀向華討7.8萬億清朝國債
https://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/china_wo...0_004.html
[Image: 0902-00180-004b1.jpg?t=1567528581214]
美媒報道,美國總統特朗普對華打貿易戰無所不用其極,甚至曾研究要求中國政府,償還一批由清政府一九一一年發行的債券,以作為貿易談判中的「籌碼」。有債券持有人表示,考慮到通貨膨脹、利息和賠償費用,中國或要支付超過一萬億美元(約七點八萬億港元)。惟報道指,連華府內部也認為有關做法在法律上不可行。

財政部指不可行
報道引述知情人士指,特朗普及財政部長姆紐欽曾先後接見多名債券持有人;美國債券持有人基金會(American Bondholders Foundation)甚至建議,先把債券所有權轉移到美國政府,再要求中方償還。惟美國財政部經研究後,認為建議不可行。美國政府拒絕評論報道。杜克大學法學教授古拉提形容有關想法愚蠢。

據報道,該批債券由晚清政府為資助建設湖廣鐵路而發行,面值分別為廿及一百英鎊,且債券上有清朝「郵傳部印」公章,和郵傳大臣盛宣懷的簽名,並蓋有「大清欽差出使大臣關防」印章;美國至少有數千人持有該批債券,惟中共建政後,中方從未承認這項債務。
Reply
#3
[Image: 20190915_52b4b401c33f792668eaba9DO7h777Bb.jpg]
Reply
#4
PRC 拒絕承認 ROC 1949年前發行的中國債券 / 清朝 1912年前發行的清朝債券, PRC 承繼 ROC / 清朝 就不完整或有問題:

美組織持袁世凱發行債券向中國追數7500億美元 官媒:政府不承認
https://www.hk01.com/%E5%A4%96%E5%AA%92%...F%E8%AA%8D
[Image: fPqXzypdnjXRaI84jvCmLq9371Z9v5vrdfB_8XXw...w1920r16_9]
[Image: EEdkUKBr-pwNtRUbc7MzPe2RXOaA9hTfEg3F2xINxds?v=w1920]
[Image: LflFK_ycU5XaGMDMLPqWX9eFPayp5q4XfqWfPn6lnz4?v=w1920]

美國據報有一個名為「美國債券持有人基金」(American Bondholders Foundation,簡稱ABF)的組織,提出要求中國償還一批1949年之前的中華民國債務,相關債券金額連本帶利更高達7500億美元。

中國官媒事後發表評論指,中華人民共和國在成立之時,已對外宣布廢除一切不平等條約及取消外債,中國政府不會承認該批債券。

據英國傳媒《經濟學人》報道,ABF聲稱代表超過2萬名持有該批「黃金融資債券」的美國人,主席畢昂可(Jonna Bianco)更於8月時獲美國總統特朗普接見,希望美國政府能讓中國承認債券。ABF主張該批債券是中華民國發行,「但新中國需要負責」。報道又引述美國學者指出,從法律層面而言,債務至今仍然存在,但問題是訴訟時效。

對此,中國官媒在評論中表明,中華人民共和國在1949年10月1日成立之時,已對外宣布廢除一切不平等條約及取消外債,「換句話說政府不會承認該些債券」。中國駐美大使館前新聞發言人孫偉德此前亦曾稱,該批債券是袁世凱政府為鎮壓革命人士、維護其反動統治而發行的債券,「中國政府的立場是,對舊中國歷屆政府為維護其反動統治、損害國家主權所借的外債,按照國際惡債不予償還的原則,一概不予承認,也不承擔償還的義務。」

值得一提的是,報道同時提到,一張於1913年發行、面額100英鎊的債券,如今在美國的交易網站ebay上可賣到250美元的價格,顯然比起傳統市場,該批債券在古董市場更有價值。此外,不少網民批評該組織「追錯數」,更調侃稱「欠債還錢,天經地義!所以,請英美把八國聯軍的帳清一下。」

(經濟學人)


【中美貿易戰】傳美國人追討清朝債券 內媒:與特朗普沒關係
https://www.hk01.com/%E8%AD%B0%E4%BA%8B%...C%E4%BF%82
[Image: Vy1E--VDZ-5w-WNnJat9TSPAmH6sh40GTNbYv0zW...w1920r16_9]
[Image: Lz_UNL7lKxszR8qrN8xNJP04aqS5ILz40uFviNLhb4g?v=w1920]

《彭博商業周刊》8月29日報道,美國一班清朝債券的持有人及代表之前曾與美國總統特朗普(Donald Trump)等人會面,表示可以把清朝債券作為貿易戰籌碼,考慮到通貨膨脹、利息和賠償費用,中國應該支付超過1萬億美元。

事件引起內地輿論熱議。北京市委宣傳部旗下的《新京報》刊文表示,向中國追討清朝債券是「絕無可能」,但沒有必要將事件與特朗普聯繫,形容事件是民間行為而非政府行為。

《新京報》文章以〈償還1萬億美元清朝債券?這事兒特朗普都覺得不靠譜〉為題,解釋事件中的「湖廣鐵路債券」,是清政府於1911年5月與英、法、德、美四國銀行簽訂,數額600萬金英鎊、為期40年的借款合同,但自1936年起即無人支取利息,1951年本金到期時也無人要求償還。1978年中美建交後,卻有美國人通過集體訴訟的方式起訴中國要求償還。

文章稱,1982年9月1日,美國阿拉巴馬聯邦法院作出缺席判決,「命令」中國償付原告4130餘萬美元。後在中國政府及其外交部的努力下,阿拉巴馬法院於1984年2月27日撤銷該判決。「由此可見,『湖廣鐵路債券案』已經是有了司法定論的老黃曆了。」

特朗普沒有表態支持

文章形容,雖然個案已有結論,但還是有些美國人對這事「心存幻想」,自特朗普上台後,其挑起與中國貿易戰等節奏,讓某些美國人覺得事情起變化。清朝債券持有人代表團的領導者、田納西州(Tennessee)牧場主比安科(Jonna Bianco),就聲稱要中國償還1萬億美元,「但不管他們怎麼算的賬,也不管他們號稱算出來多少賬,這都沒法兑現。」

文章續指,完全沒有必要把這事件跟特朗普聯繫,這事件跟他「沒啥關係」,要實事求是地看待這種事情。首先,這是美國的民間行為,不是美國的政府行為;其次,特朗普雖然見了那些人的幾個代表,但沒有表態,也就是說,這不是特朗普支持或美國政府支持的行為;最後,已有的美國司法案例已經表明,美國司法體系並不支持這種行為。「簡而言之,對此事要實事求是,不必胡亂聯繫。」


「清朝債券」事件不乏先例 英國仍為18世紀找數
https://www.hk01.com/%E4%B8%96%E7%95%8C%...E%E6%95%B8

[Image: 9N7-FTyOtRSqycM0dhd5gScMqZu46mywTrJDak6y...w1920r16_9]

早前,《彭博商業周刊》(Bloomberg) 披露特朗普政府曾會見了部份在美清朝債券持有人及代表,並曾研究要求中國政府償還清朝債券的可行性。持有人代表聲稱因應通脹等因素,中國應支付逾1萬億美元,並建議當局以此作為中美貿易戰的籌碼。不過連美國財政部也認為建議並不可行,中共建國後亦從未承認這項債務。

其實,類似的還前朝債務的情況在歷史上不乏例子。2014年,英國政府宣佈贖回所有一戰時期的債務,這筆包括時任財政大臣邱吉爾(Winston Churchill)於1927年, 為一戰中國家戰爭債券再融資所產生的「4%綜合貸款」。由於經過長年的政府再融資和合併,這筆債務還包括了拿破崙戰爭的借款、1847年大饑荒期間協助愛爾蘭的貸款,以至18世紀「南海泡沫事件」時所發行的債券。

南海泡沫事件發生於1720年的大不列顛王國,起因源於南海公司(South Sea Company)。該公司於1711年西班牙王位繼承戰爭期間創立,表面上專營英國與南美等地貿易的特許公司,但實際是協助政府融資的私人機構,分擔政府因戰爭而欠下的債務。

當時,該公司透過誇大業務前景、進行舞弊,甚至賄賂政府的方式而獲外界追捧,一度令股價翻幾翻。後來隨着其他公司爭相加入圖分一杯羹,英國國會決定通過法例來規管這些不法公司,致使南海公司股價急挫,令不少投資者血本無歸,當中包括著名物理學家牛頓(Isaac Newton),虧本二萬英鎊。

同年底,國會對南海泡沫事件展開調查,包括成立秘密委員會專責調查。翌年初,秘密委員會發表調查報告。報告指南海公司進行非常嚴重的詐騙、貪污和偽造賬目,此外部份董事又與官員私通及透過不法投機活動而賺取巨額利潤。最終,國會透過充公該公司董事的財產等方式,來解決由此衍生的債務問題。1853年,南海公司所剩餘的股票部份獲贖回或變換成國債,南海公司亦正式成為歷史。

經過接近三個世紀時間,這筆約數百萬英鎊的舊債,大多已被通貨膨脹所侵蝕。當時的部分債務,被合併到19世紀中期發行的債券,直至2014年,英國政府還在為這筆前債努力償還,承擔責任。時任英國財政大臣歐思邦 (George Osborne) 當時表示,仍有超過11,000名債券持有人在收取此三百年債券的利息。

兩年前俄羅斯才還清蘇聯債

同樣為前朝償還債務的例子還有俄羅斯,2017年,即在蘇聯倒台四份一世紀後,俄羅斯終於還清前朝遺留下來的外債,向波黑共和國(Bosnia and Herzegovina)償還這筆金額約1.25億美元的債務。俄羅斯財政部副部長Sergei Storchak表示:「這是個歷史性的事件,這筆款項完成了前蘇聯外部公共債務的處理。」

同年2月,莫斯科當局才向馬其頓(即今北馬其頓)支付約6000萬美元債務。在1991年蘇聯解體後,俄羅斯承擔了約700億美元總額的外債。這筆債務大多發生在1985年至1991年間艱難的改革時期,蘇聯無論在政治和經濟體制上的改革都面臨失敗,在此期間國家經濟基本上是在不斷收縮。這筆外債因而成為俄羅斯一個沉痛的負擔,引發災難性經濟問題,最終導致1998年的債務違約。

另外,德國也是前朝債務的苦主,1919年一戰後的《凡爾賽條約》標誌着德國政府背負的天文賠償債務剛剛開始。作為和平協議中「戰爭罪責條款」的一部分,德意志帝國應對衝突負責,以 1320億金幣賠償盟軍(相當於今天的4,000多億美元)。德國人為此被迫印鈔來付款,但後來仍拖欠了數次。後因希特勒的崛起再度拖欠。直到上世紀50年代,當時的西德政府才同意繼續履行二戰前的債券義務,經過91年時間,德國終於在2010年償還最後一筆9,400萬美元的分期付款。


【中美角力】民國政府借落 美參議員動議向中國追討$1.6萬億美元欠債
https://hk.appledaily.com/international/...7CJ7IRGUM/

美國共和黨參議員麥克薩利(Martha McSally)周四動議決議案,要求中國向美國債券持有人,償還超過1.6萬億美元(約12.5萬億港元)的國債,包括利息。

麥克薩利說:「中國一再沒有履行償還美國債項的義務,奪去美國家庭的金錢和職位...我們要令中國為欠債及散播新冠肺炎病毒負責,我們要求中國向美國家庭償還1.6萬億美元債項。」

該筆債券早在1912年由中華民國政府發行,民國政府其後播遷台灣,中共1949年建立政權,並堅稱台灣是中國一部份,根據國際法,新政權需為舊政權的債務負責。

英國首相戴卓爾夫人1987年命令北京償還欠債,最後與時任中國國家主席李先念達成協議,償還英國2350萬鎊(約2.4億港元)。根據信貸評級機構穆迪、標準普爾和惠譽國際,北京償還部份債權人而拖欠其他債權人,技術上是選擇性違約,在償還所有債權人欠款前,不能參與國際債務市場。

美國債券持有人基金主席比安科(Jonna Bianco)對參議院的行動表示讚賞,「與總統的訊息一致:要中國負上責任」。特朗普與共和黨議員正尋求方法懲罰北京隱暪武漢肺炎疫情。

麥克薩利的動議獲另一名共和黨參議員和議,而眾議院的共和黨議員亦有相同決議案提出。決議案雖然沒有法案般的法律效力,但可反映議員的意願。


共和黨議員動議 向中國追討1.6萬億美元民國債券
https://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/amenews/2020...2_001.html

美國共和黨參議員麥克薩利(Martha McSally)周四(13日)提出動議,要求中國向美國的民國債券持有人,償還超過1.6萬億美元(約12.5萬億港元)國債,包括利息。

動議由麥克薩利及另一參議員布萊克本共同發起,而眾議員格林(Mark Green)亦準備提出相同動議,雖然它沒有法律效力,但可反映議員意願。麥克薩利表示,中國再次沒有履行償還債項的義務,奪取美國人民的金錢和工作,「虐待到此為止,我們要中國為債務和傳播新冠病毒負責,中國要將1.6萬億美元還給美國家庭」。

美國債券持有人基金會主席比安科(Jonna Bianco)贊同參議院的做法,說:「參眾兩院支持要求中國負責,這與總統的訊息一致:要中國負上責任。」該批債券是中華民國政府於1912年發行,雖然民國政府其後逃到台灣,惟北京指台灣是中國一部分,因此繼任政府需要根據國際法,為舊政權的債務負責。
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)