Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04PRETORIA3051
2004-07-08 04:58:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Pretoria
Cable title:  

U.S. MULTI-NATIONALS CONTINUE ICT CHARTER

Tags:  ECPS EINV EFIN ETRD ECON SF 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 003051 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR AF/EPS DKRZYWDA AND AF/S/TCRAIG
COMMERCE FOR 4510/ITA/IEP/ANESA/OA/JDIEMOND
TREASURY FOR BRESNICK, LSTURM, AND AJEWEL
DEPT PASS USTR FOR PCOLEMAN AND WJACKSON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/07/2014
TAGS: ECPS EINV EFIN ETRD ECON SF
SUBJECT: U.S. MULTI-NATIONALS CONTINUE ICT CHARTER
NEGOTIATIONS

REF: A. REFTEL: A) PRETORIA 2651

B. B) PRETORIA 2164

C. C) PRETORIA 2092

Classified By: Acting Econ Chief Alan Tousignant. Reasons 1.5 (b,d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PRETORIA 003051

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR AF/EPS DKRZYWDA AND AF/S/TCRAIG
COMMERCE FOR 4510/ITA/IEP/ANESA/OA/JDIEMOND
TREASURY FOR BRESNICK, LSTURM, AND AJEWEL
DEPT PASS USTR FOR PCOLEMAN AND WJACKSON

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/07/2014
TAGS: ECPS EINV EFIN ETRD ECON SF
SUBJECT: U.S. MULTI-NATIONALS CONTINUE ICT CHARTER
NEGOTIATIONS

REF: A. REFTEL: A) PRETORIA 2651

B. B) PRETORIA 2164

C. C) PRETORIA 2092

Classified By: Acting Econ Chief Alan Tousignant. Reasons 1.5 (b,d).


1. (C) SUMMARY. Representatives of U.S. multi-national
corporations (MNCs) and the Information and Communications
Technology (ICT) Charter Working Group continue to negotiate
proposed equity ownership requirements. The MNCs have
presented a list of barriers to transferring equity and
suggested various equity models. MNCs still hope for a
balanced scorecard, but some are beginning to question the
commercial viability of implementing black economic
empowerment (BEE). Several multi-national firms are
considering exit strategies such as setting up
distributorships in South Africa or relocating to neighboring
countries. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) Representatives of U.S. MNCs operating in South
Africa and the American Chamber of Commerce in South Africa
(AmCham) continue to meet with the Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) Charter Working Group to
negotiate how the terms of equity ownership requirements in
the ICT Empowerment Charter will be implemented. MNC
representatives told Econoff that following the first meeting
on June 5, 2004 (Reftel A),a "Group of 10" has met five more
times. The Group of 10 consists of AmCham and MNC
representatives on one side and the ICT Working Group and
black ICT businesses and associations on the other side.
There are no government officials at the table.


3. (C) MNC representatives met internally June 14, 15 and 17
and compiled the following list of obstacles that they argue,
at a minimum, serve as a disincentive to transferring equity.

COST
- Sales of equity involve higher costs to multinational
companies than alternative non-equity approaches to Broad
Based BEE, and hence are generally not approved by corporate

headquarters.
- According to international accounting rules, any
discount to fair market value on sales of equity must be
recorded in the income statement and hence may impact the
cost of capital.
- Vendor finance can distort the holding company balance
sheet debt/equity ratio.
- U.S. companies are disadvantaged by U.S. tax rules on
sub-part F income when subsidiaries are not wholly owned.
- Equity sales by foreign holding companies may be
subject to capital taxes in foreign jurisdictions, which
result in immediate cash outflows.
- Multinational companies will be disadvantaged by
massive recourse to South African financial markets for loan
finance and forex transfers for the sale of 25-35 percent of
all foreign-owned IT companies in South Africa.

LEGAL
- Multinational companies organized as South African
registered branches of foreign companies have no South
African equity to sell.
- The Companies Act section 38 prohibits a company from
financially assisting the sale of its own shares, thus
preventing the South African subsidiary from providing vendor
finance.
- Foreign Exchange regulations provide barriers to equity
solutions involving holding company stock.

GOVERNANCE
- Minority stakes in South African subsidiaries create
barriers to the free flow of capital and intellectual
property across a wholly owned group of companies. They
force loan funding (as opposed to equity funding) for
expansion plans (since equity funding would dilute the
minority stake) and create barriers to inward foreign direct
investment. They increase the time to market of new
innovations and technologies.
- South Africa does not have a broad range of black
investors and therefore the potential for conflicts of
interest between companies involving connected minority
parties is higher.
- Minority shareholders add to the complexity of
decision-making where decisions are taken at a global rather
than a country level.
- Additional management time is required in
non-operational statutory structures, when normal management
decisions are taken in cross-border operational structures.

OTHER RISKS
- There is a litigation risk that sales of equity will be
challenged by holding company shareholders.
- There is litigation risk that minority shareholders in
South Africa may proceed against the majority when a decision
is taken in favor of the global group but against the
interest of the local company (e.g.: treasury investments,
top South African employee assignments elsewhere in the
group, global sourcing, hedging of foreign exchange
exposures, etc.).
- Holding companies believe themselves open to risk of
prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (or
similar regulations) due to the actions of minority
shareholders acting under normal business practice in South
Africa, which may be illegal in the foreign country of
incorporation.
- Strict observance of USA export restrictions (or
similar foreign regulations) may cause contention with
minority shareholders who may claim unfair treatment under
South African laws.
- Forced disclosure to minority shareholders under South
African law may be illegal disclosure under SEC regulations
for a USA listed company (or similar regulations in other
jurisdictions).



4. (C) During these internal meetings, it became apparent
that some MNCs are prepared to comply with equity ownership
requirements while others are not. Those who are willing to
comply have proposed four specific models they could
implement in their corporate environment: joint venture,
employee trust, holding company, or a branch. Those who do
not support equity requirements said that either a corporate
global policy prevents them from selling equity or the risks
are too high.


5. (C) The MNCs presented the ICT Working Group with the
above list of concerns about equity ownership in a Group of
10 meeting on July 5. According to IBM Country Manager Mark
Harris, who is leading the MNC side of the negotiations, the
ICT Working Group did not object to any of the four equity
models presented by the multi-nationals at the most recent
Group of 10 meeting held on July 7. With regard to those
MNCs claiming to have a corporate global policy preventing
the transfer of equity, the Working Group is demanding the
following stipulations:
a) the policy must be global;
b) the policy must not have been created to avoid Black
Economic Empowerment (BEE);
c) there is no precedent in any other country of the
company transferring equity; and
d) the policy existed prior to BEE policy.


6. (C) Once the ICT Working Group reviews the barriers and
equity models, MNC negotiators plan to press for a "balanced
scorecard." In terms of BEE policy, a "scorecard" is a
generic measurement of five different types of empowerment
activity. A "balanced scorecard" would allow companies to
achieve empowerment status (i.e., an acceptable overall
score) by scoring enough points in the other areas to
compensate for few or no points in the equity ownership
category. MNCs are prepared to ask senior South African
government officials to intervene in the process if
negotiations fail to produce an acceptable solution.


7. (C) Several U.S. multi-nationals question whether the
implementation of BEE will be commercially viable. These
companies are privately considering exit strategies such as
setting up distributorships in South Africa or relocating
their operations to neighboring countries, e.g., Botswana, if
BEE policy proves to be too costly for the continued
operation of their companies in South Africa.
HUME