FINRA Provides Guidance on Retail Communications Concerning Private Placement Offerings

Summary

This Notice provides guidance to help member firms comply with FINRA Rule 2210, Communications with the Public, when creating, reviewing, approving, distributing, or using retail communications concerning private placement offerings.

Questions concerning this Notice should be directed to:

• Amy C. Sochard, Vice President, Advertising Regulation, at (240) 386-4508; or
• Ira D. Gluck, Director, Advertising Regulation, at (240) 386-4614.

Background and Discussion

Private Placement Offerings

Private placements are unregistered, non-public securities offerings that rely on an available exemption from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under either Sections 3 or 4 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act).1 Most private offerings, however, are sold pursuant to one of three “safe harbors” under Rules 504, 506(b), and 506(c) of Securities Act Regulation D (Reg D).2

Reg D requires companies and funds to file a Form D through the SEC’s EDGAR system when selling unregistered securities based on a claimed Reg D exemption. The most recent Reg D data published by the SEC’s Division of Economic and Risk Analysis indicates that issuers make approximately 20,000 new offering Reg D filings with the SEC each year.3 Of this total, approximately 4,000 new offerings identify an “intermediary,” such as a broker or finder, as participating in an offering.

Private placements sold by FINRA member firms to individuals generally must be filed with FINRA. In this regard, FINRA Rules 5122 and 5123 require a member firm to file offering documents regarding specified private placements in which the member firm participates.4 FINRA receives approximately 2,000 new offering filings from its member firms each year,5 and uses analytics and trained analysts to conduct a risk-based review of each filing. The number of annual filings with FINRA indicates that approximately half of the Reg D filings identifying intermediaries are for offerings by entities that are not subject to FINRA rules or offerings by member firms that are not required to file under Rules 5122 or 5123.

The offerings that are sold directly by issuers or through the efforts of intermediaries that are not FINRA member firms are not subject to the regulatory requirements applicable under FINRA rules and are not subject to FINRA’s examination and review programs. Although FINRA does not have jurisdiction over Reg D private placements that are sold directly to investors or through non-member firm intermediaries, it is committed to promoting investor protection through meaningful regulation and oversight of member firms participating in these offerings.

The remainder of this Notice addresses the subset of private placements conducted by member firms.

Private Placement Retail Communications

Many private placement offerings to retail investors include marketing or sales communications that meet the definition of retail communication in Rule 2210(a)(5).6 For example, FINRA has observed that more than 40 percent of the offerings filed pursuant to FINRA Rule 5123 include retail communications. In addition, the adoption of Rule 506(c) under Reg D eliminated the prohibition against general solicitation and advertising for private placement offerings where all purchasers of the securities are verified accredited investors. Consequently, member firms have become increasingly involved in the distribution of private placement securities through online platforms and other widely disseminated communications such as digital advertisements.7

FINRA Rule 2210(d)(1) requires that all member firm communications be fair, balanced and not misleading. Communications that promote the potential rewards of an investment also must disclose the associated risks in a balanced manner.8 In addition, communications must be accurate and provide a sound basis to evaluate the facts with respect to the products or services discussed. Rule 2210(d)(1) also prohibits false, misleading or promissory statements or claims, and prohibits the publication, circulation or distribution of a communication that a member firm knows or has reason to know contains any untrue statement of a material fact or is otherwise false or misleading. With few exceptions, Rule 2210(b)(1) requires that an appropriately registered principal must approve each retail communication before the earlier of its use or filing with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department.9

Recent FINRA reviews of retail communications concerning private placements have revealed deficiencies. For instance, most if not all investments in private placements are illiquid, and many such investments are speculative in nature. Some retail communications do not balance claims of these investments’ benefits by disclosing these risks. Others have contained false, misleading, or promissory statements or claims such as assertions about the likelihood of a future public offering of the issuer, claims about the future success of the issuer’s new or untried business model, inaccurate or misleading assertions concerning the regulation or relative risk of the offering, or predictions or projections of investment performance prohibited by FINRA Rule 2210(d)(1)(F).

FINRA is providing the following guidance to assist member firms in their creation, review, approval, distribution or use of retail communications concerning private placement securities.

Third-Party Prepared Materials

Rule 2210(a)(5) defines “retail communication” as “any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-day period.”10 FINRA disciplinary actions demonstrate that member firms can be liable for violations of Rule 2210 when distributing or using noncompliant retail communications prepared by a third party.11

Regulatory Notice 10-22 states that “[a member firm] that assists in the preparation of a private placement memorandum or other offering document should expect that it will be considered a communication with the public by that [member firm] for purposes of … Rule 2210, FINRA’s advertising rule. If a private placement memorandum or other offering document presents information that is not fair and balanced or that is misleading, then the [member firm] that assisted in its preparation may be deemed to have violated … Rule 2210.” Notice 10-22 also provides that “sales literature concerning a private placement that a [member firm] distributes will generally be deemed to constitute a communication by that [member firm] with the public, whether or not the [member firm] assisted in its preparation.”

In addition, FINRA has observed that some issuer-prepared private placement memoranda (PPMs) are bound or presented as one electronic file with retail communications, such as cover pages or exhibits. Such retail communications are distinguishable by their marketing or promotional content from the factual descriptions and financial information about the issuer generally disclosed in the PPMs. Regardless of whether a member firm distributes a retail communication that is attached to a PPM or as a standalone document, it constitutes a communication of the member firm subject to Rule 2210.

Balanced Presentation of Risks and Investment Benefits

Rule 2210 requires communications that discuss the benefits of an investment also to include a discussion of its risks.12 As indicated above, retail communications that discuss the potential benefits of investing in private placements should balance this discussion with disclosure of their risks, such as the potential for private placement investments to lose value, their lack of liquidity and their speculative nature. Providing risk disclosure in a separate document, such as a PPM, or in a different section of a website does not substitute for disclosure contained in or integrated with retail communications governed by Rule 2210.

Retail communications often highlight the business of the issuer and discuss the value proposition of a potential investment. In such cases, the key risks associated with an investment in the issuer are necessary in order to balance the positive portrayal of the investment. For example, when the issuer is a startup company, the risks may include a limited track record; more experienced or larger competitors; overreliance on financing; reliance on a single supplier, customer or employee; or lack of management experience. 

Reasonable Forecasts of Issuer Operating Metrics

Rule 2210(d)(1)(F) generally prohibits the use of any prediction or projection of performance, as well as any exaggerated or unwarranted claim, opinion or forecast.13 Accordingly, retail communications concerning private placements may not project or predict returns to investors such as yields, income, dividends, capital appreciation percentages or any other future investment performance.

However, FINRA would not consider reasonable forecasts of issuer operating metrics (e.g., forecasted sales, revenues or customer acquisition numbers) that may convey important information regarding the issuer’s plans and financial position to be inconsistent with the rule. Presentations of reasonable forecasts of issuer operating metrics should provide a sound basis for evaluating the facts as required by Rule 2210(d)(1)(A). For example, such presentations should include clear explanations of the key assumptions underlying the forecasted issuer operating metrics and the key risks that may impede the issuer’s achievement of the forecasted metrics.

When creating, reviewing, approving, distributing or using forecasts of issuer operating metrics in retail communications, member firms should consider:

1. the time period forecasted (generally a time period in excess of five years would be unreasonable);
2. whether growth rate assumptions are commensurate with the nature and scale of the business;
3. whether forecasted gross margins14 are commensurate with industry averages; and
4. whether sales and customer acquisition forecasts are reasonable in relation to the overall market for the issuer’s products or services.

While sources of contractual revenue such as royalty or master lease agreements may inform or provide a basis for reasonable forecasts of issuer operating metrics, it would be inconsistent with Rule 2210(d)(1)(B) to characterize specific revenue or cash flow as guaranteed or certain. Moreover, Rule 2210(d)(1)(F) precludes member firms from using the data from forecasts of issuer operating metrics to project or depict specific investment returns to an investor.

Distribution Rates

Regulatory Notice 13-18 provided guidance to member firms regarding communications with the public for registered and unregistered real estate investment programs. Given that some non-real estate private placement investments employ similar structures, the principles relating to distribution rates contained in that Notice are applicable to retail communications regarding private placement investments designed to provide distributions to investors and are reiterated below.

Some issuers fund a portion of their distributions through return of principal or loan proceeds. For example, a portion of a newer program’s distributions might include a return of principal until its assets are generating significant cash flows from operations. Consistent with Rule 2210(d)(1)(B)’s prohibition of false, exaggerated, unwarranted, promissory or misleading claim, member firms must not misrepresent the amount or composition of such distributions. Nor may member firms state or imply that a distribution rate is a “yield” or “current yield” or that investment in the program is comparable to a fixed income investment such as a bond or note. Presentations of distribution rates consistent with Rule 2210 would disclose:

• that distribution payments are not guaranteed and may be modified at the program’s discretion;
• if the distribution rate consists of return of principal (including offering proceeds) or borrowings, a breakdown of the components of the distribution rate showing what portion of the quoted percentage represents cash flows from the program’s investments or operations, what portion represents return of principal, and what portion represents borrowings;
• the time period during which the distributions have been funded from return of principal (including offering proceeds), borrowings or any sources other than cash flows from investment or operations;
• if the distributions include a return of principal, that by returning principal to investors, the program will have less money to invest, which may lower its overall return; and
• if the distributions include borrowed funds, that since borrowed funds were used to pay distributions, the distribution rate may not be sustainable.15

FINRA believes that it is inconsistent with Rule 2210(d)(1) for retail communications to include an annualized distribution rate until the program has paid distributions that are, on an annualized basis, at a minimum equal to that rate for at least two consecutive full quarterly periods.16

Internal Rate of Return

Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is a measure of performance commonly used in connection with marketing private placements of real estate, private equity and venture capital. IRR shows a return earned by investors over a particular period, calculated on the basis of cash flows to and from investors (i.e., the percentage rate earned on each dollar invested for each period the dollar was invested). IRR is calculated as the discount rate that makes the net present value of all cash flows from an investment equal to zero.17

A drawback of IRR calculations is their inherent assumption that investors will be able to reinvest any distributions from the investment at the IRR rate. In practice, it is unlikely that this would occur. Another drawback is that in order to calculate IRR for a portfolio that includes holdings that have not yet been sold (or otherwise liquidated or matured), a valuation of those remaining assets must be estimated. Depending on the nature of the asset, these estimated values may be based on subjective factors and assumptions.

The use of IRR in retail communications concerning privately placed new investment programs that have no operations or that operate as a blind pool would be inconsistent with the prohibition on unwarranted forecasts or projections in Rule 2210(d)(1)(F).

Nevertheless, FINRA interprets Rule 2210 to permit retail communications to include IRR for completed investment programs (e.g., the holding matured or all holdings in the pool have been sold). In addition, FINRA does not view as inconsistent with the rule retail communications that provide an IRR for a specific investment in a portfolio if the IRR represents the actual performance of that holding.

Investment programs such as private equity funds and REITs may have a combination of realized investments and unrealized holdings in their portfolios. Where the program has ongoing operations, FINRA interprets Rule 2210 to permit the inclusion of IRR if it is calculated in a manner consistent with the Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) adopted by the CFA Institute and includes additional GIPS-required metrics such as paid-in capital, committed capital and distributions paid to investors.18

Endnotes

---

1. See 15 U.S.C. 77c and 77d.
2. See 17 CFR 230.504, 230.506(b) and 230.506(c).
3. Capital Raising in the U.S.: An Analysis of the Market for Unregistered Securities Offerings, 2009-2017: https://www.sec.gov/dera/staff-papers/white-papers/dera_white_paper_regulation_d_082018.
4. Rules 5122 and 5123 provide exemptions from the filing requirement when certain types of securities are sold or securities are sold to certain types of investors. For example, member firms are not required to file offerings made pursuant to Securities Act Rule 144A or Regulation S, or offerings sold solely to institutional accounts as defined in FINRA Rule 4512(c). See Rules 5122(c) and 5123(b). As a result of these exemptions, both rules apply predominately to retail private placements.
5. The total for “new offering filings” excludes duplicate filings for the same offering by different member firms.
6. “Retail communication” means any written (including electronic) communication that is distributed or made available to more than 25 retail investors within any 30 calendar-day period.
7. See FINRA’s 2019 Annual Risk Monitoring and Examinations Priorities Letter (January 2019). The letter discusses factors FINRA may consider in reviewing online distribution platforms.
8. See Regulatory Notice 19-31 (September 19, 2019), Question 3 (“FINRA rules require that communications be fair and balanced, but don’t require them to be exhaustive lists of all possible risks and warnings associated with a product or service. Information about risks, costs or drawbacks is more effective when it is related to the benefits that the communication promotes.”).
9. For example, pursuant to Rule 2210(b)(1)(C), if a member firm has already filed a retail communication with FINRA’s Advertising Regulation Department and received a letter indicating that such communication appears to be consistent with applicable standards, another member firm may use that communication without having a principal approve it, provided the communication is not materially altered or used in a manner that is inconsistent with the department’s letter.
10. Emphasis added. Rule 2210’s definitions of correspondence and institutional communications also refer to communications that are “distributed or made available” to particular investors. See FINRA Rules 2210(a)(2) and (a)(3).
11. See e.g., Phillipe N. Keyes, 89 S.E.C. 792, 800 (2006), Sheen Financial Resources, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 35477, 52 SEC 185, SEC LEXIS 613 (1995), Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, Letter of Acceptance, Waiver and Consent No. 2008013056101 (2011) or HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Letter of Acceptance Waiver and Consent No 008013863801 (2010).
12. See FINRA Rule 2210(d)(1)(D).
13. Rule 2210(d)(1)(F) contains three exceptions from this prohibition, subject to specified conditions: (1) hypothetical illustrations of mathematical principles; (2) investment analysis tools and reports generated by such tools; and (3) a price target contained in a research report.
14. Gross margin represents the percent of total sales revenue that the company retains after incurring the direct costs associated with producing the goods and services sold by a company. See Jay Michael Fertman, 51 SEC 943,950 (1994) and Excel Fin., Inc., 53 SEC 303, 311-12 (1997).
15. See Regulatory Notice 13-18 (May 2013).
16. Id. “In order to be fair and balanced, firm communications concerning a real estate program may not include an annualized distribution rate until the program has paid distributions that are, on an annualized basis, at a minimum equal to that rate for at least two consecutive full quarterly periods.”
17. IRR is also known as money-weighted returns. This can be contrasted to a time-weighted return, which is the compounded growth rate of $1 over the time period. Average annual total returns used by mutual funds pursuant to SEC Rule 482 are an example of time-weighted returns. Time-weighted returns ignore the size and timing of investment cash flows and therefore provide a measure of manager or strategy performance, while IRR measures how a specific portfolio performed in absolute terms.
18. The CFA Institute is a global association of investment professionals. See generally CFA Institute Global Investment Performance Standards.

How and When the SCOTUS Will Overturn the Election

 From Zero Hedge:

Get ready for some fireworks.

The state of Texas (along with Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and South Dakota) is suing the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin in the Supreme Court.

Texas is arguing that those four states violated the constitution when they passed new election laws to allow mail-in voting and other changes to their election process.

The Constitution of the United States is explicit that only state legislators NOT state governors, attorney generals, or secretary of states can change how elections are processed.

The media is keeping pretty quiet about this, or attempting to frame it as nothing, but it is a HUGE deal. The Supreme Court has already docketed the case meaning that the SCOTUS will hear it.

If the SCOTUS rules that of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin did in fact violate the constitution (they did), then either: 

1)    Those votes that were allowed under the new laws are thrown out.

Or…

2)    The elections in those states become null and void.

If the outcome is #1, then President Trump wins all four states in a landslide.

Remember, the mail-in ballots were pro-Biden by a massive margin (90%+). If those votes no longer count, Biden loses tens of thousands of votes in all four key states (his margin of victory is only 1% or lower in all four of them).

If the outcome is #2, then 62 electoral college votes vanish from the vote count.

This means NO ONE hits the required 270 electoral college votes to win the election outright and the election moves into Congress as per the 12^th Amendment.

There, the House of Representatives votes for the President on a one vote per state basis. The GOP has 26 states, the Democrats have 24 states.

This again, means Trump wins the election.

You can be furious at this all you want, but it’s the law. The fact the media doesn’t bother explaining this only reveals that they’re ignorant of how elections work in the U.S. or are so biased they can’t be bothered to consider an outcome in which Biden doesn’t win.

So, like I said… get ready for some fireworks. The odds of President Trump actually winning the election are the highest they’ve been since the election itself.

With that in mind, I stand by my original forecast that President Trump will end up winning this election. And our clients are already doing this with our new special report titled…

The MAGA Portfolio: Five Investments That Will Make Fortunes During Trump’s Second Term.

In it, we detail five unique investments that we expect will produce the most extraordinary gains during President Trump’s second term.

Each one of these investments is in a unique position to profit from the combination of Trump economic reforms and Fed monetary easing, combining high growth opportunities with extreme profitability.

"There's No Science Claim On This" - O'Leary Lashes Out At State Lockdowns As CNBC's Sorkin Does Damage Control

 From Zero Hedge:

CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin appears to be doing a bit of damage control, when after a heated Friday debate about lockdowns in which he justified small businesses being shuttered by claiming it was "science" that people were safer at big box stores than at churches and restaurants because of masks, a photo of Sorkin from 6 weeks ago eating "outside" at a restaurant, maskless, surfaced on Twitter.

Sorkin claimed on Friday he was offering a "public health and public service announcement" for the audience when he took on fellow anchor Rick Santelli's claims that there was a negligible difference between going out to establishments like churches, versus going to stores like Wal-Mart. 

Sorkin spent time over the weekend sparring with various Twitter trolls and trying to defend his line of reasoning, but that didn't seem to be enough. On Monday morning, Sorkin still needed to have his say on the issue. He brought on Dr. Scott Gottlieb to "end the debate" and then, after Gottlieb appeared to agree with him, Sorkin put out a Tweet to tell people to "stay healthy out there" and to quietly suggest that he was right and Santelli was wrong:

But it was hardly the KO that Sorkin made it out to be. Even Gottlieb admitted during his own PSA that indoor restaurant settings could be optimized and safe, stating:

 "Could there be indoor restaurant settings that are optimized? Where they have taken steps to reduce the risk? Possibly."

More like, of course.

Shortly after the exchange, Kevin O'Leary railed against the lockdowns, asking the one key question that seems to be eluding Sorkin: why do the big box retailers get priority over small businesses?

"How is it possible when I've spent 60 or 80 thousand dollars on the back of the restaurant and the front of the restaurant to provide seats and heaters - and complied with city ordinances - and was just about to re-open - no tents, this is not tented, this is outside - I'm shut down. And right across the street there's a big box retailer across the street that has people inside that's open?" he asked.

O'Leary added:

"There's no science claim on this... people are making 'calmative' science statements... how can 'outside' be less safe than 'inside'..."

and... "All my employees have to be laid off - a third time!"

"I'm not even saying open them inside! I'm only asking 'How can it be fair?' and 'How can it be right'?" O'Leary claims.

Andrew Ross Sorkin eventually chimes in by telling O'Leary:

"I very much agree with you," before saying "the rules should be applied across the board". 

But O'Leary wasn't done:

"There's something really wrong here. You're picking winners and losers," he added.

"It's total chaos out there."

Recall, it was Friday morning when Sorkin tangled with Rick Santelli about Covid lockdown rules in a clip that has now gone viral across most of FinTwit. The argument began when Santelli took exception with Democratic leaders who have been found breaking their own lockdown rules while forcing their respective local businesses to bear the brunt of increasingly draconian and complex lockdown rules. 

Santelli raised the question of why big box retailers were allowed to stay open, but small businesses weren't:

"Therefore, there is actually and should be an ongoing debate as to why a parking lot for a big-box store like by my house is jam-packed, not one parking spot open. Why are those people any safer than a restaurant with plexiglass? I just don't get it. I think it's really sad that when we look at the service sector in all of the discussions we've had about job losses that that particular dynamic isn't studied more, isn't worked more, we don't put more people in a room and try to figure out ways so that these service sector employees and employers could all come back in a safer way."

A clearly galled Sorkin then launched into a patronizing diatribe about the differences between big box retailers, restaurants and churches, and why Santelli was doing viewers a "disservice" by disregarding the science"

"The difference between a big box retailer, and a restaurant - or frankly, a church - are so different it's unbelievable," Sorkin insisted.

Santelli shot back: "500 people in a Lowes aren't any safer than 150 people in a restaurant that holds 600...and I live in an area with a lot of restaurants that have fought back...and they're open."

After some more jawing, Santelli concluded: 

"I think our viewers are smart enough to make those decisions on their own! I don't think I am much smarter than all the viewers... like some people do."

"I don' think I am much smarter than all the viewers... like some people do."

Which was repeated this morning by O'Leary, who exclaimed:

"we are restricting poeple from making their own choices..."

Sorkin continued to insist that he was merely trying to educate viewers about "the science" of COVID-19.

As we said Friday, we'd really enjoy hearing Sorkin explain "the science" of how Big Box stores are "completely different" from restaurants and churches. All three can be found in interchangeable strip malls across the country.

The solution offered by the great and the good statists on CNBC was simple - "we need a policy of masks for all... and that will give people confidence to make a come back in the economy."

The only problem with that utter falsehood is that most of California has been wearing masks outside for months... as have numerous other states with mask mandates... and it's not helping!

And at least as far as masks are concerned, research has painted what is in reality a pretty fraught picture, as one recent study out of Denmark showed.

The same goes for lockdowns, as the balance between the high cost and time-limited efficacy are still not well understood.

All of which does make one wonder if HumanEvents' Ash Staub had a point last week when he questioned: if one were to consider the upward transfer of wealth and market share to Big Business since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, one would think such economic changes were intended. After all, it’s no secret that the interests of politicians and the corporate elite align more often than not.

As we near a year of lockdowns and sheltering in place, the long-term effects of pandemic policy on the economy are becoming clearer. Almost every piece of legislation ostensibly designed to curb the spread of the coronavirus and protect workers has wreaked devastation on small businesses—while benefiting the largest corporations. Roughly 100,000 small businesses have permanently closed due to COVID-19, while big-box retailers, tech giants, and pharmaceutical manufacturers have seen record profits.

America’s small businesses currently face an attack on all fronts.

• First, there are the more visible policies (e.g., lockdowns, mask mandates, and social distancing requirements) that strongly discourage people from patronizing brick-and-mortar retailers and restaurants. These policies impact small businesses more than large chains and corporations. Small retailers, for example, may not have the space to effectively implement social distancing policies, and often lack an online infrastructure to support curbside pickups of retail goods.

• Second, the cost of complying with health and safety guidelines, and the corresponding fines if businesses don’t comply, have forced businesses to incur additional expenses while their revenue declines. According to the Small Business Administration, the cost of compliance disproportionately impacts small businesses, who lack the funds and infrastructure of large corporations to adapt to new regulation. Overhauling a business to accommodate remote work, for example, requires a flexibility and an investment of resources that many small businesses simply do not have. For dine-in restaurants, the vast majority of which are small businesses, switching to outdoor dining is often not even possible given the business’s location.

• Lastly, there are ever-evolving COVID-19 employment regulations that disproportionately expose small businesses to lawsuits and the subsequent legal expenses and damages that may result. The conspicuous absence of liability protection also disadvantages small businesses, as the largest corporations can spare the capital required to fight lawsuits and painlessly pay out any damages. For example, Publix, a large supermarket chain, has so far managed to avoid paying damages to the family of an employee who died of COVID-19 due to the fact that he wasn’t allowed to wear a mask at work.

Despite the fact that these policies are explicitly harmful to small businesses, they can be justified on the basis of “public health” and thereby shielded from criticism. Practically unlimited regulation (that always seems to benefit the corporate elite) can be defended, because such policies are said to be designed to ensure the health and safety of the public. Opposition to these onerous restrictions can therefore be conveniently characterized as “anti-science,” or worse, reckless and/or malicious endangerment of one’s community. As a consequence, policies that explicitly disadvantage small businesses, such as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), can be passed under the guise of public health and worker protection without raising any alarm bells.

US Pension Money Flows Into ‘Malign’ Chinese Companies: State Department

 From Epoch Times:

WASHINGTON—U.S. investors are unwittingly financing companies tied to the Chinese communist regime and its military through major index funds, according to a fact sheet released by the U.S. State Department on Dec. 5.

The report, titled “U.S. Investors Are Funding Malign PRC Companies on Major Indices,” lists the names of publicly traded companies that present a national security threat to the United States.

“The Chinese Communist Party’s threat to American national security extends into our financial markets and impacts American investors,” the fact sheet says.

Many major stock indexes developed by index providers Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) and Financial Times Stock Exchange Group (FTSE) include Chinese companies that are blacklisted by the Pentagon and the Department of Commerce.

MSCI and FTSE Russell are among the largest index providers in the world that influence how investors deploy their funds. Securities of many Chinese companies are embedded in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and other passive investment funds benchmarked against these major indexes.

The pension assets of American workers and retirees are supporting these Chinese companies as a majority of pension funds use the MSCI Emerging Market (EM) index as their investment benchmark, according to the fact sheet.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), through its aggressive national strategy called “Military-Civil Fusion,” uses Chinese companies to strengthen the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Meanwhile, the Department of Defense this year blacklisted 31 Chinese firms that are owned or controlled by the PLA.

According to the fact sheet, at least 22 of these military companies have affiliates whose securities are included on the MSCI EM index or FTSE Emerging index. Some of them also have bonds that are included in the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate Bond index.

Among the Chinese companies on the indexes are the Aviation Industry Corp. of China (2357.HK) and China Unicom (0762.HK), which are known for supporting Beijing’s aggressive military activity in the South China Sea.

China’s biggest telecommunications giants, China Mobile Ltd. (0941.HK) and China Telecom Corp. (0728.HK), are also on the list and their stocks are traded on both the Hong Kong Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

Another well-known company tied to China’s military and whose shares are included in both the MSCI and FTSE indexes is surveillance equipment manufacturer Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Ltd. (002415.SZ). The company was accused by the U.S government last year of being implicated in human rights violations in China.

The fact sheet also provides the list of all 68 affiliated entities of these military companies. Most of them have stocks that are included in various MSCI and FTSE indexes.

“Under Chinese law, Chinese companies and researchers must–under penalty of law–share technology with the Chinese military. The goal is to ensure that the People’s Liberation Army has military dominance,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated in the fact sheet.

In addition to the military companies, at least 13 PRC firms on the Commerce Department’s blacklist (Entity List) had affiliates or parent companies included in the MSCI or FTSE indexes.

Hangzhou Hikvision, Dahua Technology, IFLYTEK, and FiberHome Technologies Group are prominent examples of Chinese companies “with widely recognized ties to the oppression of Uyghurs that benefit from inclusion in the MSCI and/or FTSE stock indices,” according to the report.

In addition, “the MSCI emerging market index included 230 A-shares Chinese stocks incorporated on the mainland, quoted in renminbi, and listed on Chinese Communist Party-controlled Shanghai and Shenzhen exchanges.”

MSCI and FTSE didn’t immediately respond to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.

“Some of the Chinese companies (on MSCI Index) present significant national security and humanitarian concerns for the United States, which increases the risk that they could be subject to sanctions, public protests, trade restrictions, boycotts, and other punitive measures that jeopardize their business and profitability,” White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien and White House chief economic adviser Larry Kudlow stated in the fact sheet.

FTSE Russell announced on Dec. 4 that it would drop shares of eight Chinese companies including Hangzhou Hikvision, China Railway Construction Corp., and China Spacesat. These companies’ shares will be removed from its FTSE Global Equity Index Series and several others effective Dec. 21.

Index providers MSCI and JPMorgan also may take similar actions against the Chinese blacklisted companies as they’re currently in the process of collecting investor feedback, The Wall Street Journal reported on Dec. 4.

The U.S. House of Representatives last week unanimously passed legislation that will block Chinese companies from the U.S. stock market if they fail to be transparent and meet American accounting standards. The measure is headed to President Donald Trump’s desk to be signed into law.

The bill affects companies listed on U.S. exchanges, but doesn’t address issues related to securities embedded in ETFs and other passive investment funds benchmarked against major indexes.

Based in New York, MSCI Inc. recently announced, “the assets in ETFs linked to its indexes crossed the $1 trillion mark on Nov. 16.”

Last year, the firm quadrupled China’s weighting in the emerging-markets index. The company announced in December 2019 that it increased the number of China A-share companies and as a result, China’s weight in the index rose to 33 percent from 28 percent in 2017.

In February last year, The Wall Street Journal reported that MSCI came under heavy pressure from the Chinese regime, which threatened to cut the company’s business in the country.

The index provider, as a result, had to increase the weighting of Chinese shares in its global benchmarks, leading billions of dollars to flow into Chinese shares, the report said.