EB5 Capital Celebrates Opening of New Hilton Home2 Suites in Temecula, CA

WASHINGTON, April 02, 2019 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — EB5 Capital joins Huntington Hotels Group in celebrating the grand opening of Temecula Hilton Home2 Suites located in Temecula, California. The property is a 120–room Hilton hotel in the heart of Southern California’s wine country. It is situated between Los Angeles and Santa Barbara counties, and is a ten–minute drive from 5,000 acres of award–winning vineyards and the Pechanga Resort and Casino, the largest gaming establishment in the state of California.

“We’re thrilled about seeing our fourth EB–5 funded project open in the Golden State,” said Brian Ostar, EB5 Capital’s Senior Vice President of Global Operations. “With a total of six projects delivered or under construction in California, this project is one of the four deals we structured in partnership with Huntington Hotel Group. The opening of Temecula Hilton Home2 Suites represents another milestone in our company’s extending portfolio of completed EB–5 projects across the country.”

EB5 Capital funded $8.5 million in the project as a preferred equity investment. The hotel includes a business center, dining room, outdoor swimming pool, fitness room, and entertainment space. The project will contribute to addressing strong demand for additional hotels in Temecula driven by tourists and the Rancho California Business Park, where several leading pharmaceutical and technology firms are located. The Home2 Suites Hilton brand targets corporate and leisure travelers and is specifically designed for families visiting for several days.  

“It is always rewarding to see EB–5 projects complete their full construction cycle, from groundbreaking ceremony to grand opening,” said David Slavit, Director of Asset Management. “We are looking forward to providing official site tours to our investors who have plans to visit this area of California.”

About EB5 Capital

EB5 Capital is a leader in the EB–5 immigrant investor industry, raising foreign capital from investors in more than 55 countries for investment in job–creating real estate projects across the United States. EB5 Capital owns and operates six USCIS–authorized Regional Centers that serve 15 states and the District of Columbia. With a portfolio of 25 projects, EB5 Capital maintains a 100% project approval rate from the USCIS. For more information, visit http://www.eb5capital.com.


Ben Carter
(202) 652–2437

Has Privatization Benefitted the Public?

To ensure public acceptability, some benefits accrue to many in the early stages of privatization in order to minimize public resistance. However, in the longer term, privatization tends to enrich a few but typically fails to deliver on its ostensible aims.

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Apr 2 2019 – In most cases of privatization, some outcomes benefit some, which serves to legitimize the change. Nevertheless, overall net welfare improvements are the exception, not the rule.

Never is everyone better off. Rather, some are better off, while others are not, and typically, many are even worse off. The partial gains are typically high, or even negated by overall costs, which may be diffuse, and less directly felt by losers.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Privatized monopoly powers
Since many SOEs are public monopolies, privatization has typically transformed them into private monopolies. In turn, abuse of such market monopoly power enables more rents and corporate profits.

As corporate profits are the private sector’s yardstick of success, privatized monopolies are likely to abuse their market power to maximize rents for themselves. Thus, privatization tends to burden the public, e.g., if charges are raised.

In most cases, privatization has not closed the governments’ fiscal deficits, and may even worsen budgetary problems. Privatization may worsen the fiscal situation due to loss of revenue from privatized SOEs, or tax evasion by the new privatized entity.

Options for cross-subsidization, e.g., to broaden coverage are reduced as the government is usually left with unprofitable activities while the potentially profitable is acquired by the private sector. Thus, governments are often forced to cut essential public services.

In most cases, profitable SOEs were privatized as prospective private owners are driven to maximize profits. Fiscal deficits have often been exacerbated as new private owners use creative accounting to avoid tax, secure tax credits and subsidies, and maximize retained earnings.

Meanwhile, governments lose vital revenue sources due to privatization if SOEs are profitable, and are often obliged to subsidize privatized monopolies to ensure the poor and underserved still have access to the privatized utilities or services.

Privatization burdens many
Privatization burdens the public when charges or fees are not reduced, or when the services provided are significantly reduced. Thus, privatization often burdens the public in different ways, depending on how market power is exercised or abused.

Often, instead of trying to provide a public good to all, many are excluded because it is not considered commercially viable or economic to serve them. Consequently, privatization may worsen overall enterprise performance. ‘Value for money’ may go down despite ostensible improvements used to justify higher user charges.

SOEs are widely presumed to be more likely to be inefficient. The most profitable and potentially profitable are typically the first and most likely to be privatized. This leaves the rest of the public sector even less profitable, and thus considered more inefficient, in turn justifying further privatizations.

Efficiency elusive
It is often argued that privatization is needed as the government is inherently inefficient and does not know how to run enterprises well. Incredibly, the government is expected to subsidize privatized SOEs, which are presumed to be more efficient, in order to fulfil its obligations to the citizenry.

Such obligations may not involve direct payments or transfers, but rather, lucrative concessions to the privatized SOE. Thus, they may well make far more from these additional concessions than the actual cost of fulfilling government obligations.

Thus, privatization of profitable enterprises or segments not only perpetuates exclusion of the deserving, but also worsens overall public sector performance now encumbered with remaining unprofitable obligations.

One consequence is poorer public sector performance, contributing to what appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. To make matters worse, the public sector is then stuck with financing the unprofitable, thus seemingly supporting to the privatization prophecy.

Benefits accrue to relatively few
Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not seem to benefit them.

Privatization in many developing and transition economies has primarily enriched these few as the public interest is sacrificed to such powerful private business interests. This has, in turn, exacerbated corruption, patronage and other related problems.

For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms, for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history.

Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic progress.

Chaineum acts as STO Advisor for Carthagea

Chaineum, a France–based corporate finance advisory firm and a pioneering Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") advisor, accompanies the first French law governed "Security Token Offering" ("STO") on behalf of its client [...] Read more »