※Translated with Notion AI. (Plus version)
Let me reiterate, I have no objections to the “Financial and Asset Management Special Zone” policy itself.
Overall, there are points I agree with, but for the details, there is still a lack of information to conclude.
It is just a prediction, but it is likely to become a typical Japanese policy that lacks consistency in terms of reality and profitability (future value).
In other words, there is a possibility that it may lack concrete implementation while pursuing ideals.
Now, let’s discuss again the story of an executive of a major global management company managing several billions dollar (resident in NY).
“Japan government do not understand the underlying needs of foreign asset management companies for Japan”
About a year ago, our Tokyo executives started frequent discussions with the government (cabinet) and agencies, and we have received all the reports.
However, as we have already pointed out, there are issues such as “four cities are not necessary“, “lack of human resources“, and “preferential measures are weak“.
We perceive this policy as being politically used and will not actively participate.
We already have a base in Tokyo and are planning while considering the original purpose and profitability.
Let’s talk specifically.
“Four cities are not necessary”
