The US has the second highest share of offshore assets globally, according to a new report by the Financial Times.
This figure is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future, with the US now holding more than twice the amount of offshore financial assets than China.
That means it is the world’s largest net offshore investor, with more than $2.4 trillion of offshore wealth at risk.
That’s a lot of money that’s sitting on the sidelines.
But that wealth is largely tied up in US assets.
The US’s total offshore assets are worth more than a trillion dollars, more than double that of China and almost four times that of Japan.
The report also found that the US has a net worth of $1.2 trillion, about one-third of China’s total, and almost three times that in Japan.
Despite the US’s wealth and size, the report found that investors around the world are hesitant to invest offshore because of a number of reasons.
The lack of clear rules around investment and governance means it’s difficult to identify investments with a high level of certainty.
And offshore is often the first place where regulators and governments have to intervene in the market.
The Financial Times notes that most of these reasons are rooted in US corporate governance.
It also found a large number of investors do not have adequate disclosure of their holdings.
This lack of transparency, combined with a lack of trust in the financial services industry, has created a number-one reason for investing offshore.
And that is that, the Financial Report notes, most foreign investors are willing to invest money offshore, but many don’t understand the risks.
“The main reason for people not to invest is that they don’t want to be held responsible,” said David Ragan, a US-based financial services analyst at RBC Capital Markets.
“There is a lot at stake in terms of the sustainability of the global economy.”
In China, where more than half of all the assets are held by private companies, investors are more cautious than in the US.
That has prompted some commentators to question the wisdom of going all-in.
The US, meanwhile, has a much more transparent regulatory system than other countries.
But the lack of oversight and transparency means that the government can’t regulate the financial system as effectively as it can elsewhere.
That is also one of the main reasons investors have stayed away from China.
While the Financial report is a sobering indictment of the US, it also offers some insights into what makes the US different from other countries when it comes to offshore investing.
The biggest obstacle is that US investors have the most access to the financial markets, meaning they have the best access to a wide range of capital markets.
The same goes for foreign investors, and the US also has the most stringent rules on who can invest and how.
And unlike other countries, the US does not have any state-level financial regulation.
That makes it a natural candidate for companies that want to take advantage of the wealth that is already sitting in offshore accounts.
But there are some caveats.
For one, the United States is not one of just a handful of countries that allow investors to hold a majority stake in a company for longer than three years.
The United States also doesn’t have a sovereign wealth fund.
And as the report notes, there are a number restrictions on the number of offshore companies that can exist in a given jurisdiction.
Another factor that makes the United Kingdom particularly attractive is that the UK is the only country in the world that is the country with a sovereign investment fund, which is designed to invest more in domestic assets.
But the Financial Committee also noted that investors in the UK are not as likely to be attracted by the riskier investments that are often found in China and Japan, and that there are no specific guidelines or regulations around investing offshore in the country.
So the Financial reports that the world will continue to invest overseas for years to come.
But it also highlights the fact that there is a gap between the US and other countries on how to deal with the risk.
And for the time being, it appears the gap is closing.