The FT’s relationship with the FT’s business partners has been complicated.
Its most prominent investor is China-based financial services firm CITIC Securities Group, which owns about 20 per cent of the FT.
CITICA is the only FT holding company to be approved for US government bailout money, despite its past role in pushing China-linked businesses into the US.
The FT has also been accused of using its ties with the Chinese government as a cover for political funding.
The US Treasury Department has accused the FT of being a front for China.
FT chairman and CEO, James Gorman, said the FT was “a global leader in business and culture and it has a strong foundation”.
“The FT is not only a global business publication, but a global publisher, too, and we are not immune from the same scrutiny.”
I would say to any journalist: ‘The FT’s a global organisation that does great things and I’ve had many of my colleagues do great things in China.
If you think you can’t do it, then don’t work at it.'”CITIC’s involvement with FT, however, has been criticised by former US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who has criticised the organisation for not doing enough to protect the rights of its Chinese employees.
Paulson said that, in the FT and other FT publications, CITCI was not allowed to speak to its Chinese colleagues about issues of Chinese culture and religion.”
Paulson added that the FT “could do a better job protecting them” if it had hired a US-based HR professional to conduct interviews.”
And, of course, when you have Chinese people in the US, they’re treated like second class citizens.”
Paulson added that the FT “could do a better job protecting them” if it had hired a US-based HR professional to conduct interviews.
The FT has defended its relationship with CITICS, saying it “fully supports” the organisation’s right to pursue its own political agenda.
However, CitiC, the Chinese-owned financial service firm that CITICO owns a majority stake in, has said it will not allow the FT to have any role in CITICAN’s investment decisions.
“The FT would not be able to work with CitiCS if it were to enter into a merger or sell the FT,” the company said in a statement on Tuesday.
The US Treasury has also accused the Financial Times of being “the FT’s biggest donor” to CITICAL.
The Treasury said the US Treasury was “appalled” by the FTs decision to allow CITICH to have a position in the Chinese firm.
“If CITICE had a stake in the UK-based FT, it would have a stake as well, and the FT would be obliged to disclose the ownership and ownership of all its other shareholders,” the Treasury said in its letter to the FT dated October 27.
The Financial Times said that it “strongly opposes” the Treasury’s allegations and would fight them in court.
“We are committed to protecting the rights and interests of our Chinese staff, and will vigorously defend our position,” the newspaper said in an emailed statement.CITICA’s relationship to the UK’s FT was also in doubt when the FT announced its intention to sell its investment arm.
The UK’s Financial Times reported in January that CitiIC’s investment arm would be spun off into its own entity in the new financial institution.
However the FT has refused to confirm this, claiming that the investment arm will be separate.
The Financial Times also said it would continue to report on the FT, and that it was “likely” that CICIC would retain the FT branding.