Thursday, September 05, 2013

Selling the Family Silver, or Merely Hocking It: Does it Matter in Detroit?

-- Posted by Neil H. Buchanan

In an exchange of Dorf on Law posts recently, Professor Dorf and I expressed our disagreements with various philosophical justifications for orthodox economic, cost-benefit approaches to analyzing social problems.  (My posts are here and here.  Professor Dorf's post, sandwiched between those two, is here.)  The immediate motivation for our posts was a NYT column by famed ethicist Peter Singer, who offered a highly stylized, loaded numerical example clearly designed to show that some moral dilemmas should not be especially controversial.

In particular, Singer described two alternative recipients of a philanthropist's money: a fund that will be used to build a new wing on an art museum, or a fund dedicated to curing victims of a blindness-causing disease called trachoma.  Properly deployed, Singer informs us, $100 could prevent one person from experiencing 15 years of blindness.  Singer then says that, even at ten times the cost, "in my judgment, and I bet in yours, seeing the new wing still would not be worth" the consequences.

I will leave it to readers to go back and read the posts here on Dorf on Law, if the spirit moves them.  Unsurprisingly, Professor Dorf and I approached the matter from different directions, relying on our respective academic training, and landed at pretty much the same place.  (Singer's example is powerful, but we both concluded that he fails to make the case for his economistic approach more broadly.)  Here, I will briefly answer a query that arose on the comments board.

Part of the broader argument in my posts (drawn from a letter to the Times's editors) was that the long-term social benefit of supporting the arts is difficult to measure, but it is especially important to a society's moral health (including the likelihood that its citizens will even think to make moral choices in the first place.)  A frequent commenter, in response to Professor Dorf's post, posed a much more pointed question.  Notwithstanding the long-term benefits that the arts bestow on a society, what should a government do when it is extremely cash-constrained?  In particular, what would Professor Dorf and I say to the leaders of the City of Detroit, who are dealing with a municipal bankruptcy in a city that owns a major art museum, the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA).  Should they sell the art to pay the bills?

The easy answer, of course, is that the city should receive help from the state and federal governments, making a fire sale of the city's assets unnecessary.  We have good reason, however, to think that this will not happen.  Detroit represents everything that the Republican Party hates (even before Republicans were further addled by the Tea Party movement).  It is heavily black, it is a Democratic stronghold, it is a base of -- indeed, the virtual birthplace of -- unionism.  The state government has been taken over by the new wave of Republican extremists, who add extra venom to the usual city/suburb (black/white) hostilities that Detroit and other cities regularly experience.  Republicans in the federal government would hardly view Detroit as a priority.

So, the choices appear to come down to either cutting city services (which are already so defunded that it takes an hour for ambulances or police to respond to the average 911 call in Detroit), reducing the modest pensions of the city's retired civil servants, or selling assets like the art in the city's museum.  What, the commenter asked, would we choose?  Detroit's leaders obviously would not buy art today, for financial reasons, so should they not sell the art that the city owns, for the same reasons?

Professor Dorf responded: "As a psychological matter, the 'endowment effect' means that not buying the art feels quite different from selling it. However, in this case, it's not different enough, so I would think the right thing to do is to sell the art to reduce the pain inflicted on municipal retirees etc."  I added in a comment: "Although I would find it excruciatingly difficult to sign off on selling the Detroit Museum's collections, I would do so."

The commenter then asked a follow-up question: "Why is it excruciatingly difficult to sign off on the sale of the collection?  I understand Mr. Dorf's 'endowment effect' but I still argue from an economic point of view that there is no difference between not selling the collection and receiving a gift of $1 billion which is used to buy an art collection."  Good question.

In thinking about this question, I start from the premise that things will get better in Detroit, at some point.  If they do not, then what we are observing is simply the final death rattle of a once-great city.  In that case, deciding to sell the art would be difficult in the sense that it is difficult to admit an unpleasant reality.  It is one thing to know that it is truly over, but the finality of it all is brought home by this type of decision.  Still, if Detroit is now really "all dead" (as Miracle Max would put it, in The Princess Bride), then selling off the art to good new homes is just a matter of good liquidation management.

What, in my mind, makes it excruciating to think about selling the museum's art, is the idea that a potentially revived Detroit will be much better off with an intact art museum.  This is not about an endowment effect.  It is based on the idea that a great art museum is a unique asset, difficult to build and easy to destroy.  It is highly likely that Detroit will have to sell the art for a lot less than it is worth, because the financial emergency facing the city is so dire.  So, part of the difficulty, purely from a financial standpoint, is that it will be difficult to undo the fire sale, once the art is gone.  Not impossible, but the kind of thing that almost always makes it a bad idea, taking account of all financial considerations, to engage in one-time sales of assets to pay ongoing expenses.  If you do not think you should own the asset, you should sell it without consideration to broader financial needs.  But if you do not think you should sell it as a general matter, then you should try not to sell it just to pay the bills.

The simplest analogy here is to a family that could buy groceries by selling family heirlooms.  Generally, we try to avoid being in such a position, but sometimes disaster strikes.  If it is possible to find a pawn shop, from which one can simply repurchase the family's heritage at the same price when times improve, then that is one thing.  If, instead, the family will have to buy back for $10,000 what it sold for $500, then that it obviously quite a different matter.

It might not be different enough to mean that the family should not still sell, but the calculus changes.  In one sense, therefore, my sense that it would be excruciatingly difficult to sell the art is based on my sense that I do not know -- and I cannot imagine that anyone truly knows -- how reversible this decision would be.  Faced with nothing but bad choices, I still might approve the sale.  But it is hardly obvious, even in this situation, that such a decision is really in the long run best interest of the city and its people.  (Again, I am assuming that there is a possible long run for Detroit.)  Keynes's famous line, "In the long run, we are all dead," of course, is what could force Detroit's hand.

I do not, however, think that it is accurate simply to say that Detroit's leaders might have to make that difficult, excruciating choice.  In a sense, my hesitation is based in part on what I referred to above as "the easy answer": getting help from the state or federal governments.  It is at least possible that this is a political stare-down, and that at some point people will realize that killing off a major city, even one as hobbled as Detroit, is a bad idea as a matter of state, regional, and national economic and social policy.  Selling, or even merely hocking, the family silver might make it less likely that a better policy will be adopted.  I am not saying that I view it as likely that help is on the way to Detroit, but I do not view it as a zero (or even only 10%) probability.

So, if I were in a decision-making position, it would be excruciating to think about selling the DIA's art to pay the immediate bills.  There are more moving parts to that decision than it initially seems, and all of those additional considerations counsel at least extreme caution in undertaking something so radical as selling a major civic asset.  Being extremely cautious is not the same thing as completely ruling out a course of action, but it is an excruciating choice.

12 comments:

The Dismal Political Economist said...

Mr. Buchanan’s points are both valid and reasonable. He provides a compelling argument for Detroit to keep its art collection and a very good explanation of why it was an excruciating decision to him. And he is correct that neither the state of Michigan nor the Feds are coming to the rescue. But his position still leaves Detroit in dire financial straits (when Miracle Max saw the dead Westley and said “I’ve seen worse” he may have been talking about Detroit 2013) with a valuable but non-essential asset and the need to provide for critical city services and for the retirees without the financial resources to do so. This troubling to a lot of people, as well it should be.

There should be a way for the city to have its cake and eat it too (creative financing is something economists are supposed to do, in this case for the public good rather than private gain). Assuming the art collection is an unencumbered asset, here’s a possibility.

1. The city could issue a 20 year $1 billion (assuming that is the FMV of the collection) bond at 4%, the assumed inflation rate of the value of the collection.

2. The collateral for the bond would be the collection and the bond would be non-recourse to the city, similar to a municipal revenue bond.

3. For the first 10 years the bond would be zero coupon, and after 10 years its face value would then have grown to about $1.5 billion.

4. At that point the bond would be serviced by equal principal payments over the next 10 years.

In this scenario the city would get a much needed cash infusion, and have 10 years to realize the recovery that Mr. Buchanan thinks can happen. If that recovery does happen then the city can retain the collection by making the scheduled interest and principal payments for the following 10 years. If the recovery did not happen and/or the city can not/will not make the payments, the creditors take the collection whose value would have presumably grown to at least $1.5 billion, making them whole.

No not a perfect solution, there is none, but this or a variation thereof could bring Detroit the cash it needs today, leave the collection in place for 10 years and provide the possibility that the city could retain the collection ongoing. To not harvest the value of this asset in some way is to engage in trading off today’s needs for the possibility but not certainty that the city of Detroit will be better off with the collection at some point in the future as Mr. Buchanan describes. That is not good enough for either the city, its pensioners or its creditors.

Neil H. Buchanan said...

TDPE's comment is ingenious, and quite welcome. As I wrote in my post, I did end up concluding that the best current course would unfortunately be to sell the asset, so I'm on record as saying only why that should be a very difficult decision to make, not that I would not make it. But borrowing against the asset is definitely a creative alternative, and I like that idea much better than the other choices (including the one that I reluctantly endorsed).

The Dismal Political Economist said...

Mr. Buchanan’s praise is greatly appreciated, but the key here is his clear articulation of the case for Detroit to keep its art collection and the case in general for cities to provide non-essential cultural attractions. Once that rationale was presented (and it was not obvious to many of us) it is relatively easy to develop a number of possible solutions that would satisfy the objectives of both sides.

奇堡比 said...

筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查
財務顧問
法律問題
徵信相關
專利侵權
專業偵探
工商調查
優良徵信
外遇蒐證
討債公司
外遇徵信
外遇調查
婚前調查
老公外遇
太太外遇

奇堡比 said...

新女性徵信
外遇調查站
鴻海徵信
亞洲徵信
非凡徵信社
鳳凰徵信社
中華新女性徵信社
全國新女性徵信社
全省女人徵信有限公司
私家偵探超優網
女人感情會館-婚姻感情挽回徵信
女子偵探徵信網
女子國際徵信
外遇抓姦偵探社
女子徵信社
女人國際徵信
女子徵信社
台中縣徵信商業同業公會
成功科技器材
女人國際徵信社
女人國際徵信
三立徵信社-外遇
女人國際徵信
女人國際徵信
大同女人徵信聯盟
晚晴徵信

aminos lahragui said...




Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot


فوائد الزنجبيل

فوائد الرمان

فوائد الحلبة

فوائد البصل

فوائد الزعتر

فوائد زيت السمسم

علاج البواسير

فوائد اليانسون

فوائد الكركم

قصص جحا

صور يوم الجمعه

علامات الحمل

تعريف الحب

حياة البرزخ

فوائد الزبيب

aminos lahragui said...


thanks so much i like very so much your post
حلى الاوريو الفطر الهندي صور تورته حلى قهوه طريقة عمل السينابون طريقة عمل بلح الشام بيتزا هت كيكة الزبادي حلا سهل صور كيك عجينة العشر دقائق

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150326
coach outlet store online
michael kors outlet
jordan 4
prada shoes
louis vuitton handbags
timberland shoes
hollister pas cher
tod's sale
nhl jerseys wholesale
kate spade handbags
beats by dre
prada outlet
kate spade uk
prada handbags
ray ban
louis vuitton outlet
abercrombie
new balance shoes
burberry outlet
coach outlet
tods outlet
adidas wings
coach outlet online
toms shoes
foamposite gold
lacoste outlet
adidas shoes
christian louboutin
kate spade outlet
tiffany and co jewelry
michael kors canada
toms shoes outlet online
lululemon
giuseppe zanotti outlet
kobe 9 elite
michael kors handbags
converse outlet
michael kors outlet
foamposite shoes
michael kors outlet

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150430calvin klein outlet
swarovski crystal
links of london
michael kors outlet
burberry outlet online
lacoste outlet
ray ban sunglasses
nba jerseys
ray ban wayfarer
michael kors handbags
mac makeup
kobe bryants shoes
michael kors outlet
tods outlet
toms shoes
ray ban uk
ray ban sunglasses
coach factory outlet
celine outlet
adidas wings
marc jacobs outlet
abercrombie and fitch
timberland boots
true religion outlet
michael kors factory outlet
coach outlet store online
instyler
louboutin shoes
beats solo
nike roshe run
ray ban sunglasses
air force one shoes
ray ban sale
herve leger dresses
michael kors outlet
cheap oakley sunglasses
salvatore ferragamo
michael kors handbags
cheap toms
mcm bags

Shijun Lin said...

shijun 5.20
celine bags
gucci outlet online
polo ralph lauren
michael kors
gucci outlet online
oakley frogskins
running warehouse
louboutin
christian louboutin
air jordans
polo ralph lauren
christian louboutin
chanel no 5
true religion sale
michael kors outlet online sale
prada sunglasses
louis vuitton outlet
gucci outlet
michael kors outlet
christian louboutin outlet
michael kors outlet online
louis vuitton outlet
michael kors
concord 11
cheap oakleys
mont blanc pen
jordan retro 11
gucci handbags
michael kors outlet
jordan 11s
ray ban glasses
abercrombie store new york
toms canada
polo outlet
kate spade outlet
jordan 11 columbia
jordan 11s
cheap jerseys
coach outlet
coach outlet store online

chenlina said...

chenlina20150604
michael kors outlet
lululemon
michael kors outlet
jordan 13 shoes
air max uk
michael kors
hollister clothing
michael kors handbags
michael kors outlet
ray ban wayfarer
hollister clothing
gucci bags
coach outlet online
louis vuitton handbags
ray ban outlet
coach outlet
michael kors
louis vuitton
michael kors outlet online
michael kors outlet online
lv outlet
louis vuitton outlet
coach outlet online
nike air max
louis vuitton outlet
ray ban sunglass
prada uk
gucci shoes
louis vuitton
mont blanc
www.louisvuitton.com
abercrombie store
ralph lauren sale
jordan 11 snakeskin
oakley outlet
louis vuitton
ray ban glasses
michael kors outlet
chanel uk
coach factory outlet

Guo Guo said...

guowenhao20150605
mcm bags
new york jets jerseys
tory burch outlet online
timberland shoes
roshe run men
lacoste shirts
oakley sunglasses
boston celtics jersey
chanel handbags
swarovski crystal
hermes birkin
iphone 6 plus cases
louis vuitton outlet
prada outlet
michael kors handbags
burberry outlet online
abercrombie and fitch
tods shoes
abercrombie
converse all star
lacoste outlet
denver broncos jerseys
air jordan shoes
adidas outlet
adidas shoes
nike running shoes
marc jacobs outlet
seattle seahawks jerseys
michael kors handbags
coach outlet
kate spade handbags
ray ban sunglasses
hermes belt
insanity
converse shoes
mcm handbags
lebron james shoes
gucci outlet
calvin klein underwear
louis vuitton outlet