Hold on a second. Now you are advocating real legal rights of ownership over the Monet and DIA artwork to ETF shareholders? So it's not the case that Detroit can have it's cake and eat it too. So all a lawyer would have to do is file a lawsuit claiming that the city is mismanaged and that the Monet should be put on public auction because it's a poor caretaker and a private collector in Dubai would be a better caretaker and the ETF shareholders could actually win possession and force its sale.
In the future, if the city made a bad investment and is in the same position as it is today, a lawyer could argue in court that the DIA is not properly maintaining low humidity temperature to preserve the Monet or that there is not enough security to watch over a $10m Monet due to budget cuts or any number of variables. So much for your cultural easement. If you're allowing court claims in financial troubles, you've opened the door to hundreds of lawsuits by ETF shareholders arguing for its sale to private collectors and you are basically advocating the sale of the Monet artwork because you've now extended legal claims of possession to ETF shareholders and it only takes a good lawyer and the wrong judge to now give possession or a right to force the sale of the Monet to a private collector.
Either ETF shareholders have legal rights of possession for their investment or they do not. You can't have it both ways. If you're allowing the courts to reinterpret who has claims on the Monet in certain scenarios, you've opened the door to it's sale and Detroit can't have it's cake and eat it too [[as you say). Well, good night. The Founder's Board are not going to want the sale of the DIA collection. Thanks for playing.
Bookmarks