DIA Millage Proposal

[davewindsor]

For the same reason, davewindsor, that gold ETF prices did not collapse today. A Monet in a museum is a pretty good store of value, much like gold in a vault... which, especially if you happen to live in certain neighborhoods in Detroit, can be even better for storing value than keeping gold bars in your home.



It's probably too much to expect an apology from you, davewindsor, for joining others here who've ignorantly called me a scammer. But it's worth pointing out facts that show why my method offers museums and investors a great win-win opportunity for each side to be better off with a deal. Museums need capital income to pay their expenses but get capital appreciation they can't use. Investors get capital income they simply reinvest after taxes, when capital appreciation could better suit their savings goals. Letting investors invest in museum objects can make both sides better off, as long as museums reserve the rights they need for their cultural mission.

Detroit has billions of dollars invested in its DIA collection. It could create a multi-billion dollar arts endowment with that financial value, and still have cultural rights to its entire collection. The Detroit Arts Department, aka DIA, could use every last object in its collection for any exhibition, research project, conservation project or any other cultural project it chooses, plus have money to put on far more of every kind of cultural project than it does today. The DIA doesn't need a millage to build an operating endowment. Detroit just needs to properly manage its own assets. If the Bing administration or the Founders Society wants to learn how, they can start -- like you, davewindsor -- by taking off their blinders and looking at how people really behave financially.

Apology? Why? Name one Museum with a large collection where this has worked ever. Just one. It's theoretical.

An ETF, from what I understand, is just a mutual fund that is publically traded. You have a broker that buys and sells shares or gold paper for the ETF, but the broker can proxy a claim for that gold at some point, whether it be mined 5 years down the road from the production of a reputable mine [[ex., future, forward or option) or converted right away and sold as gold bricks on the open market. In the case of DIA artwork, the broker does not have an option to claim it so they could sell the artwork on an open market. What you're offering is funny money. If no one can ever lay claim to possess that artwork so they can sell it other than the DIA, then it's not real and the value is not realizable. Investors will see it as a scam because that's what it is. It's a pyramid scam. You are selling phoney equity.

Let's put this another way. How about I offer you the same deal on a million dollar apartment building? You give me all your savings and I'll use it to buy an apartment building in trust. I'll let you claim the appreciation which you can never realize if I don't ever sell it and I get to keep all the income from it and I'll keep ownership of it in my trust in perpetuity and deed the trust to my children so you could never own it or make money off of it unless you sell your funny money claim to appreciation to some other schmuck.

It's an amazing deal for me because I just got a free income producing property using your money and I don't have to pay you dividends or interest. It's a crappy deal for you because even though you have the right to real estate appreciation if it ever gets sold, you do not have the option to sell it. With an interest free deal like that, what is the incentive for me to ever sell it? Yet, keep deluding yourself that appreciation without any right to put the property for sale on the open market is a good deal for investors. When do you want to give me all your savings so we can write up your amazing appreciation contract on an apartment building? Think of the tax savings from asset depreciation and real estate appreciation to you. And don't worry, the building will be in my safe hands. Hahaha.

[Coaccession]

Apology? Why? Name one Museum with a large collection where this has worked ever. Just one. It's theoretical.

C'mon, davewindsor, name one city with a large art collection that's due to run out of cash next month without a multi-million dollar infusion. Just one. Oh... Detroit? Gee, you're right. I bet they would like to find alternatives to payless paydays, cancelled services and closed facilities, as well as alternatives to outright art sales when they start digging Detroit out of its financial hole.

An ETF, from what I understand, is just a mutual fund that is publically traded. You have a broker that buys and sells shares or gold paper for the ETF, but the broker can proxy a claim for that gold at some point, whether it be mined 5 years down the road from the production of a reputable mine [[ex., future, forward or option) or converted right away and sold as gold bricks on the open market.

Shares or gold paper? Proxy a claim? Hey, how about you just sell your Bruegel the Elder "Wedding Dance" shares if you really want to buy some Van Gogh "Self Portrait" shares? That's as clean and simple as selling your gold ETF shares to buy silver ETF shares, which is why physical delivery won't matter in the art shares market any more than it matters now in the ETF market. What matters is having the store of value to back the shares, ETF or art.

In the case of DIA artwork, the broker does not have an option to claim it so they could sell the artwork on an open market.

You can sputter all you want, davewindsor, about non-existent delivery procedures with ETFs. They don't physically deliver commodities. That doesn't mean they don't trade at prices that reflect their underlying values [[abstracting from the occasional bubble or crash, of course).

What you're offering is funny money.

While you're offering ignorance and blather. Take another shot. If you can actually find physical delivery procedures on ETFs, let me know. But as long as ETFs work when no one can ever lay claim to possess that gold so they can sell it other than the ETF, then art shares are real possibilities because their value is realizable day-in and day-out in active trading, just as with ETFs. Non-specialists will see art shares as a scam because they don't understand how ETFs work. They think everything they don't understand is a pyramid scam. You are selling phony procedures to try to get around how physical delivery really works. Show you actually understand ETFs.

Let's put this another way. How about I offer you the same deal on a million dollar apartment building?

Yes, indeed, davewindsor, let's put this another way. If you don't understand the difference between depreciable and non-depreciable assets, if you don't understand the difference between an ETF buying and selling gold for its own vault and an ETF physically delivering gold to shareholders, then doing more internet research is not likely to bring you up to speed. Feel free to try, though. And, no, I don't expect an apology now. That's way too much to hope.

[davewindsor]

C'mon, davewindsor, name one city with a large art collection that's due to run out of cash next month without a multi-million dollar infusion. Just one. Oh... Detroit? Gee, you're right. I bet they would like to find alternatives to payless paydays, cancelled services and closed facilities, as well as alternatives to outright art sales when they start digging Detroit out of its financial hole.

....

Yes, indeed, davewindsor, let's put this another way. If you don't understand the difference between depreciable and non-depreciable assets, if you don't understand the difference between an ETF buying and selling gold for its own vault and an ETF physically delivering gold to shareholders, then doing more internet research is not likely to bring you up to speed. Feel free to try, though. And, no, I don't expect an apology now. That's way too much to hope.

It's irrelevant whether museums are solvent or not. It still doesn't prove your system will work.

And, the difference is I buy and sell my own real estate. I trade in real tangible stuff. I live in reality, not fantasy. Investors don't invest their money if there isn't a realizable return. In fact, private investors are very careful when they do lend money on investment real estate like they want to see skin in the game, not lending at 100% LTV, they have terms and conditions to minimize their risk, and they have a right to recall or auction the collateral when things go wrong.

You are basically talking about an unsecured loan in perpetuity that generates no interest or profit that investors are making in return for appreciation in value and the only appreciation in value is by creating a phoney pyramid of appreciating equity that they must hustle onto another unsuspecting investor to make a profit. But, the loan isn't secured with any rights to possession or recall, so it's not real equity. It's phantom equity in exchange for real money. I can't understand why a PhD doesn't understand such a simple concept. Is your degree from Arizona or University of Phoenix where they guarantee everyone acceptance and a straight A average to students who've never gotten As in high school? http://www.ripoffreport.com/colleges...38q.htm#427423

There's a reason why you can't find a museum that has done your phoney equity pyramid art trading. The burden of proof to do Internet research isn't on me when what you are saying defies common sense. The burden of proof is on you when you're selling an art trading system that neither exists nor is proven. No one is going to buy something that can never be controlled by the brokering business.

Does what you are saying defy common sense? If not, why is everybody else on this thread is saying the same thing?

What does that tell you about your scam trading system?

[Zacha341]

Well stated DW... and yes the concept of 'pyramid' did emerge in my mind as well.

...There's a reason why you can't find a museum that has done your phoney equity pyramid art trading.

Does what you are saying defy common sense? If not, why is everybody else on this thread is saying the same thing?

What does that tell you about your scam trading system?

[Coaccession]

Well stated DW... and yes the concept of 'pyramid' did emerge in my mind as well.

Right after your MLM concept, Zacha341, and with no more basis. You've got to learn to focus if you want to make an argument, and not just parrot one. Just saying whatever pops up in your mind doesn't advance the conversation. Now, how are art shares like a pyramid?

[Zacha341]

You DO sound like a salesman! Your phrasing, style etc. Classic! Next you'll be telling us we don't have 'vision' because we don't agree with you!

"Learn to focus"... Hah! Oh thank you do dear professor, may I have a 'do over' for that part of the exam?

Please, this is not a seminar where I need to 'learn' how to participate in order to go on to the next session and get the green content folder. And the certificate at the end.

Re-READ WHAT others have already posted here and elsewhere relative to the "Pyramid" construct and other questionable aspects of your um' program. Did someone stutter?

But hey, continue and push your 'program', perhaps it may catch 'some' traction. Like after you contact the specific parties of engagement... duh!?

In the meantime I [[like you) CHOOSE the breadth of my response and length of my comments... or if I desire to participate further...

Right after your MLM concept, Zacha341, and with no more basis. You've got to learn to focus if you want to make an argument, and not just parrot one. Just saying whatever pops up in your mind doesn't advance the conversation. Now, how are art shares like a pyramid?

[Coaccession]

It's irrelevant whether museums are solvent or not. It still doesn't prove your system will work.

Quite so, davewindsor, quite so. Just as it's irrelevant that no museum has mobilized its collection's financial value yet. That still doesn't prove my system won't work. But, given the museum profession's allergy to fully utilizing its assets, getting a pioneer is going to take a situation like Detroit's -- situations that, unlike Detroit's, usually don't get much prior public notice.
Even in Detriot's case, the Founders Society is getting away with keeping the value of public assets off the public books, but with the public exposure they're taking on via their millage proposal, that may change. Once Detroiters understand just how much they're investing in the DIA collection, they may start demanding a better return on those many, many billions of dollars.

And, the difference is I buy and sell my own real estate. I trade in real tangible stuff. I live in reality, not fantasy.

How's that flippin' for a livin' working out for you? The old saying goes that the best way to make a small fortune in real estate is to start with a large one.

Investors don't invest their money if there isn't a realizable return.

Which ETF buyers get by selling.

You are basically talking about an unsecured loan in perpetuity that generates no interest or profit that investors are making in return for appreciation in value and the only appreciation in value is by creating a phoney pyramid of appreciating equity that they must hustle onto another unsuspecting investor to make a profit. But, the loan isn't secured with any rights to possession or recall, so it's not real equity. It's phantom equity in exchange for real money. I can't understand why a PhD doesn't understand such a simple concept.

Well, davewindsor, since that's how ETFs work, my job is not to reject the evidence, but to understand it. You seem very committed to ignoring the ETF evidence since it doesn't agree with your theory of finance. As a PhD, I'm also trying to figure out why you don't understand the simple concept of following the evidence rather than the theory. I think human behavior like yours has a lot to do with explaining markets like ETFs.

Is your degree from Arizona or University of Phoenix where they guarantee everyone acceptance and a straight A average to students who've never gotten As in high school? http://www.ripoffreport.com/colleges...38q.htm#427423

Arizona, davewindsor. Did you learn your flippin' for a livin' where they don't even bother to assign grades: http://www.chicagocashflow.com/node/28

There's a reason why you can't find a museum that has done your phoney equity pyramid art trading. The burden of proof to do Internet research isn't on me when what you are saying defies common sense. The burden of proof is on you when you're selling an art trading system that neither exists nor is proven. No one is going to buy something that can never be controlled by the brokering business... Does what you are saying defy common sense? If not, why is everybody else on this thread is saying the same thing?... What does that tell you about your scam trading system?

As I've said before,davewindsor, if someone offers solid evidence that, for one example, people won't behave with art shares the way they behave with ETFs, or that the City of Detroit is obligated to follow museum ethics rules with it city assets, for another example, then it's time for me to back down. But all you're giving me is tirades about how you think things should work. Look at the evidence, davewindsor. Eppur si muove.

[davewindsor]

Quite so, davewindsor, quite so. Just as it's irrelevant that no museum has mobilized its collection's financial value yet. That still doesn't prove my system won't work. But, given the museum profession's allergy to fully utilizing its assets, getting a pioneer is going to take a situation like Detroit's -- situations that, unlike Detroit's, usually don't get much prior public notice.
Even in Detriot's case, the Founders Society is getting away with keeping the value of public assets off the public books, but with the public exposure they're taking on via their millage proposal, that may change. Once Detroiters understand just how much they're investing in the DIA collection, they may start demanding a better return on those many, many billions of dollars.



How's that flippin' for a livin' working out for you? The old saying goes that the best way to make a small fortune in real estate is to start with a large one.



Which ETF buyers get by selling.



Well, davewindsor, since that's how ETFs work, my job is not to reject the evidence, but to understand it. You seem very committed to ignoring the ETF evidence since it doesn't agree with your theory of finance. As a PhD, I'm also trying to figure out why you don't understand the simple concept of following the evidence rather than the theory. I think human behavior like yours has a lot to do with explaining markets like ETFs.



Arizona, davewindsor. Did you learn your flippin' for a livin' where they don't even bother to assign grades: http://www.chicagocashflow.com/node/28



As I've said before,davewindsor, if someone offers solid evidence that, for one example, people won't behave with art shares the way they behave with ETFs, or that the City of Detroit is obligated to follow museum ethics rules with it city assets, for another example, then it's time for me to back down. But all you're giving me is tirades about how you think things should work. Look at the evidence, davewindsor. Eppur si muove.

“If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you”

Remember that old expression about someone selling something they don't own?

The more I listen to you talking about DIA artwork ETFs, the more I think about George Parker who sold the Brooklyn Bridge over a century ago. And then he sold the Metropolitan Museum of Art. http://www.neatorama.com/2007/07/02/...andmark-scams/

You're offering an old scam in new packaging. Do you really think the Founder's Society of the DIA want to be associated with that?

If you're not selling ownership, you're basically selling the Brooklyn Bridge. And then you want to take it a step further where the duped person who bought it can sell it to someone else for more money. And it goes on and on building a phoney pyramid of appreciation. It's phoney because the people who bought it are trading claims they don't have a real claim to.

George Parker pulled a scam because he sold something he never owned and people were so easily duped into thinking they owned something they did not. You are just selling paper that isn't worth anymore the paper it's printed on.

BTW--I was educated at a government owned university, not a private one, and people who are flipping for a livin' are selling real things. I'm not referring to seminar companies. Those places are notorious for scams as well and most of them should be shut down because all they're teaching and the courses they are upselling you on you can get from a $20 book.

I'm referring to the people who buy and sell real estate. There's a point in the transaction where the person who bought it owns it before he can sell it. When he owns it, he has legal title to it and can do things to it like repair and rehab it to add value or rent it out. If you have an ETF in DIA artwork, you can't rent out that painting. You can't move it. You can't charge admission to view it. You can't touch it. You can't repair it. You can't even change the frame that it's sitting in.

I'm not going to offer "solid evidence that, for one example, people won't behave with art shares the way they behave with ETFs". Just like with George Parker and the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge and other landmarks, people can be easily duped into thinking they bought something they did not. A good con artist can dupe people because that's his or her art. That's what they do. Just because a con artist can con people out of their money doesn't make it right, ethical or legal.