Quote Originally Posted by Coaccession View Post
My Freep comment: "Detroit has billions of dollars invested in the DIA, and while the cultural returns are nice, it should get very substantial financial returns as well. With art finance innovations, the artworks at the DIA could provide investors with a store of value, like gold in a vault, and the money they invest in the artworks could produce income for Detroit. Sure, Detroit would give up future capital appreciation, which would instead go to the investors, but Detroit can't pay its bills despite the billions in capital appreciation the DIA has already earned. Detroit ought to look for double duty from its artworks -- financial and cultural returns -- rather than the traditional single duty of cultural returns only. With a little creativity, the DIA can pay for itself and pay dividends to Detroit. Is there any creativity there?"
Because it's questionable whether it would play out like that. Why would a Bloomfield Hills billionaire pay $20m for a piece of artwork and let the DIA keep it instead of moving it to their own private castle? A lot of the artwork would probably be transported to private collections in Dubai or some other foreign country if not here. Spending that kind of money is not just an investment, but a proof of success to show off to their neighbors. Most people who buy $2m Bugatti Veyron's don't store them at the public car museums either.