Late last year, Detroit revealed the results of an estimate by auction house Christies of the value of the city’s art held by the Detroit Institute of Art. The figure was a range of $464 million – $867 million. Let’s take the mid-point and call it $650 million.
Yesterday, I saw in the Wall Street Journal a new estimate by Artvest Partners and commissioned by the city that comes in with a range of $2.8 billion – $4.6 billion. The mid-point here is $3.7 billion.
But wait! …there’s more. According to Artvest, if Detroit actually wanted to sell the artwork, it’s only worth $850 million – $1.8 billion. Mid-point: $1.3 billion.
OK, which is it—$650 million, $1.3 billion or $3.7 billion?
There is one subtlety.
–The $650 million is the (if you’re not selling) value of the art that the city has bought with its own tax money. It does not include work donated to the DIA, where there may be strings attached that don’t allow the works to be sold. (An aside: there may be a further twist here. The DIA has presumably either provided donors with appraisals of their gifts’ value, or validated appraisals donors have provided. In either case, donors will have used these figures, which may be–shall we say, “optimistic”–to claim income tax deductions. a potential mess that I have no desire to comment further on.)
–The Artvest figures, on the other hand, count everything as salable.
What caught my eye in the WSJ article is the gigantic difference between what the appraiser says the art collection is worth–$3.7 billion–and what it would fetch at auction–about a third of that amount.
What struck me is that this is a lot like the way, in my experience, that the market for illiquid “alternative” assets works. So the Detroit case gives a rare glimpse into the inner workings of alternative asset valuation.
As in the Detroit case, there’s one value that investors hear about in reports from the management company, and based on which the manager charges his fees. That, of course, is the $3.7 billion.
The other value is what investors would get if the alternative asset pool were to be liquidated today. It’s what mutual fund investors would call net asset value, or NAV. That’s the equivalent of the $1.3 billion.
Yes, part of the reason the actual sales value in the Detroit case is so far below the (I don’t know what to call it) “dream” value of the artwork is the possibility of donor litigation that would freeze assets for protracted periods. On the other hand, any investor in emerging countries can face similar political difficulties.
Several factors do make the alternative investment case different from Detroit’s:
–in at least some alternative investment situations I’ve seen, the assets are so esoteric that there are few experts other than the asset managers themselves. So the managers end up doing the asset value appraisals. If so, I think they’ll tend to find it hard to arrive at a figure that’s not in the rarified air of Artvest’s $3.7 billion.
–the contracts between investors and managers often allow the latter to refuse redemption requests for an extended period, so actual NAV may be a moot point.
–if investors insist on liquidation, asset managers may be able to make a distribution in kind–meaning investors get their proportionate share of the actual assets, not cash.
Institutions will do almost anything to avoid this situation, since they’ll be forced to safeguard and value any assets they receive. (Early in my career, when Guinness was an independent company, some one there had the crazy idea of paying a dividend in bottles of scotch instead of cash. This would make portfolio managers like me responsible for valuing and storing the stuff, and presumably eventually selling it, on behalf of my clients. What a disaster!)
–based on NAV, it’s not 2% of the assets per annum that moves from the investors’ pockets into the managers’. It’s actually 6%! Ouch.
As I’m confident you’ve worked out already, I’m not a fan of alternatives. The risks are hard to get your arms around; information is scanty; and in my view most of the returns go to the managers. Investors mostly get to dazzle their cocktail party friends with their daring; they lick their wounds in private.
My thoughts aside,for anyone wanting to get a peek under the covers of alternatives, watching the Detroit art case should provide an education.