The underbelly of the global art market (NYT)

 Art is not just art, it's also an investment opportunity, and one that evades many of the regulations that apply to investments recognized as securities.

The NY Times has the story, which is long and interesting throughout.  It follows an investigation begun by the lawyer Claude Dumont Beghi .

The Inheritance Case That Could Unravel an Art Dynasty/How a widow’s legal fight against the Wildenstein family of France has threatened their storied collection — and revealed the underbelly of the global art market.  By Rachel Corbett

"First, she drew up a list of known assets, which soon zigzagged into a chart of far-flung bank accounts, trusts and shell corporations. Over the course of several years, she would fly around the world to tax havens and free ports, prying open the armored vaults and anonymous accounts that mask many of the high-end transactions in the $68 billion global art market. Multimillion-dollar paintings can anonymously trade hands without, for example, any of the requisite titles or deeds of real estate transactions or the public disclosures required on Wall Street. She would learn that the inscrutability of the trade has made it a leading conduit for sanction-evading oligarchs and other billionaires looking to launder excess capital. 

...

"Independent of any national jurisdiction, free ports allow traders to ship and store property without paying taxes or customs duties. If a dealer buys a painting in one country, he can ship it to a free port without paying import taxes; then, when he is offered the right price, he can sell it there too, without paying capital gains. It has been estimated that $100 billion worth of art and collectibles are held in the Geneva free port alone, to say nothing of those in Zurich, Luxembourg, Singapore, Monaco, Delaware or Beijing.

...

"many of their practices are commonplace in high levels of the art trade, which a 2020 U.S. Senate subcommittee called the “largest legal, unregulated market.” Unlike financial institutions, art businesses are not expressly subject to the Bank Secrecy Act, which requires firms to verify customers’ identities, report large cash transactions and flag suspicious activity. A study from the U.S. Department of the Treasury last year cited a figure estimating that money laundering and other financial crimes in the art market may amount to about $3 billion a year. (Britain and the European Union, however, have implemented anti-money-laundering regulations that require stricter due diligence in art transactions there.)

"According to a report by Art Basel and UBS, auction houses did about $31 billion in sales last year. They say that they know who their clients are, but those may just be the names of art advisers or other intermediaries. And collectors’ insistence on anonymity, long framed as genteel discretion, hasn’t budged. The buyer of the most expensive artwork ever sold at auction, Leonardo da Vinci’s $450.3 million “Salvator Mundi,” registered at Christie’s a day before bidding with a $100 million down payment, identifying himself as one of 5,000 princes in Saudi Arabia. A few weeks later, it was revealed that the true buyer was Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman — who was reportedly displaying the painting on his superyacht — and that a little-known cousin of his bought it as a proxy." 

Money Laundering

 Financial regulation plays a big role in law enforcement, by helping investigators to follow the money, which is often easier than following the crimes that generate the money. So, for example, drug dealers and others have trouble turning their income (which is often in cash) into bank accounts that can be used to buy the things that legal money can buy.  Money laundering involves turning ill got gains into reportable income.  Gambling, it turns out, offers some possibilities: if I come into the casino with some cash, and come out with some cash, it's hard to prove that I'm paying tax on more than my winnings.

Here's a story that touches on that, from the WSJ:

Cantor Fitzgerald Gambling Affiliate to Pay $22.5 Million to Settle Probes. CG Technology is said to have admitted aiding and abetting illegal gambling and money laundering   By Kate O’Keeffe and Alexandra Berzon

"Cantor Fitzgerald LP’s sports-betting affiliate has agreed to pay $22.5 million in penalties and forfeiture to the U.S. government in conjunction with its involvement in illegal gambling and money laundering, according to people familiar with the matter.

...

"The agreement comes as the U.S. Treasury and Justice Departments have been increasingly focused in recent years on potential money-laundering violations at casinos. The probes generally center on how the gambling companies allegedly help to facilitate money laundering or fail to report suspicious activities.

...

"Two people who were running their own illegal bookmaking operations elsewhere laundered money through Cantor as part of this system, the people said."

Legally fragmented markets for marijuana create unusual alliances

 Who will be most in favor of eliminating the federal ban on marijuana in the US?  Not necessarily growers and sellers in the many states in which marijuana can legally be grown and sold.  There are some advantages to being in a legal market that is illegal elsewhere (and not just because of the possibility of illegally selling at the higher prices that black markets command...)

The WSJ has this story:

Cannabis Overhaul in Washington Is Only Getting Harder. Legalization agenda could be complicated by states that want to defend their nascent marijuana industries and associated tax revenues  By Carol Ryan

"To date, 18 states have legal adult-use cannabis industries, according to the latest tally from the Marijuana Policy Project. As the drug can’t be transported across state borders while it is still federally outlawed, anything that is smoked within a state has to be grown and sold locally. These independent fiefs, which are growing bigger every month, would be disrupted by national legalization.

"One of the biggest concerns is what happens when cannabis can be traded across the country. More mature marijuana markets such as California and Oregon see interstate commerce as an opportunity to get excess stock off their hands. For recent converts such as New York and New Jersey, a gush of cheap outside inventory would be a threat to their nascent industries. This is particularly sensitive for small, minority-owned cannabis businesses that are being given priority for licenses but would be rapidly undercut.

"States also want to protect the tax windfall that cannabis creates. Illinois has collected more taxes from cannabis than liquor every month since February, according to the Illinois Department of Revenue. Since 2014, when legal sales began in Colorado and Washington, cannabis has raised $7.9 billion in taxes for states, according to the Marijuana Policy Project. Sales levies should stay with local markets, but those associated with production could be hard for certain states to hold on to if the drug is federally legal. Cultivation is likely to shift to warm and low-cost states where cannabis can be grown cheaply outdoors."

***************

And then there's Oklahoma. The NY Times has the story:

How Oklahoma Became a Marijuana Boom State. Weed entrepreneurs have poured into Oklahoma from across the United States, propelled by low start-up costs and relaxed rules.  By Simon Romero

"Ever since the state legalized medical marijuana three years ago, Oklahoma has become one of the easiest places in the United States to launch a weed business. The state now boasts more retail cannabis stores than Colorado, Oregon and Washington combined. In October, it eclipsed California as the state with the largest number of licensed cannabis farms, which now number more than 9,000, despite a population only a tenth of California’s.

"The growth is all the more remarkable given that the state has not legalized recreational use of marijuana. But with fairly lax rules on who can obtain a medical card, about 10 percent of Oklahoma’s nearly four million residents have one, by far the most of any other state.

...

"That unfettered growth has pitted legacy ranchers and farmers against this new breed of growers. Groups representing ranchers, farmers, sheriffs and crop dusters recently joined forces to call for a moratorium on new licenses. They cited climbing prices for land, illicit farms and strains on rural water and electricity supplies as among the reasons. In some parts, new indoor farms are using hundreds of thousands of gallons of water.

...

"But unlike local businesses, where the customers are typically residents, critics assert that growers in Oklahoma are producing far more marijuana than can possibly be sold in the state and are feeding illicit markets around the country.

"Because of lower costs for licensing, labor and land, growers can produce cannabis for as little as $100 a pound, and then turn around and sell that for between $3,500 to $4,000 a pound in California or New York, said Mark Woodward, a spokesman for the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics.

Redistribution through markets, in Econometrica, by Dworczak, Kominers, and Akbarpour

 Market designs involving taxes, or rationing, in the latest Econometrica, Vol. 89, No. 4 (July, 2021), 1665–1698:

REDISTRIBUTION THROUGH MARKETS by PIOTR DWORCZAK, SCOTT DUKE KOMINERS,  and MOHAMMAD AKBARPOUR

Abstract: "Policymakers frequently use price regulations as a response to inequality in the markets they control. In this paper, we examine the optimal structure of such policies from the perspective of mechanism design. We study a buyer-seller market in which agents have private information about both their valuations for an indivisible object and their marginal utilities for money. The planner seeks a mechanism that maximizes agents’ total utilities, subject to incentive and market-clearing constraints. We uncover the constrained Pareto frontier by identifying the optimal trade-off between allocative efficiency and redistribution. We find that competitive-equilibrium allocation is not always optimal. Instead, when there is inequality across sides of the market, the optimal design uses a tax-like mechanism, introducing a wedge between the buyer and seller prices, and redistributing the resulting surplus to the poorer side of the market via lump-sum payments. When there is significant same-side inequality that can be uncovered by market behavior, it may be optimal to impose price controls even though doing so induces rationing."

****************

" the classic idea that competitive-equilibrium pricing maximizes welfare relies on an implicit assumption that the designer places the same welfare weight on all agents in the market. Thus, the standard economic intuitions in support of competitive equilibrium pricing become unreliable as the dispersion of wealth in a society expands."

Don't need no education -- arguments about California propositions to raise revenue for community colleges

I'm spending part of the day perusing the California ballot for Tuesday's elections, which include not only the widely anticipated, contested Democratic presidential primary, but also some voter referenda.  In Santa Clara County, where I live, there are two measures on the ballot, G and H, aimed at raising revenue for our highly regarded community colleges.  Measure G proposes issuing bonds (to be supported by property taxes), and H proposes a direct property tax levy.  The County issues a voter information guide which publishes the text of the measures, together with statements by interested parties both for and against the measures, with rebuttals.

Here is a paragraph that caught my eye from the REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF MEASURE H* submitted by an organization calling itself  Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association.

"Voters in this district are not fools. But voters in richer districts tend to approve tax increases without insufficient analysis."


*this can be found on N SC Ballot Type 001 - Page 024, which is page 26/44 of the pdf at the link to the information guide.

Carbon tax with revenue returned through equal lump-sum rebates: open letter

An open letter from many economists, published today as an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, proposes a carbon tax with the revenue to be returned to taxpayers, as a way to put incentives in place to deal with climate change.
 Here it is in the WSJ: 
Economists’ Statement on Carbon Dividends--Bipartisan agreement on how to combat climate change.

And you can click through to the oped (ungated) and related articles at https://www.clcouncil.org/?mod=article_inline

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS

27 Nobel laureates, all 4 former Fed Chairs, and 15 former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers unite behind carbon dividends as the bipartisan climate solution.

• Wall Street Journal op-ed
• Washington Post
• Axios
• Wall Street Journal article