An interesting idea in today's FT. A report on former Greek finance minister Nikos Christodoulakis who looked at ways to reduce his country's public debt soon after accession to the euro in May 2001:
His "Eureka!" moment involved issuing a securitisation bond backed by a stream of future revenues from annual ticket sales to some 6m tourists who visit the classical temples on the Acropolis, as well as other ancient monuments around Greece.
That deal fell through, partly because of objections from archaeologists who feared it would quickly lead to the development of Disney-style theme parks on cherished ancient sites.
Could it work again? Possibly. I have written in the past about whether you can monetise antiquities. There was a panel discussion at the Milken Conference last year (triggered by a report) on how governments could turn antiquities into an income stream by selling archaeological development bonds:
[The bonds would] address long-term community development as a means to bridge current funding gaps on national and local levels. The archaeological development bonds should target projects that bring financial benefit directly to local populations that would, as a result, increase their participation in and appreciation of their cultural heritage. A community in Peru, for example, could build a small museum around a Chimu site, while the federal Ministry of Culture prepares a new wing of the National Museum dedicated to Incan stonework from a sponsored dig in Cusco. Avoiding the bureaucratic traps that arise when national and regional funding bypasses local communities, the bonds would encourage economic growth on the ground, while providing overall returns.
Reuters' Felix Salmon wrote about it at the time with some scepticism. I too did not buy into that idea completely. As I said at the time, the sticking point is that the antiquities market is driven by ownership.
There is of course no question of ownership in this case nor can the temples be loaned out. It would certainly be entertaining to read the ratings reports. A crucial aspect of securitisation deals is that of seasoning. When looking at a securitisation of mortgages, for example, the investor has to know for how long borrowers have been paying their mortgages. A family, 20 years into a 25 year mortgage, is a better risk than someone one year into a 25-year mortgage. It is pretty safe to say that the Acropolis is not falling off the tourist trail any time soon. A couple of millennia of visitors is a solid track record... though any rating for the temples would be limited by the sovereign rating on Greece.
A securitisation of ticket receivables might just work with something like the temples on the Acropolis. The downside however is less the Disneyfication of sites (though that is a threat), rather that of national politics. Most countries get touchy about their heritage, the Greeks more than most, and the greater danger is that the deal itself could become a focus for nationalist sentiment about selling the family silver.
Comments