More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Adam Minter

Adam Minter

Posted: May 6, 2010 05:03 PM

How Did The US Manage To Spend $61 Million On Its Shanghai Expo Pavilion?

What's Your Reaction:

As regular readers of Shanghai Scrap know, for more than a year I've asked the USA pavilion at Expo 2010 (World's Fair) and the State Department to provide me with a precise accounting of how they're spending the US$61 million that they've raised from private corporations in the name of the United States of America. And, for more than a year, I've been met with either a) silence, or b) "we can't do anything unless the pavilion's board of directors approves it." Even if the latter answer is sincere (and I'm pretty sure it's not), the fact that several of the board members refuse to return my calls doesn't bode well for my request.

So, rather than bang my head against the pavilion wall, I've decided to take a look at what the Internal Revenue Service has on Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc (that's the name of the non-profit corporation that funds and manages the USA pavilion). And lo and behold, there, amidst a very interesting filing that I'll touch upon in coming days, we find a June 29, 2009 document helpfully named "USA Pavilion Summary Cost Sheet." Click here to see the document in question.

It's important to keep in mind that the numbers in this document were made a few weeks before the pavilion ground-breaking, and so they may have changed in the intervening months (then again, many of the numbers conform to what I and others have heard around town). Still, in the interest of accuracy and fairness, yesterday I forwarded a copy of the Cost Sheet to Martin Alintuck, spokesman for the USA pavilion, offering Shanghai Expo 2010, Inc the opportunity to comment upon, update, or correct any of the figures. Alintuck has not responded.

Meanwhile, over the weekend I shared the Cost Sheet with two individuals associated in similar ways with Expo 2010, and they were kind enough to provide me with their thoughts on it. I've also shared it with someone familiar with Shanghai construction costs, and collated the three responses, placing a handful of the most interesting ones next to the associated costs. Note that the three individuals assumed anonymity when commenting.

Pavilion Construction -- $13.248 million. "You can build a quality highrise in Shanghai for that kind of money. You can build a three screen movie theater in the US for less money than that. There's no way that should cost more than $5 million in Shanghai." "Way way out of line for China."

Finish non-show spaces including VIP lounge -- $2.3 million. "I'd like to know more about what they put into that VIP lounge. Very hard to outfit a few rooms in Shanghai for that kind of money including comm. equipt etc. What do they have in there? $5k tea sets? Gold plated coffee makers?"

Show construction and installation -- $23.72 million [note: this appears to be the three short films (less than 30 minutes) and associated theaters featured in the pavilion; in another IRS document, Shanghai Expo 2010 estimates that it will pay BRC Arts, the film producer, $10 million.]. "[T']they got hosed on that one. Normally, I would expect show to cost no more than the physical facility cost ..."

[Shanghai Scrap note: four of the ten films nominated for the 2010 Academy Award for Best Picture cost less than $23 million -- including the winner, The Hurt Locker.]

Administrative Salaries & Benefits -- $2.28 million. "Sticks out because it exceeds what they're spending on cultural programming [ed.: $1.9 million]. In general not good to see admin salaries exceeding money spent on core mission."

Teardown/Recycling -- $82,790. Speaking as the author of Shanghai Scrap, and based on a near decade covering the Chinese recycling trade, this number is preposterous. The total cost to dismantle and recycle the USA pavilion should be zero. In fact, if the situation is managed correctly, demolition/recycling companies will bid for the demolition rights. Demolition/recycling isn't a cost; it's a cash input.

I'm going to open up comments for this one, in hope that folks with experience in non-profit management, exhibit design and production, and/or Chinese building construction might lend some insight into whether or not these expenses make sense. Please keep it civil.

Cross posted from Shanghai Scrap.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 25
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Refugees
08:51 AM on 05/20/2010
Further, during the contractual period, contractors, at their sole cost and expense, shall purchase and maintain insurance policies placed with organizer. A quick look through the Budget for USA Pavilion will reveal the estimate budget spent for UN Pavilion with about 32,000-square-foot ground pavilion, the building was designed to be a spectacle of LCD monitors, colourful multi-media technological exhibits the UN organisation. Where refugees suffering in just few kilometers away from the UN pavilion, where UN refugee agency (UNHCR) ignoring refugee children rights for shelter, food, water and primary education in Shanghai for past two years!

I admire your work. I would like to speak with you directly. Would you write to me on twitter?

Refugee Reporter On Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/refugeereport
01:35 AM on 05/10/2010
The construction costs for Shanghai cited in the article do not seem correct. I am in the industry in China, and for Shanghai high-end office, shopping centers & luxury hotels, the cost can be as high as RMB 12,000 per square meter. For a world expo Pavillion, which should be of the highest standards given the nature of the expo and number of visitors, it should be even higher, say RMB 13,000 psm. The Pavillion size, from the website, is said to be 6,000 sqm. RMB 13,000 X 6,000sqm = RMB 78,000,000 or USD 11.4 million (at exchange rate of RMB6.82/1USD). This is still not as high as the actual contruction cost number in the article, but given the high profile nature of the pavillion, USD 13 million is not "way out of line for China". I do agree that the demolition could be a cash source in China, and for everyone's benefit the value of the recovered materials and the cheap labor in China meansthat there is money to be made in demolition/salvaging materials.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobJacobson
"The Future: Live it, or live with it." - Firesign
04:47 PM on 05/13/2010
Most Expo logicians would disagree. A pavilion isn't a five-star hotel. Most pavilions at the Expo (including some rather spectacular displays, like Denmark's) clock in around $20-40 million. A $61 million budget -- now, more like $70 or 75 million with late contributions -- puts the US Pavilion in the third quartile, right behind the most extravagant constructions.

Also, there have been allegations, some attributed to the organizers themselves, that the US Pavilion was heavily subsidized with money and labor for design and construction. In other words, anything not paid for by the multinationals was paid for by the Chinese. Since the producers refuse to open their books -- despite their tax-exempt status -- we may never know until all the moolah and political favors have been handed out and all the right palms greased.
photo
rikster
buy the ticket-take the ride
01:17 PM on 05/09/2010
what was that sentence...."funds raised from private corporations form the USA"..? hmmm....any guesses..? we will gladly pay you for this hamburger on teusday if I can have it today..however, I will sell shares of the hamburger to those who wish to speculate on the chances of being paid on teusday or not being paid on teusday..and if the hamburger itself is edible...or if their is sufficient condiments on it..
or if the bun is fresh enough...or futures on how fast the hamburger will be consumed faster..slower.??
11:00 AM on 05/09/2010
Maybe they can investigate why Obama gave all that money (millions) to Brazil for off shore oil leases.
Maybe they can investigate why Obama paid Brazilian Farmers Off.
WHY! WHY! WHY!
Is anyone watching the hen house beside the wolves in Obama world.
06:13 PM on 05/09/2010
let's see. Shanghai Expo, Brazil. Shanghai Expo, Brazil. I know I'm dumb, so please tell me what the connection is?
02:14 PM on 05/08/2010
And, on top of that blatant nest feathering, the building looks as design conscious as an Edsel.
04:56 PM on 05/07/2010
Oopps, that was 61 Million - make it a quarter. A couple of sticks of gum.
04:55 PM on 05/07/2010
6 Million Dollars - that is a paltry nickel to one of our personal budgets, who cares...? We just soak the middle class for more bucks, they have it..
07:18 PM on 05/08/2010
@TallyGlenn - The USA Pavilion is 100% privately funded. In fact, I believe it is the only country pavilion in the entire expo that is privately funded. The fact that they raised the money at all do build it is a great job, frankly.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AdamWright
12:01 AM on 05/09/2010
If the donations were tax-deductible, the nonprofit has a fiduciary duty to abide by federal statutes on spending by nonprofit foundations. Divergence from these rules could mean prosecution under the tax code. You're right on with the big ups for private financing on this. I consider myself far to the left (in the States) and I still recognize the value of enterprise and the fact that the industrious private entrepreneur is what built this country into the economic and cultural powerhouse that it is. But, tax dollars are being squandered if this operation is fraudulently providing deductions for what turns out to be a kickback-oriented project, which it unfortunately seems to be. It looks like the local Shanghai politicians, union leaders, and construction supply wholesalers have a pretty good grip on American style graft in big projects. But that doesn't mean the American consortium has to play ball. If they do, they will have to face the consequences that come with illegal actions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobJacobson
"The Future: Live it, or live with it." - Firesign
04:55 PM on 05/13/2010
The private funding is a result of a Bush policy to privatize US public diplomacy, a policy better executed by the State Department under Clinton rather than Rice. If you find that commendable, I recommend to you an investment in Halliburton and Blackwater which now operate sizable energy and defense components of the US government.

How the US Pavilion was used to further this policy is explicated in my recent article for the Huffington Post, "Blackwatering" Public Diplomacy: The US Pavilion at the Shanghai World Expo, May 3, 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-jacobson/an-epic-failure-of-planni_b_561697.html

Adam Minter's ring-side contributions to our understanding of these issues is tremendous.

Adam Wright, in his comment here, is correct. Operating a commercial real-estate and advertising brokerage as a public charity is a big mistake.
03:23 PM on 05/07/2010
Sounds like some people should be indicted. Will they be indicted in China or the US? Or both? Who's organizing the pavilion?
07:19 PM on 05/08/2010
Again, not tax dollars went into building the pavilion. Not sure why you can "indict" anyone when they aren't even spending your tax money.
06:37 PM on 05/09/2010
at least part of the money is ours, in a way. the corporations that gave the money used it as a tax deduction: we didn't get tax money because they gave money to the non-profit.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BobJacobson
"The Future: Live it, or live with it." - Firesign
05:01 PM on 05/13/2010
Plenty of tax dollars will be spent making up the difference between what this essentially commercial operation and its corporate "marketing partners" -- that's what they call them -- would have paid if they wasn't tax-exempt and what they actually pay due to tax exemption. Tax laws are specific about what may or may not be exempted.

The reason this never happened before is that US Pavilions have always been paid for and a part of the US Government, thus tax exempt from the get go. Providing a tax exemption to a private company for doing the same thing may be violative of the spirit and the meaning of the US tax codes.

You also ignore the by now millions of dollars of public services that the State Department has provided to this private corporation helping to keep it solvent when it otherwise would have closed its doors and in effect subsidizing its operations. How much is Hillary Clinton's time worth, when the Middle East is exploding, to get on the phone and hawk the US Pavilion to her corporate buddies? Think about it.
03:14 PM on 05/07/2010
The Managerial expense preference model for non-profit pricing behavior (Williamson, 1963) says that managers divert funds away from profits to server their own self-interests. They pursue the five P's of pay, perquisites, power, prestige, and patronage. Basically, the in this model of non-profit economic behavior, the managers engage in rent-seeking behavior. They have no incentive to minimize costs, rather they will let costs rise until they meet revenues. Although it's only a model, I think it helps explain what we see here. This isn't something unexpected.
photo
CigarGod
What is your process?
10:14 AM on 05/07/2010
I used to be in this business early in a previous career.
I quickly learned if I wanted things to go well and on schedule, there were "hidden" costs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marvelle
digital strategist, marketing/communications
07:56 PM on 05/06/2010
Great work. Who is funding the pavilion? I don't do any events in China but the film production cost is outrageous. I know companies can up-sell very well (rendering, re-rendering) but anyone who cared one iota about budgets would catch on before you topped $20 million, much less $10 million (for a one-off production? No DVDs? Rebroadcasting rights?). I smell many rats.
05:01 PM on 05/07/2010
A US law prohibits the US government from funding Expo pavilions, The American Chamber of Commerce (A business entity, NOT part of the US govt.) urged local US corporations to "strongly support" the Shanghai event.
No taxpayer money, with the exception of corporate profit went into this expo.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:27 PM on 05/08/2010
So, then, the question becomes, since there is no taxpayer funding being wasted on the project, what is the goal of the author pointing out all of the audacious spending? I'm sure there is something to be learned here from an accounting and functional point of view, but otherwise?
07:30 PM on 05/08/2010
If you think that these costs will not eventually be borne by US taxpayers you are naive. The next step in the investigation is to follow the deductions that are taken by these same corporations in their own tax reports. Those costs will not only be deducted against taxes that otherwise would have been paid, they will all carry various premiums and add-ons that will have to be paid by someone. Guess who?

Keep on digging and reporting.