The gist of the podcast is that the return on Bonds is always higher than the physical investment of a piece of art. Well duh. It turns out that one of the metrics of a how a painting is sold turns out to be popular swings in taste. Though not surprising, this can have alarming effects on the price of your art investment. A Van Gogh will always be worth millions, but if French Impressionism goes out of style, that could shave millions of dollars off your investment. Whereas your investment in a bond is by its very nature a fixed investment.
There is one thing that they don't talk about in the podcast which surprised me. Art is very fragile, and very space consuming. One of the things we learn about in economics is that money, by it's very nature has to be fairly easy to store, and it has to be easily divisible and difficult to counterfeit. There is a ton of risk in the art market that what you're buying is a fake, and moreover, if the housekeeper decides to dust the painting with dillouted ammonia, he'll destroy a 20m dollar investment in five minutes! Your whole house could burn down and everything in it, and a bond will still retain its value, so long as the company, or government which backs it continues to exist. It's funny too, because just the day before, "All Things Considered" ran its own podcast on the artmarket and they talked to an art seller whose client had had that very thing happen to him. His housekeeper ruined his investment.

Here's another one. An oil 30x40 of the Rio Grande. Also framed. I have far fewer takers on this one, though as a painting I enjoy it more because of the feeling of space that the Rio Grande valley evokes. Again, I'd ask for $2,000. But neither of the two women in my life who wanted the first painting are particularly interested in this one. Neither of them were cowboys for Halloween, I guess. But I'd be more willing to part with this painting because it would make at least one of the women in my life very happy. Particularly if I made a buck for it. But here again, we come into some interesting economics about art. I have a target audience for this, I know a guy who hails from this part of the world. Would he be interested in a painting like this? I have no idea, but if anyone would, it would be him.
Which leads me to the last topic for today. Prices. Prices are determined by the negotiations of buyers and sellers. If there are no buyers for a particular asset, it's difficult to set a price. This, we're told, is the reason why toxic assets had such variable values during the height of the crisis. Or at least, that's what Planetmoney would have us believe. But the avabilability of buyers and sellers is really only one aspect of price. This is why so many long term investors, like those who buy and sell for pension funds, have such a negative feeling for shortsellers. They aren't bothering to value an asset based on its actual worth or quality, but on speculation that the price will drop because of external market factors. If the factors were internal, it would be a variant of insider trading. If the perceived demand for my paintings is low, so is the value. If the perceived quality of my paintings is low, so is the value. But if the quality of my painting is perceived as really high, and demand is still low, then so must be, the price.
No comments:
Post a Comment