Interesting... Will it go lower?
http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/04/the-bitcoin-selloff-continues/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29&utm_content=FaceBook
Topic: Price of contemporary art skyrockets. (Read 2461 times)
lars Ulrich, drummer from Metallica, bought some Pollock paintings in 90s one for 5 millions dollars, He sold them in 2003 one for 10 millions dollars. 
http://news.yahoo.com/record-breaking-contemporary-art-103321463.html
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
Do you think the art market isn't or can't be manipulated? It makes much more sense to manipulate something that has a purely subjective value, like collectibles, art, antiques, etc., than something that produces an objective income, like the stock market.
Take a look at the following documentary if you are interested (that's just the first part, I can't find a complete video in English):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5KS7U9aOc
I do agree that the prices of art can easily be manipulated as it is generally very illiquid and does not trade very often and is very hard to accurately price
http://news.yahoo.com/record-breaking-contemporary-art-103321463.html
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
Do you think the art market isn't or can't be manipulated? It makes much more sense to manipulate something that has a purely subjective value, like collectibles, art, antiques, etc., than something that produces an objective income, like the stock market.
Take a look at the following documentary if you are interested (that's just the first part, I can't find a complete video in English):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km5KS7U9aOc
I have graduated arts school. I have never understood why people would park their money into art (being it contemporary or classical). Why would someone put money in art as investment?
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
It's the same as anything else. Value is an human concept, if a lot of humans are willing to pay 10K for a painting, then it has that value. It's all about cache of the artist and whatnot. Why is Justin Bieber a multimillon making machine? because of his cache and big demand for him.
The art scene is populated with lots of individuals that (ab)use possession of art as means to impress others and to portray themselves as intellectuals. So conversing about art is a great way to distinguish oneself from the "primitive masses" that don't have the capital and knowlegde to take part in this exquisite hobby. The vast majority of contemporary artwork does neither exhibit special technical nor creative ability. There are a few exceptions though.
So an investment in contemporary art is extremely speculative, because you bet on trends among the wealthy.
ya.ya.yo!
I have graduated arts school. I have never understood why people would park their money into art (being it contemporary or classical). Why would someone put money in art as investment?
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
It's the same as anything else. Value is an human concept, if a lot of humans are willing to pay 10K for a painting, then it has that value. It's all about cache of the artist and whatnot. Why is Justin Bieber a multimillon making machine? because of his cache and big demand for him.
I have graduated arts school. I have never understood why people would park their money into art (being it contemporary or classical). Why would someone put money in art as investment?
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
It is very difficult to measure what a specific piece of art is worth. In reality it is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it (and the market is very illiquid). I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
I believe the primary reason the people buy art is to be able to look at it and have it on display. Being able to look at a specific piece of art made by a famous artist is what gives art it's value. If people were to have additional excess money to spend on art then the overall price of art will increase.
I have graduated arts school. I have never understood why people would park their money into art (being it contemporary or classical). Why would someone put money in art as investment?
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
I cannot see why a Rembrant is more valuable than a good copy or how can you measure the price of a painting. For someone it might worth 10,000 for someone it wouldn't worth 100.
The Commission investigation into the scam began in January 2000 when Christie's first approached the US Department of Justice and the Brussels authorities offering evidence of the cartel.
So the authorities allowed this scam to cointinue for over 14 years?
Before I got into crypto one of my hobbies was buying and selling antique photos, if you want to talk about something that is booming and holds their value, old civil war/old west daguerrotypes & ambrotypes are where it's at and they are becoming harder and harder to find for an affordable price.
Also I've noticed antique Chinese photos and porcelain attracting buyers too, think new wealth buying their heritage back from the west.
Also I've noticed antique Chinese photos and porcelain attracting buyers too, think new wealth buying their heritage back from the west.
I have to admit that Jim Rickards was the one I got this idea from:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIp1t06cAyE
Skip to 25:25 to hear his thoughts on fine art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIp1t06cAyE
Skip to 25:25 to hear his thoughts on fine art.
QE will never end, or the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart. Gold isn't doing so well either. 
I still expect the trends to reverse too.
I still expect the trends to reverse too. 
Nice one! I had almost forgotten about this story. Although this particular case has nothing to do with the current surge in art prices, I'm glad you brought it up for a different reason. These two companies had colluded to fix auction prices. Of course Austrian economists will say that price fixing schemes are inherently unstable as both companies have a bigger incentive to ignore the agreement that to abide by it. But try explaining that bit of game theory to a jury that already views these companies as being for stuffy rich people. A jury may not understand game theory but the government does.
Price fixing cases were extremely difficult to prosecute because they relied on one company defecting to the government and putting themselves at risk for prosecution. The solution the government devised was to automatically grant immunity to the first company that defects to the government even if they are the more guilty party. Even if the whole thing was their idea and they convinced the other company to go along with their scheme. That's exactly what happened here. Christy's convinced Sotheby's to go along with their scheme and Christy's also defected to the government first about the scheme. Your government rewards dishonesty from businessmen.
Price fixing cases were extremely difficult to prosecute because they relied on one company defecting to the government and putting themselves at risk for prosecution. The solution the government devised was to automatically grant immunity to the first company that defects to the government even if they are the more guilty party. Even if the whole thing was their idea and they convinced the other company to go along with their scheme. That's exactly what happened here. Christy's convinced Sotheby's to go along with their scheme and Christy's also defected to the government first about the scheme. Your government rewards dishonesty from businessmen.
Yeah I remembered this when I read your OP. I'm cynical and just don't see any market that isn't being manipulated. Seems the prices of art have gone up along with the prices of empty mansions where I live (Vancouver, Canada), coinciding with all the quantitative easing. As if the 1% were dumping all their money into these assets. No bubble here though.
Bitcoin is the only asset which seems to be in a downtrend. With Quantitative Easing almost stopping, I expect the trend to reverse.
Nice one! I had almost forgotten about this story. Although this particular case has nothing to do with the current surge in art prices, I'm glad you brought it up for a different reason. These two companies had colluded to fix auction prices. Of course Austrian economists will say that price fixing schemes are inherently unstable as both companies have a bigger incentive to ignore the agreement that to abide by it. But try explaining that bit of game theory to a jury that already views these companies as being for stuffy rich people. A jury may not understand game theory but the government does.
Price fixing cases were extremely difficult to prosecute because they relied on one company defecting to the government and putting themselves at risk for prosecution. The solution the government devised was to automatically grant immunity to the first company that defects to the government even if they are the more guilty party. Even if the whole thing was their idea and they convinced the other company to go along with their scheme. That's exactly what happened here. Christy's convinced Sotheby's to go along with their scheme and Christy's also defected to the government first about the scheme. Your government rewards dishonesty from businessmen.
Price fixing cases were extremely difficult to prosecute because they relied on one company defecting to the government and putting themselves at risk for prosecution. The solution the government devised was to automatically grant immunity to the first company that defects to the government even if they are the more guilty party. Even if the whole thing was their idea and they convinced the other company to go along with their scheme. That's exactly what happened here. Christy's convinced Sotheby's to go along with their scheme and Christy's also defected to the government first about the scheme. Your government rewards dishonesty from businessmen.
Yeah I remembered this when I read your OP. I'm cynical and just don't see any market that isn't being manipulated. Seems the prices of art have gone up along with the prices of empty mansions where I live (Vancouver, Canada), coinciding with all the quantitative easing. As if the 1% were dumping all their money into these assets. No bubble here though.
Food is a flawless investment
imho skyrocketing art prices are a sign of tons of cheap money. it wants to get invested and forms bubbles. shouldn´t hurt our baby...
I agree. Increasing prices of art is likely a sign that people with a lot of money do not have any/many places to invest their money so they "invest" in something they can look at and enjoy. The fact that the art market is especially opaque makes it more likely that someone will not be getting a good deal, bubble or not
While people do buy art pieces as investments, it is also a status symbol to be flaunted.
So the rich would not mind paying a small premium to get their hands on masterpieces. They really don't care whether they are getting a good deal or not.
imho skyrocketing art prices are a sign of tons of cheap money. it wants to get invested and forms bubbles. shouldn´t hurt our baby...
I agree. Increasing prices of art is likely a sign that people with a lot of money do not have any/many places to invest their money so they "invest" in something they can look at and enjoy. The fact that the art market is especially opaque makes it more likely that someone will not be getting a good deal, bubble or not
imho skyrocketing art prices are a sign of tons of cheap money. it wants to get invested and forms bubbles. shouldn´t hurt our baby...
Also a sign that wealthy individual has too much money on hand than what they know they can do with.
Yes. If owning bitcoins is common place, you wont attract the filthy rich.
http://news.yahoo.com/record-breaking-contemporary-art-103321463.html
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
The proper way to read pieces like this is to understand that the price of art is difficult for governments to manipulate unlike gold, fiat, or even crypto to some extent. The rich are parking their money in art not as an investment but just as a place to hold value. When the price of art is rising, understand that the art isn't necessarily getting more valuable but its price in fiat is changing as a hidden sign of inflation.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-145257/Auction-house-Sothebys-fined-12m-EC-art-price-fixing.html
Auction house Sotheby's fined £12m by EC for art price-fixing
Sotheby's was today fined £12 million by the European Commission for rigging the art market in collusion with rival Christie's.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-145257/Auction-house-Sothebys-fined-12m-EC-art-price-fixing.html#ixzz3ECtQXHME
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Nice one! I had almost forgotten about this story. Although this particular case has nothing to do with the current surge in art prices, I'm glad you brought it up for a different reason. These two companies had colluded to fix auction prices. Of course Austrian economists will say that price fixing schemes are inherently unstable as both companies have a bigger incentive to ignore the agreement that to abide by it. But try explaining that bit of game theory to a jury that already views these companies as being for stuffy rich people. A jury may not understand game theory but the government does.
Price fixing cases were extremely difficult to prosecute because they relied on one company defecting to the government and putting themselves at risk for prosecution. The solution the government devised was to automatically grant immunity to the first company that defects to the government even if they are the more guilty party. Even if the whole thing was their idea and they convinced the other company to go along with their scheme. That's exactly what happened here. Christy's convinced Sotheby's to go along with their scheme and Christy's also defected to the government first about the scheme. Your government rewards dishonesty from businessmen.
imho skyrocketing art prices are a sign of tons of cheap money. it wants to get invested and forms bubbles. shouldn´t hurt our baby...
Also a sign that wealthy individual has too much money on hand than what they know they can do with.
Jump to: