Started By
Message

$179 million Picasso - anybody investing in art?

Posted on 5/15/15 at 6:59 am
Posted by tigerpawl
Can't get there from here.
Member since Dec 2003
22233 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 6:59 am
Does anyone on this board "accumulate" art as a meaningful part of their portfolio - at any level?

Posted by Poodlebrain
Way Right of Rex
Member since Jan 2004
19860 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 7:24 am to
Art is not an investment. It is a collectable, something held for personal satisfaction rather than the expectation it will provide an economic benefit. Due to the difference in expectations, gains and losses from the sale of collectables are taxed differently than those from investments.
Posted by Iowa Golfer
Heaven
Member since Dec 2013
10229 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 7:35 am to
Yes. They claim it returns about 10%, and it reality it is closer to 6.5%. Like anything else, there isn't one blanket answer. 90/10 rule applies here.

Edit - I should add the return is predicated on the particular piece of artwork actually being an alternative investment, and returns are also predicated on API. Art has an API, so what does that tell you?
This post was edited on 5/15/15 at 7:40 am
Posted by RadTiger
Member since Oct 2013
1121 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 7:51 am to
quote:

$179 million Picasso - anybody investing in art?


quote:

Louisiana finds $179 million, no cuts to higher education!


Hmmm....
Posted by GenesChin
The Promise Land
Member since Feb 2012
37706 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 8:00 am to
It is like the tulip bulb crash except they fixed it by having a scarce supply
Posted by LSUtoOmaha
Nashville
Member since Apr 2004
26574 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 8:49 am to
quote:

It is like the tulip bulb crash except they fixed it by having a scarce supply


Terrible analogy
Posted by GaryMyMan
Shreveport
Member since May 2007
13498 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 9:03 am to
I'm too young to remember and too lazy to look it up whether this happens after every recession - where the richest usually make the largest gains - but it sure seems like after the '08 crash that prices of extremely high end collectibles has just gone insane. I keep up with the classic Ferrari & vintage Patek Philippe/Rolex markets and they've both lost their minds in the past two years. Prices are doubling and tripling from just a few years ago.

Here is a story about a rare Rolex that sold for $505,000 7 years ago and just sold last week for $1.4MM.

This Patek sold at the same auction for just about $5MM:

This post was edited on 5/15/15 at 9:08 am
Posted by iAmBatman
The Batcave
Member since Mar 2011
12382 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 9:04 am to
Except you can plant tulips and they aren't making any more Picasso's...but other than that, they're totally the same
Posted by GenesChin
The Promise Land
Member since Feb 2012
37706 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 9:39 am to
quote:

Except you can plant tulips and they aren't making any more Picasso's...but other than that, they're totally the same


If only I didn't mention the issue of scarcity in my previous post

Both are goods that have aesthetic appeal and are/were status symbols which drove up the price.

Neither Tulips nor Picasso paintings have value beyond that yet both were worth an unbelievable amount.

The lessons learned from Tulip Bulb crisis is about scarcity which doesn't apply to Picasso's but the observation of people paying a shite ton of money for aesthetic status symbols is a great anagy
Posted by RebelOP
Misty Mountain Top
Member since Jun 2013
12478 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 9:48 am to
I bid at 178,999,999
Posted by tigerpawl
Can't get there from here.
Member since Dec 2003
22233 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 10:06 am to
Here's a good question: what makes art valuable in the first place? At the time it was painted, this Picasso had a cost basis of about $100 +/- (canvas + paint + a few brushes).
Posted by JonaYolles
Member since Feb 2015
315 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 10:59 am to
Must be where Louisiana "found" $179 million - they sold their picasso
Posted by Hawkeye95
Member since Dec 2013
20293 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 11:01 am to
quote:

Art is not an investment.

well I agree with that sentiment, its been a great investment over the last 20 years, especially something like a picasso.
Posted by DirtyMikeandtheBoys
Member since May 2011
19419 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 11:01 am to
quote:

what makes art valuable in the first place?


the market

i.e.

"I want that Picasso, here's $150"

"I want it as well, here's $179M instead of his $150"
This post was edited on 5/15/15 at 11:03 am
Posted by Joshjrn
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2008
26975 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 7:02 pm to
quote:

vintage Patek Philippe/Rolex markets


I love watches, but Patek and Rolex aficionados have gone off the deep end.
Posted by Huey Lewis
BR
Member since Oct 2013
4643 posts
Posted on 5/15/15 at 8:07 pm to
quote:

Here's a good question: what makes art valuable in the first place? At the time it was painted, this Picasso had a cost basis of about $100 +/- (canvas + paint + a few brushes).



I don't know if you're asking for an actual answer or not, but the answer lies within this quote from Tim Burton's Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

There's plenty of money out there. They print more every day. But this ticket, there's only five of them in the whole world, and that's all there's ever going to be. Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy?
Posted by Blakely Bimbo
Member since Dec 2010
1183 posts
Posted on 5/16/15 at 3:53 pm to
Would you pay 35 million pounds to look at this...

n Freud is a 21st century Reubens.

Some art critics say Lucian Freud is a 21st century Reubens, but I would not want THAT painting in my house.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67633 posts
Posted on 5/16/15 at 4:49 pm to
So, we can post paintings of boobs on TD?
Posted by tigerpawl
Can't get there from here.
Member since Dec 2003
22233 posts
Posted on 5/16/15 at 7:06 pm to
quote:

So, we can post paintings of boobs on TD?
So this raises a very interesting question and eludes to my last post. What is art? Does Chicken see it as art or just a fat girl with boobs? Is Chicken obliged to see it as art and give it a pass just because somebody paid £35 mil for it, or does it still constitute an infraction of the TD regs?

This post was edited on 5/16/15 at 7:32 pm
Posted by euphemus
Member since Mar 2014
536 posts
Posted on 5/16/15 at 9:26 pm to
Can you do a DCF on a Picasso? Can you value it using comparable/multiples? If not, no it can't be a part of anybody's portfolio as an investment, at least not on the efficient frontier of the CML. Like someone said, it is a collectible because there is no way to calculate the expected return or risk of such an asset, if you can call it that.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram