« Compensating The Losers Of Free Trade | Main | It takes a long time to prove that you're good »

Art Funds Again

This is a couple of days old, but wanted to give it a mention.  It seems a new art fund has launched:

Chris Carlson has decided he's had enough of prop trading,   and so he's moving into the art world instead, setting up an art hedge fund. Apparently it's already "raised" £10 million, although I suspect that a very large chunk of that belongs to one C. Carlson.

Art is not something which lends itself to being invested in by dedicated hedge   funds, and I don't think that Carlson's hedge fund is going to do particularly   well. (It's also not going to be particularly lucrative for Carlson: even with   20% returns and $40 million under management, 2-and-20 comes to only $2.4 million   – and that's top line, not bottom line.)

I was similarly skeptical on the idea the last time we talked about them.

Of course, it's boom times in the business right now:

A Francis Bacon painting smashed the auction record for postwar art last night in New York, fetching $52.7 million. Its reign lasted just 10 minutes, before being trumped by a Mark Rothko work that went for $72.8 million.                

Rothko's hot-hued "White Center (Yellow, Pink and Lavender on Rose),'' from seller David Rockefeller Sr., and Bacon's fierce crouching Pope, "Study From Innocent X,'' helped propel the 74- lot auction at Sotheby's to a record $254.9 million. Before tonight, the highest auction price for an artwork from the period was a $27.1 million Willem de Kooning in November.         

"Money has no meaning,'' (ed: emphasis added) said Angela Westwater of New York gallery Sperone Westwater, after the Rothko sold. "It's a good work, but the whole marketplace is crazy.''

It's just like the 80s again.
         

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341cd1cd53ef00d8352ba0e453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Art Funds Again:

Comments

There is no such thing as "investing" in art; there is only speculating in art.

An investment requires a forecasted stream of future cash flows. Anything that is not expected to generate a stream of future cash flows is not an "investment."

So, for example, one cannot "invest" in art (one "speculates") -- but one can "invest" in an art gallery. One cannot "invest" in gold (one "speculates") -- but one can "invest" in a gold mining company. And so on.

The failure to understand the difference between investing and speculating is the principal reason most laypersons underperform the market so badly.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

What is This?


  • The Stalwart is a blog written by Joseph Weisenthal, covering such topics as stocks, business, economics, politics, technology, gambling, chess, poker, economics, current events, music, math, Chinese food, science, randomness, kurtosis, sports, evolutionary fitness, and anything else of the author's choosing. The words contained herein are the author's own, not affiliated with any other firm or employer.

Stats



Advertisements