Art Market Monitor

Felix Salmon links to an important new study that questions the conventional wisdom about art market returns over the long haul. The problem seems to lie with the survivorship bias of the data set which prompts Salmon to take the issue a fair bit further:

I think this works more generally: if you could somehow include in the survey all the art that anybody ever buys, the aggregate returns would certainly be negative. Most art is bought in the primary market and is never sold, mainly because it never can be sold. To all intents and purposes, it has zero monetary value the minute that it leaves the gallery or artist’s studio.

The greatest investors in art never bought art as an investment. If you take the set of all art collectors, statistically speaking some small proportion of them will see their collections grow substantially in value. Those collectors are deemed in retrospect to have had a “great eye”. But people who buy art as an investment are almost certainly going to be disappointed — and even more disappointed if they get someone else to buy art for them.

Returns on Art (Felix Salmon/Reuters)

Buying Beauty: On Prices and Returns in the Art Market

Also of Interest:

• Will Art Dealers Become Like Venture Capitalists?
  Finance blogger Felix Salmon wraps up a curious fact about venture capitalists–they’ve been allowing start-ups to raise money at lower...
  
• High Prices, Low Returns
  Ian Craft’s collection of British watercolors set several records last week when it was sold at Sotheby’s. But high prices...
  
• Understanding the Hirst Market
  Felix Salmon takes issue with Bloomberg‘s story claiming a return of price levels in the market for Damien Hirst’s work....
  
• Seven-Figure Work Returns to Aus Market
  The Sydney Morning Herald touts the return of a A$1m estimate to the Australian art market as a Brett Whiteley...
  
• Behind Thomas Kinkade’s Crash
  Felix Salmon gives a little context to the recent news that Thomas Kinkade lost a ruling in a lawsuit against...