25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
bench craft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
benchcraft company scam
25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”
-
Michael M Thomas Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas
-
Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)
-
Mike in Nola Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.
The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.htmlOf course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.
An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.
-
grlampton Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).
Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.
-
gms777 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.
Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.
-
obsvr-1 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers
Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.
-
ToNYC Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.
Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.
great point you make:
rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.
-
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.
-
Mannwich Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html
-
philipat Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)
-
pintelho Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion
-
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.
-
VennData Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson
-
YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.
-
Julia Chestnut Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.
But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.
-
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.
It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.
-
BuffaloBill Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am
A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.
B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.
C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”
D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”
-
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…
Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….
-
Greg0658 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am
interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake
I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living
ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d
-
ToNYC Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.
-
Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)
-
philipat Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
VennData Says:
“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”
IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?
-
Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
-
Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
-
Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
benchcraft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
bench craft company scam
benchcraft company scam
bench craft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
benchcraft company scam
25 Responses to “What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.”
-
Michael M Thomas Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas
-
Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)
-
Mike in Nola Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.
The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.htmlOf course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.
An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.
-
grlampton Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).
Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.
-
gms777 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.
Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.
-
obsvr-1 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers
Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.
-
ToNYC Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.
Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.
great point you make:
rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.
-
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.
-
Mannwich Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html
-
philipat Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)
-
pintelho Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion
-
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.
-
VennData Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson
-
YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.
-
Julia Chestnut Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.
But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.
-
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.
It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.
-
BuffaloBill Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am
A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.
B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.
C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”
D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”
-
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…
Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….
-
Greg0658 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am
interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake
I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living
ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d
-
ToNYC Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.
-
Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)
-
philipat Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
VennData Says:
“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”
IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?
-
Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
-
Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
-
Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’ve had a checkered relationship with OpenTable. Initially, I loved it as a user, then was let down as the service evolved. For instance I found the eat-at-100-restaurants-and-get-a-measly-$20-check rewards system slightly better than a punch in the face and was annoyed that restaurants still required me to call to verify a reservation. If I had time to make a phone call, I wouldn’t have used OpenTable. Duh.
I’ve vocally accused the site of tailoring its service too much to the restaurants’ needs– who after all pay the bills– and ignoring a better customer experience. (Once a customer service rep for OpenTable actually told me they only cared if the restaurants were happy.) Then, the company addressed a lot of my issues, for instance offering easy ways to get larger numbers of dining points, and the CEO Jeff Jordan and I sat down and hashed it out in a video interview and I came away more impressed with him and the company’s management generally.
Lately, a diner like me isn’t the one doing the bitching–it’s restaurants. Something strange has been happening in San Francisco, which is OpenTable’s home market and oldest market. I dismissed it all for a while as purely anecdotal: The half-dozen or so new hot restaurants in my neighborhood that didn’t use OpenTable, the scattered emails from restauranteurs asking my opinion on whether the service was worth the money, based on how vocal I’d been about it in the past. Then yesterday we got this in the TechCrunch Tip jar: A reasonably-articulated, scathing rebuke of why a local restauranteur named Mark Pastore doesn’t use OpenTable, and how he thinks the service’s success has robbed restaurants of their most valuable asset, the relationship with diners, and charged way too much for the privilege. Even if he’s a lone squeaky wheel, it’s worth a read if you’re a regular OpenTable diner, investor or would-be competitor.
At the core of his argument is the belief that OpenTable’s $1.5 billion market capitalization isn’t a result of creating that much value for the market as a whole; it’s largely taken it from thousands of mom and pop restaurants. Pastore did a survey of his friends who were also restaurant owners and only one said that he felt OpenTable actually increased the value of his business. Tellingly, most of the others use it and don’t plan on quitting– but not because they love the service, because they are terrified of disrupting how diners are accustomed to making reservations. It turns out OpenTable is an astoundingly sticky business. It’s billed as a modern pay-only-as-long-as-you-love-it cloud subscription business, but Pastore’s description sounds like what most on-premise enterprise software customers would say. (Paging Ben Horowitz…) This puts a whole new spin on why OpenTable was growing as restaurants over all were losing money.
The most devastating blow is Pastore’s economic break down of what OpenTable costs restaurants:
“The access fees can be substantial, particularly for restaurants operating on thin margins. One independent study estimates that OpenTable’s fees (comprised of startup fees, fixed monthly fees, and per-person reservation fees) translate to a cost of roughly $10.40 for each “incremental” 4-top booked through OpenTable.com. To put that in perspective, consider that the average profit margin, before taxes, for a U.S. restaurant is roughly 5%. This means that a table of 4 spending $200 on dinner would generate a $10 profit. In this example, all of that profit would then go to OpenTable fees for having delivered the reservation, leaving the restaurant with nothing other than the hope that that customer would come back (and hopefully book by telephone the next time).”
Most restaurants suck up the cost to have the competitive edge of easy bookings. But with so many restaurants all using the same system– is it really much of a competitive edge or is it just table stakes? Pastore cites one 3.5 star restaurant in San Francisco where the owner has spent years paying OpenTable substantially more than he pays himself for 80-plus hour workweeks. When the economics are that lopsided, one would have to start wondering exactly how many diners wouldn’t book directly on a restaurant’s site if that were the only option.
Here’s the stunning thing this post made me realize for the first time: Unlike most large Web companies that built their businesses on cutting costs out of an industry and eliminating middlemen, OpenTable has managed to do the exact opposite. It has created a new middleman. So is there room for this new middleman to be disrupted?
It’s not going to be easy, as Pastore’s own survey shows. Restaurants are terrified of getting rid of OpenTable and sending diners to another restaurant that still uses the site. And this is a hard, pounding-the-pavement business to build. It took OpenTable a decade to get to any kind of critical mass and it still provides software for less than 15,000 restaurants network-wide.
But there are ways to disrupt some of what has made OpenTable powerful. As Pastore argues and I’ve seen increasingly in San Francisco, a lot of new restaurants try their own online booking systems first. They mimic the convenience that OpenTable proved customers want, while keeping control of the relationship with the diner. It’s similar to what you saw in the travel industry: Early online travel agents proved people wanted convenience to book online and airline and hotel companies didn’t want the headache of building a site. But increasingly, they’ve all been trying to send customers to their own sites, either directly or through an aggregator like Kayak.
There’s also clearly a role that Yelp, FourSquare and Groupon could play as spoilers. As a diner, I usually go to OpenTable to browse what restaurants in a given neighborhood have availability. It’s less for the transaction of making a reservation itself. There’s definitely some overlap when it comes to on-the-spot browsing with Yelp’s mobile app, and there’s no reason FourSquare couldn’t use geotagging to push a list of restaurants with availability to you. (Yelp’s past partnership with OpenTable doesn’t necessarily preclude something like this.) If they don’t provide the back-end software, they will never have the same inventory that OpenTable has. But so what? They won’t charge restaurants as much either. That might be compelling enough.
Likewise, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some restaurants experiment with using Groupon to drive diners to them instead of paying OpenTable’s monthly fee. They get someone to come in the door once with a hefty discount, but it’s a one-time expense. You could even see Facebook Pages playing a role here. In general, the iPads, iPhones and Android platforms give would-be competitors powerful new tools to challenge OpenTable, which players like UrbanSpoon are counting on. Designing an app from the ground up to take advantage of how far the local game has come with location-aware smartphones is a world away from OpenTable’s DNA as a circa-2000 Web and back-end software company.
And really, all these players would have to do is erode OpenTable’s ability to sign new customers to have an impact. This earnings report was good, but the company’s shares have jumped a staggering 230% since its IPO 18 months ago, trading at a price-to-earnings ratio eight times higher than the Standard & Poors index. Bloomberg reports that short sells are increasing and some analysts call it the most overvalued stock in the sector.
When you’re priced beyond perfection, it doesn’t take much to stumble. Maybe OpenTable should listen to the squeaky wheels out there once again.
bench craft company scam
bench craft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
bench craft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
benchcraft company scam
<b>News</b> - Tixdaq
Foo Fighters have been confirmed to headline the final night at Isle Of Wight festival 2011.
Scripting <b>News</b>: Design challenge: River of <b>News</b> in HTML
Design challenge: River of News in HTML. By Dave Winer on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 at 8:13 PM. I'm a big believer in designers, programmers, writers, artists, news people all working together. Permanent link to this item in the ...
Good <b>news</b>: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some <b>...</b>
Good news: Feds to ban caffeinated alcoholic drinks for some reason.
how to lose weight fast bench craft company scam
benchcraft company scam
benchcraft company scam
Michael M Thomas Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:33 am
In the first big art boom, back in the late ’80s-90s, some one observed, “It isn’t that the art isn’t worth the m oney, it’s that the money isn’t worth the money.” – MM Thoomas
Friday screencast: artflation Abnormal Returns Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 1:36 pm
Easy money and the red hot art market. (Big Picture)
Mike in Nola Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:27 pm
When I saw the Lichtenstein story on the BBC yesterday, was going to send BR a note that he might use as the start of a blog post.
The point of my note was that such big prices tend to mark tops in stocks because it’s a sign of overconfidence combined with spending paper profits. The example that first came to mind yesterday was the Japanese investor who bought one of Van Gogh’s Sunflowers for $80M – in 1990 just after the Japanese market peak.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1126944.html
Of course there are other indicators. Remember reading about one of the well known players in the very early 1900′s who, when he saw $10k bet on the turn of a card, went out and correctly sold everything.
An illustration of what some art investments are worth in hard times is that some segments of the art market were down 75% during the depths of the crash. The only reason art is booming again is because Ben B has repumped the liquidity bubble, allowing the banksters to make plenty instead of having their sorry asses thrown out on the street as they deserved.
grlampton Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A lot of what this post says about the art market can also be said about the rare coin market. Granted, rare coins are not unique in the same way a single piece of artwork is (though some are close to unique).
Although I do not know what the long-term appreciation figures are for artwork, classic American rare coins have outperformed the S&P over the lon g haul, and, in my view, thwey are a lot more fun.
gms777 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
And for the 99.99 percent of us who don’t have millions to throw at art, when you buy art, buy it because you like it and think you will continue to enjoy looking at it in your house for years.
Something like 95+% of all art never appreciates in value or if it does, it does so below the rate of inflation.
obsvr-1 Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
seems this is just the .1%-ers keeping up with the Rockerfellers
Perhaps the FED should be buying up rare art during distressed markets — then sell to the Fraudsters and elitist when they have nothing better to do with their money but buy high priced art; then recycle the profits back to the taxpayer (reduce nat debt) — or substitute SSA for the FED to bolster the Trust Fund for self sufficiency.
ToNYC Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
If you’re very rich, you can ship your art to Switzerland, London or Singapore to be stored in a state-of-the-art facility and not have to worry about the Feds tracking it as funds.
Believe it or not, that’s where the majority of art ends up these days, sitting in storage waiting for the right time and place to be shown or sold.
great point you make:
rich or just smart…keeping all invested in Intellectual Property keeps you free. Hard assets are more like anchors and chains and locks and guns.
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:12 pm
The problem I see with art, as an investment or even as a store of value, is that BOTH the insurance AND storage costs of pieces in the $10M+ range are significant. And reoccuring. And a drag on ROI unless a large mark-up is achieved.
Mannwich Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Then there’s this. Sure doesn’t sound worth it to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/realestate/14cov.html
philipat Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
I’d also recommend fine wine for similar reasons. Also more liquid (Double entendre intended!)
pintelho Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Now this is an excellent educational piece…thank you Marion
Long term Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
i consider this very interesting from the perspective of how chinese billionaires will benefit high-end american exports.
VennData Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson
YourPortlandFinancialAdvisor Says:
November 12th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
“Blue-chip art is no different from gold.”
It’s actually a lot different. People collect art to feel good about themselves, to feel intellectual, worldly, ect. Watch “Gone With the Wind”, Tara, the plantation is filled with paintings from Europe because that was the equivilant of the time. Plus anyone who fancies themselves a contemporary art collector must have and be judged by works of certain artists. Warhol would be one. No Warhol, no collection.
Julia Chestnut Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 5:52 am
The distinction here is between art as a store of value and art as an investment that is expected to create appreciation. The big jump in the value of a piece of art occurs when the artist dies, and thus the supply ends. People who build a fortune in art do so by having good taste and developing a relationship with the people who create (and/or sell) the kind of art that they love. It is about enjoyment and communication – about beauty and provocation. I have found in my limited experience that people who see art as an investment don’t pick the right artists: someone has to do their choosing for them.
But the pieces that we’re talking about in this article are investment grade – blue chips, as you said. Those are a store of value, alright. But as someone noted, the price of keeping something like that is extremely high. There are some pieces of such extreme value to certain unscrupulous people that you don’t insure them if you own them – because you are afraid that the appraiser or the insurance company might tip someone off about where the piece is. I wish I were being alarmist. Often these pieces are kept in professional storage in vaults because you don’t want to keep it where your family lives for these reasons. As old Priam found out long ago, possessing a thing of legendary beauty invites certain problems, especially if you are using it as a store of wealth.
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:25 am
And just to think, I bought a “Melvin Cruddy” last week for $2.77 at Resales for the Retarded.
It kinda looks like a Modigliani of Bugs Bunny and Daffy having breakfast at a Milwaukee coffee shop.
BuffaloBill Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:35 am
A.) If bought at auction, there are also buyer’s and seller’s commissions. You’ll need to add these into your investment computations. These commissions are not insignificant.
B.) If bought at auction, the hammer price (plus commission) is the single highest worldwide valuation for that piece.
C.) To quote the late Lawrence Fleischman who headed Kennedy Galleries in NYC for many years. “Art makes a lousy investment for almost all buyers except for dealers as we work hard to maintain a rolodex of likely customers. ”
D.) To quote the late Horace Solomon of Holly Solomon Galleries, “The painting hanging behind me is worth $125,000 – mostly because I say so.”
contrabandista13 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 8:41 am
The BIG MONEY plays in the art market are all about vanity… Oh….! Such refined and subtle sophistication…
Having said that, It’s worth remembering that a trophy such as a Pollock or a real Modigliani, never grows old, never makes you carry it’s purse and will always comfort you in sickness and in heath….
Greg0658 Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:13 am
interesting thread .. I’ll add my pov (thats point of view) not (privately owned vehicle :-) … while waiting for the pumpkin pie to bake
I collect art – not blue chip art (I can’t) .. music 1st books 2nd clocks 3rd (why I started that with the dang time change twice a year) .. add general stuff to cover the walls, shelves and corners .. why I started that or continue that operation (as we slip back into a hunter gatherer society) (produced in mass production) I don’t know … I guess I’m a well trained consumerist .. worked all my life to turn green TP into stuff – because what good is scratchy green TP .. so coming up on the Thanksgiving season I’ll just ask for your thanks .. so thank you in advance … ie thanks for working to build stuff and then turn excess wages into stuff so people who can’t turn stuff into stuff can flip it for a living
ps – the other pov – wish I could earn enough to have one of those fancies I loved to take pictures of – but then again – I might hit a deer with it or get it k@/@d
ToNYC Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 9:30 am
Art as investment works for the smart players who realize that over time their judgment of the intellectual perspective which is IP, and what it is that the artist presents will be a Call on an increasing statement of value over time (and transferred stored savings). The ones that see the artist’s vision and help bring that awareness public do the very best and are the lifeblood of our culture as well.
Saturday links: cleaner coal Abnormal Returns Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 10:08 am
What is driving the art market? Easy money.* (Big Picture)
philipat Says:
November 13th, 2010 at 11:31 am
VennData Says:
“What’s good for Damien Hirst is good for the global economy — Charles Wilson”
IMHO, the new Warhol? And I mean that not kindly. Both take advantage of art as culture as fashion as Ladt Gaga to make money. No problem with that, and good luck to them. But is it art?
Howard Lindzon » Blog Archive » Printing Money…I Mean Quantitative Easing Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 2:07 am
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Record Art Prices… Are the Rich Worried? Says:
November 14th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Today I am thinking about my Sotheby’s $BID indicator. I wrote about it a lot up until 2008 and have just forgotten about it until this fantastic post about the art market.
Abnormal Returns on Art Says:
November 15th, 2010 at 1:02 am
To read the post mentioned in the video, click here: What’s Driving the Art Market? Easy Money.