Art Market 5:B - 1(34) Entertainment and Media: Markets and Economics The Art Market

Art Market 5:B - 2(34) $135 Million =5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Klimt, to Ronald Lauder

Art Market 5:B - 3(34) Going Once: $43.7M It looks like it should be worth $200, but it sold for a whopping $43.7 million. An Andy Warhol painting called "200 One Dollar Bills" fetched the megasum at Sotheby's last night. It represented an incredible profit for the seller, who purchased the silkscreen for $385,000 in 1986, according to a spokeswoman for the Upper East Side auction house. Sotheby's had estimated it would sell for $12 million.

Art Market 5:B - 4(34) Going Twice …. $80M Jasper Johns: 1988:$17M to 2006:$80M

Art Market 5:B - 5(34) Going Three Times …

Art Market 5:B - 6(34) Gone! $119.9M

Art Market 5:B - 7(34) $100 Million … sort of Stephen Wynn with a Prized Possession, 2007

Art Market 5:B - 8(34)

Art Market 5:B - 9(34)

Art Market 5:B - 10(34) An Enduring Art Mystery Why do larger paintings command higher prices? The Persistence of Memory. Salvador Dali, 1931 The Persistence of Econometrics. Greene, 2008 Graphics show relative sizes of the two works.

Art Market 5:B - 11(34) Dali in Large and Small Hallucinogenic Torreador ( ) is 9’10” wide and 13’1” tall. The Persistence of Memory. Salvador Dali, ” x 11”

Art Market 5:B - 12(34) Monet in Large and Small Log of $price = a + b log surface area + e Sale prices of 328 signed Monet paintings

Art Market 5:B - 13(34) Entertainment and Media: Markets and Economics Art as a Financial Asset

Art Market 5:B - 14(34) Art Market  Market for paintings?  Subjective “returns”  Consumption value  Measuring the return to art  Ill defined “asset”  Uniqueness of valuable pieces  Repeat sales of the same print after long intervals (hundreds are recorded)

Art Market 5:B - 15(34) Paintings as Risky Investments MeanSt.Dev.InflationInterestBondStock Inflation4.2%8.8%1.000 B of E r.4.7%3.6% UK Bond4.8%10.6% UK Stock4.9%21.9% Art17.5%52.8% Annualized Returns 1900 – 1986 Mean Std.Dev. Correlations

Art Market 5:B - 16(34) The Returns to Art, by Period

Art Market 5:B - 17(34) Very Long Term Return to Art  Van Gogh’s Irises  1987: $40M  1990: $53M (sort of…)  Getty museum, which won’t tell how much…  Lauder’s $135M Klimt  Baumol’s analysis of 640 transactions  Remarkably low annual return – close to zero  High variance.  Returns to art are all aesthetic

Art Market 5:B - 18(34) Anti-Portfolio Theory (Pesando)  Buy one masterpiece for $100,000, not ten lesser pieces at $10,000 each. (Wisdom)  Conclusions  Short run excess returns  Masterpiece portfolio does not do better than the market  Many price and return anomalies

Art Market 5:B - 19(34) Crapshoot Theory  Baumol: There is no equilibrium and no anchor  Why are money and art correlated?  A wealth effect.  An Intervening effect – the stock market  An issue of causation  The greater fool theory

Art Market 5:B - 20(34) A few weeks ago, a triptych portrait by the British modernist painter Francis Bacon sold for $142.4 million, a record for a work of art at auction. The next night, a silk-screen print, “Silver Car Crash (Double Disaster),” by the American pop artist Andy Warhol brought $105.4 million. And this week, “Saying Grace,” by the American illustrator Norman Rockwell, sold for $46..1 million. The art market would seem to be going through the roof. But is it?

Art Market 5:B - 21(34)

Art Market 5:B - 22(34) Mei-Moses Art Index (You need to be a member to get past the front page.)

Art Market 5:B - 23(34)

Art Market 5:B - 24(34) Mei and Moses on Art  auctions, Christies and Sothebys  Underperformance of masterpieces  Better than fixed income securities, worse than stocks  Small variance  good portfolio choice  Loose ends Winner’s curse in bids? Income effect – cyclicality of prices Euphoria effect – movement with stock market The true return – intangibles

Art Market 5:B - 25(34) The Art Market vs. Stock Market

Art Market 5:B - 26(34) Segments of the Art Market

Art Market 5:B - 27(34) The Art Market: Mei/Moses’ Measures

Art Market 5:B - 28(34) How does art attain value? This article describes a new vault where buyers of high end art can store their assets while they wait for them to become more valuable.

Art Market 5:B - 29(34) Entertainment and Media: Markets and Economics Art Auctions and Antitrust

Art Market 5:B - 30(34) Art, Auctions and Antitrust  Art Auctions Open outcry, English style (ascending) Private information only in valuation (by nature)  High end art market dominated (90%) by Sotheby’s and Christies

Art Market 5:B - 31(34) Some History  NY, 1960, dominated by Parke-Bernet  Competition from London by Sotheby  P-B for sale in 1963, $2M.  S makes a credible threat to enter, drives the price down to $1.5M and enters  Christies and Phillips enter in 1977  Christies entry did not drive down the value of Sotheby. Entry established NY as a focal point for art sale – drove up the stock value of both companies.  S and C acted as a natural duopoly, heavy competition until Competition suddenly stopped.  1995, conspired to fix commissions.

Art Market 5:B - 32(34) Art Auction Conventions  The “hammer price”  Two commissions wedged between buyer and seller: Buyer’s commission about 10% of hammer price Seller’s commission about 10% of hammer price Seller Hammer Buyer Commission

Art Market 5:B - 33(34) Fixed Commissions Sotheby’s essentially identical.

Art Market 5:B - 34(34) The Civil Settlement About $300M for each company Some criminal penalties for some conspirators (notably Alfred Taubman who lost a lot - $7.5M and 10 months in jail.) Most $$$ paid (inappropriately) to buyers Theory is unambiguous – buyers will just reduce their bids so that bid+commission will not exceed their reservation price. They were not harmed. A curious incentive – the amnesty rule. The first company to confess gets off (partly) from the criminal prosecution. (Not the civil suit.) A curious auction: The right to represent the plaintiffs was auctioned to the firm with the highest guess as to the minimum they believed they could win for the plaintiffs. (David Boies et al.)