Do you include art in your portfolio?

[Dave76]

I know that art can be a sound investment, and I was wondering how many Bogleheads invest in paintings, rare lithographs, prints, sculpture, etc.

[jon-nyc]

I certainly don't. I think this is a tough market to make money in. There's little to no transparency and spreads are obscene.

[Valuethinker]

I certainly don't. I think this is a tough market to make money in. There's little to no transparency and spreads are obscene.

Excellent points:

-low transparency - the indices are pretty flakey
-low liquidity- in the 80s, traditional English paintings worth a fortune. 1990s and UK has 10%+ interest rates, plus Lloyds insurance meltdown, and the market is flooded, a lot of the dealers went broke. 2000s? Hedge Fund managers like modern art. I doubt English painters nominal prices are above their 1980s level
- fashion (as above). Most of us are not buying Impressionists (and the Japanese drove that one up in the 1980s) or Rembrandts. Anticipating the tastes of the next generation of buyers is *hard*: Russian oligarchs have designer girlfriends who like modern art, it seems
- fraud-- the number of 'great paintings' that ain't by who they said they were-- as science gets better we are finding more of that
- modern art is by definition not in short supply, the artists can create more, so we see things like Damian Hirst ramping his own auction prices (and now he has ditched his 25 year dealer relationship!)
- high storage costs
- 25% commission on sale
- price fixing by the major auction houses (OK people have gone to prison: wanna bet there is still not tacit collusion? Game Theory shows you that you don't need to have meetings and phone calls to collude on prices, *if* there is a small enough number of you-- you just need information on what the other side is doing)
- theft, vandalism, national laws which prevent sales -- a lot of Italian and Greek works of art, as the Getty has found out, turn out to be stolen

There is a pretty high negative correlation between art prices and real interest rates. If real interest rates rise, the price of art will likely fall. Ditto if key buyers (like hedge funds, or natural resource prices driving Russian and Middle Eastern buyers) have financial issues.

The British Rail Pension Fund (one of the largest in the UK) made fairly successful investments in art in the 1980s, but for all of the above reasons largely exited that investment (also the political sensitivity of a quasi public body selling 'British' paintings, maybe to foreigners).

There is also an important moral issue. The international art trade drives the outright theft and looting from museums in Baghdad, Syria and other strife torn places. And also looting of key archaeological sites. This is like buying cocaine or Congolese diamonds, you are driving death and destruction and despoilation of key archaeological sites-- not least potentially the death of your own nation's soldiers (the looting often goes to finance local guerilla and criminal organizations, eg the Mafia in Italy).

As with all collectibles, wine, cigars, art etc. It's better to buy to enjoy them, even consume them, rather than as an 'investment'.

If you want, as many people who own and deal in these things do, to learn a lot, maybe become a business trading in collectibles, then good on ya. You have entered into a (possibly lucrative) business. But then they are not an 'investment' but a business.

[Levett]

Yes to your thread question, and a qualification to your use of the word "invest."

Most of the people I know with collections (that is, with a specific focus on one part of the art market) start off as accidental collectors. We are attracted to thus and so, start buying over a period of time, get to know the wider market of buyers, sellers, traders, collectors, and one day realize that we do, indeed, have a collection of art objects that has significant value, and that value can be easily determined both by direct appraisals, auction results, and our own ability to sell or trade into the particular market for an appreciated value. Sometimes these are cash transactions, so there is--in the strictest sense--an investment return.

Similarly, one can establish a relationship (or relationships) with a museum, or museums, that have a strong interest in your collection, in which case donations--with a legitimate appraisal that will satisfy both the museum and the IRS--will prove quite helpful come tax time. I have done this for many years, and will continue to do so. Eventually, the entire collection will go to one museum (legal arrangements are already set), which will prove helpful to my beneficiaries.

Lev

P.S. My wife provides a good example of "accidental collecting" that now has significant investment value. In the 1960s she and some of her friends lived within driving distance of a gentleman named George Nakashima. They decided to have their furniture made by said gentleman and were even able to pick their own wood at his "shop." Over a period of time, Nakashima furniture has become highly prized and highly collectible. It didn't begin as an "investment," but it certainly has a real market with with clear value.

[Sidney]

Generally I don't include anything that I cannot convert to food in a reasonable period of time (7-10 days max).

[Calm Man]

I would avoid including any collectibles in any type of asset allocation. Excluding the possibility that one has been completely scammed or has massively overpaid (I do not know anybody who collects art or coins or stamps that admits this is possible) the volatility is enormous and the potential for great depreciation (or appreciation) exists. Collectibles are nice for some people to have (I am not one of them) but have no utilitarian value so one never knows what the future would bring for it. So I would say that if one enjoys collecting art then enjoy it, but do not count it in your asset allocation. If you did, would you set a set % for collectibles and rebalance?

[Levett]

" If you did, would you set a set % for collectibles and rebalance?"

In my experience, it does not follow that a valuable investment--in this instance, art--is either part of one's asset allocation or subject to "rebalancing"--whatever that might mean to an individual investor.

It is a component of one's net worth.

Lev

[hicabob]

If mechanical art counts, my uncle collected and repaired clocks for about 40 yrs after he retired from being an airline pilot (55 yo ret. age then) - made a very good hobby for him but ended up being a so-so investment, but then not terrible either - Some had considerable value - Quite challenging for the heirs to dispose of. Noontime and midnight at his house were always impressively noisy!

[nisiprius]

No.

That's admittedly based on a single (favorable) experience, involving a piece of art that had been estimated to sell in the low five figures at auction, and actually sold in the high four figures. The buyer paid a 20% premium over the "auction price" and the seller was charged a commission of 30% on the auction price. To me, the effective bid-asked spread is the amount that it would cost to sell something and then buy the same item back immediately. If the "auction price" for both sale and repurchase $10,000, the seller would receive $7,000 and then need to pay $12,000 to buy the item back, the cost of the the transaction would be over 70% of the amount received in the sale.

However, there were also nontrivial conservator's fees and appraisal fees and shipping fees and storage fees and insurance fees--I did get a memorable reaction from clerk at the Pack-N-Ship store when I said I wanted to insure the package for $10,000, and he had to call the central office to find out if that was possible. And there was the surprise, surprise, when they actually looked at the item after receiving it, they reduced the estimated value because there was some subtle mottling that resulted from, you know, having hung the print on the wall to look at instead of locking it up in a safe.

It probably took three months from start to check cleared, many hours of time. And, of course, there were taxes, and not at any 15%, either.

To a professional art dealer, art might be an investment. To a private individual who buys art to look at, no. The illiquidity, the transaction costs, the bid-asked spread, and above all the inability to value it accurately disqualify it.

(And in case anyone is curious: it was an inherited piece. And the slight damage that reduced its value was done while it was hanging on my folks' wall, not mine; I didn't particularly like it).

Anyone ever notice that the appraisers on Antiques Roadshow just name a number--they don't actually hand anyone a wad of cash? I'd love to have someone do a follow-up and trace the experiences of Antiques Roadshow contestants who subsequently decide to sell their pieces. I'd love to know the ratio between the number named on the show and the check that they finally deposit.

[Valuethinker]

No.

That's admittedly based on a single (favorable) experience, involving a piece of art that had been estimated to sell in the low five figures at auction, and actually sold in the high four figures. The buyer paid a 20% premium over the "auction price" and the seller was charged a commission of 30% on the auction price. To me, the effective bid-asked spread is the amount that it would cost to sell something and then buy the same item back immediately. If the "auction price" for both sale and repurchase $10,000, the seller would receive $7,000 and then need to pay $12,000 to buy the item back, the cost of the the transaction would be over 70% of the amount received in the sale.

However, there were also nontrivial conservator's fees and appraisal fees and shipping fees and storage fees and insurance fees--I did get a memorable reaction from clerk at the Pack-N-Ship store when I said I wanted to insure the package for $10,000, and he had to call the central office to find out if that was possible. And there was the surprise, surprise, when they actually looked at the item after receiving it, they reduced the estimated value because there was some subtle mottling that resulted from, you know, having hung the print on the wall to look at instead of locking it up in a safe.

It probably took three months from start to check cleared, many hours of time. And, of course, there were taxes, and not at any 15%, either.

To a professional art dealer, art might be an investment. To a private individual who buys art to look at, no. The illiquidity, the transaction costs, the bid-asked spread, and above all the inability to value it accurately disqualify it.

(And in case anyone is curious: it was an inherited piece. And the slight damage that reduced its value was done while it was hanging on my folks' wall, not mine; I didn't particularly like it).

Anyone ever notice that the appraisers on Antiques Roadshow just name a number--they don't actually hand anyone a wad of cash? I'd love to have someone do a follow-up and trace the experiences of Antiques Roadshow contestants who subsequently decide to sell their pieces. I'd love to know the ratio between the number named on the show and the check that they finally deposit.

The tax issue alone would kill you-- if you don't pay capital gains tax on US collectibles?

[Default User BR]

I'd love to have someone do a follow-up and trace the experiences of Antiques Roadshow contestants who subsequently decide to sell their pieces. I'd love to know the ratio between the number named on the show and the check that they finally deposit.

The show itself has in the pas. They have had a "best of" show (clips) and mention what the current status is. A fairly high percentage as I recall ended with donations to museums. I don't follow the show anymore, so I don't know if they do that still.


Brian

[VictoriaF]

Investing is an art, and thus art is a part of my portfolio.

Victoria

[chaz]

Investing is an art, and thus art is a part of my portfolio.

Victoria

I like your reasoning - very clever.

[Aptenodytes]

It seems art would be relevant for tallying net worth, though in practice it may not be worth the hassle. I would never count it as part of a portfolio. I think my art holdings are worth at most 2% of my net worth, and I don't bother tracking the art's value or including it in my annual check on net worth. The only reason I even know what it is worth is because I had to do the research on the auction sites when my sibling and I divided up an estate.

In theory one could imagine art being part of a portfolio, but it would a hell of an irresponsible portfolio. For it to count as part of a portfolio, the art would need to have as its primary purpose the generation of retirement income, and it would have to be something the investor was willing to include in routine rebalancing operations. Here's a simple test -- if a piece of art were destroyed or stolen, would you replace it with the nearest possible match? If not, you aren't treating it as an investment. In my case the art has sentimental value -- if it were stolen I would not replace it. Here's another test -- if the art doubled in value, would you sell half of it? If not, you aren't treating it as an investment.

[DLRCohasset]

As someone who has had the good fortune to add significantly is his liquid net worth through the sale of art I would like to add a few notes to the discussion:

1. I have always been an accidental investor, not an accidental collector - which is to say the collecting has always been the motivation, and the monetary rewards have been the very pleasant accident. I can't imagine how one might buy art for investment, though some do try.
2. Tansparency - I have found the auction market for the very large firms (Christie's and Sotheby's) to be quite transparent and the transaction prices consistent and logical - for the market at any given time. Our experience of selling through dealers is something else. We have been trying for more than 10 years to liquidate a rare book collection and have never found a way around what we perceive to be consistent and thorough collusion in that market.
3. Commissions in auctions - the buyers premium is always there, but if you are selling something of reasonable value and quality your sellers commisions may be 5% or less - I paid 0% on my last major sale. One may negotiate this with the auction house, and as with all things, it helps to have more than one house interested in handling what you are selling.
4. Taxes - no matter how well you may do with your transaction this is always a killer: not only do the feds get 28% for collectibles, but the state may well get an amount starting at the income tax rate to twice that rate in addition.
5. Other transactions costs - same as commisions - the auction house's opening is that the seller pay for tranportation, insurance, photography and catelog, but again depending upon your bargaining position any or all of these expenses may be waived. I have never paid for any of these.
6. Some names in art endure and one can for the forseable future expect the market to support the prices for their work: Calder, Warhol, Rothko, Mitchell, Johns. Some fall out of fashion (Nevelson), and some I just don't understand (Hirst, Koons, etc.), but I'm an old fart anyway.

All in all, collect art for the love of it, and expect no more. If you have an extraoridnary eye, and a bit of good fortune, maybe to 15 or 20 years you'll have a treasure, and maybe you won't. And remember that the government will be your partner in an good fortune.

[backofbeyond]

Yes. But definitely an accident investor/collector. Paintings and old books, mostly Bibles. All total they don't represent more than say 2% of net worth, but I have to admit, I enjoy looking at them more than my bank statement or TSP quarterly statement.

I also realize that I (like most people) suffer from intrinsic value escalation, thinking that our treasures are worth more, simply because they are ours. We recently had a garage sale which brought us back to reality...that is, our stuff is just other's people junk.

Also, I note that our daughter isn't interested in this kind of stuff, so unless some grandchild or favorite nephew/niece appears at some point, it will probably be sold for pennies on the dollar when the wife and I push daisies. So at the end of the day, it's not really an investment, more like an old leather coat, feels comfortable and makes you smile.

[FamilyMan]

Does my 5 year old's "masterpiece" finger paints count? We displace them at Le Fridge.

[Fallible]

Investing is an art, and thus art is a part of my portfolio.

Victoria

I like your reasoning - very clever.

+$

[nisiprius]

Donald Knuth wrote The Art of Computer Programming, so all the money I've invested is derived from the sale of my own artwork...

[Dale_G]

I am not an art buff, but I do like some statutory.

True story: Sometime in the 90's I had occasion to visit the NY studio of a well known American artist. The matter under discussion was the digital reproduction of a piece of his art. We did produce a 20 ft by 120 ft reproduction of one piece and the artist signed it, but my guess is that it now resides in a landfill somewhere.

The studio was a flurry of activity with about 20 "assistants" scurrying around daubing paint on various works, no doubt under the strict supervision of the "artist".

At some point one of the assistants tripped over a bucket of some kind of goo that was sitting on a large "artwork" on the floor - and the floor was where much of the work in the studio was done. The result was a large (about 1 ft X 2 ft) orange-red splotch on the piece.

Not verbatim, but the artist said in effect, "Don't worry, it adds to the spontaneity".

Dale

[livesoft]

We have many original works of art hanging on the walls of our home. Unfortunately, all the frames are worth more than what they hold.

[Dale_G]

And I just love the valuations placed on art and collectibles:

$17,000 retail
$12,000 auction
$5,000 dealer

Be sure to insure it for at least $42,000. Sure, pay a bigger premium, makes you feel important.

Dale

[hazlitt777]

I do not.

I want to say though I had a friend, God rest his soul, who was big in gun collecting. So was his wife. It was a passion of theirs. They knew everything about every gun they owned and showed me. We went together to one of the big gun shows in St. Louis Missouri. It was held at a massive expo center there if memory serves. They knew so many of the people down there displaying their goods, buying, selling and telling stories.

It was their passion and they knew their stuff. They did not "flip" guns. They bought them and held them long term.

Now, his wife is selling what she needs to in her retirement now that he is gone. And one could say they are definitely over exposed in their "allocation" to collectibles. But I would say they enjoyed them for that they are...the history and physics of it all. They even have a pistol of someone who was close to Hitler...believe it or not.

The point I am making is that they were successful at this because it was their passion, their life, so they truly knew their stuff. Also, they did not buy and sell. And they knew many people in this particular collector's field.

I personally, because I knew them well, picked up two world war II pieces. That is the extent of my collection. But I have done well only because of my connection to him and not overpaying etc. He connected me with a friend of his that was selling.

So you can see it is very specialized and is only for a few. That is my experience with it. He also had inherited his father's Imperial China collection. So collecting really ran in their family, and they have impeccable taste, or in other words, judgement.

It isn't for everyone, or me, don't have the energy or passion to get into it like that and suceed, but I am grateful I knew him and still stay in touch with his wife and children. It opened my eyes to a world I never thought of or was exposed to.

[gkaplan]

Many years ago, maybe forty, I went to Montego Bay. While there I saw a painting of a fishing village by a local artist in my hotel gift shop that I really liked. I believe I paid twenty-five dollars for it. It probably still is worth twenty-five dollars, but it's been hanging on my living room wall for the last forty years, and I still really like it.

[dgdevil]

I have collected rock 'n' roll memorabilia - 99% for the enjoyment of ownership and thrill of the chase - stuff from the Johnny Cash estate, lyrics, etc. The *experts* say it is a recession-proof genre, though I obviously take that with a grain of salt. I certainly wouldn't ascribe a value to it, or include it among my net worth. But in the back of my head I know that it could help me out of a fix down the road - though it would be a hassle to sell at auction given aforementioned spreads and premiums.

[tetractys]

There's art on my walls, some most likely valuable, but it's never be assessed. Perhaps I should think of it as a silent investment. -- Tet

[SP-diceman]

Years ago I decided to keep my Mona Lisa painting,
and Statue of David, on display at
the Louvre Museum.

If things get tough, I should be able to trade them for some gold.

[Dave76]

I've heard stories of people finding something that is modest, inexpensive (think Currier and Ives print) in their attic and finding out that it's worth $10k. I think investing in a young artist who is just beginning to get noticed is much too risky. There must be timeless styles and genres that would be worth buying in a down market.

I do agree with the other posters who have stated the importance of enjoying the art, and not just keeping it in the hopes of getting a high return. I would love to have a Montague Dawson painting on my wall. The trouble is, I'd never want to sell it!

[Mrs.Feeley]

I usually store my Norman Rockwell framed needlepoint pictures in the vault (they're a matched set with a matching seat cushion!) and bring them out only occasionally at Christmas but am reconsidering as I don't want to alert any art thieves that may be lurking in the neighborhood. I worry that if I were to include them in our portfolio I would lose all incentive to continue saving for retirement. But this thread has me thinking that maybe I should?

I once tried to donate an original oil painting my mom found in the attic to the local public TV auction but they said no thanks. It was a couch-sized painting of a sloppy-looking bunch of cyclamen in a teacup in a big gold frame. The art world is very cruel. Norman Rockwell needlepoint aside, that is the extent of our family's art collecting.

[dgdevil]

Years ago I decided to keep my Mona Lisa painting,
and Statue of David, on display at
the Louvre Museum.

If things get tough, I should be able to trade them for some gold.

You might want to ask the Louvre to recover that David for you.

[Cherokee8215]

The stuff on my walls is probably worth about $3 for firewood.

[Joe S.]

Years ago I decided to keep my Mona Lisa painting,
and Statue of David, on display at
the Louvre Museum...

I've been storing my Statue of David at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence. Do you think I should move it to the Louvre? Are the storage costs lower?
http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/Mic ... David.html

[Fallible]

The stuff on my walls is probably worth about $3 for firewood.

Three bucks reminds me of a Charles Russell print I clipped from an old Russell calendar bought at a flea market for $1 (after haggling) and put in a frame I bought on sale for $2. It looks nice and I get compliments on it, though they're from other Russell lovers who happen to especially like this painting.

[RTR2006]

I own artwork by the American artist Jasper Johns that I include as part of my overall holdings. To me, they are just another (albeit one that we can touch, see and enjoy) asset class. No different that owning a fine watch, classic car, or musical instrument, I suppose...

There's no reason not to invest in great art that makes you happy when you walk by it every day. We only live once, and anyone who thinks the whole game is only to "earn what you need and die writing your last check - that will bounce - to the undertaker" has seriously missed the point of living at all.

RTR

[DaleMaley]

"Don't invest in anything that eats, floats, drills, or is appraised with a magnifying glass or scale."

Bud Hebeler on page 184 of his book Getting Started in a Financially Secure Retirement.

I love Bud's guideline, but he needs to add something about collectibles........maybe.....

or if buying and selling costs exceed 5% of the item's value.

[KyleAAA]

I don't but I'm not opposed to the idea. I would think you would have to be VERY wealthy (we're talking $100MM+) for it to be a reasonable option and even then only as a very small part (< 10%) of a diversified portfolio. I would be more likely to just buy art because I like it, though.

[VictoriaF]

I would think you would have to be VERY wealthy (we're talking $100MM+) for it to be a reasonable option and even then only as a very small part (< 10%) of a diversified portfolio.

Something like The Thomas Crown Affair?

Victoria

[SP-diceman]

Years ago I decided to keep my Mona Lisa painting,
and Statue of David, on display at
the Louvre Museum...

I've been storing my Statue of David at the Galleria dell'Accademia in Florence. Do you think I should move it to the Louvre? Are the storage costs lower?
http://smarthistory.khanacademy.org/Mic ... David.html

This is why documentation is important, particularly when you get older and your memory isn’t what it should be.

The other day, I was in the garage and couldn’t remember if I had purchased a
Jackson Pollack or simply spilled some paint???

[Boglemama]

Anyone ever notice that the appraisers on Antiques Roadshow just name a number--they don't actually hand anyone a wad of cash? I'd love to have someone do a follow-up and trace the experiences of Antiques Roadshow contestants who subsequently decide to sell their pieces. I'd love to know the ratio between the number named on the show and the check that they finally deposit.

I was on the Antiques Roadshow and had an item appraised on the show. They estimated my item to be worth $1,000 during the initial evaluation (where my husband heard the amount and I was off somewhere else). Producers came over to hear the story behind the item, the producers liked the story so they called me over (I didn't know the appraised value) and gave the appraisal where they recorded it, and told me the surprise estimated value. While it was far more then the $39 I paid for the item, the appraiser then said that the item was now worth $1,500-$2,000. They only air 1/4 of the appraisals that they do, so it's in the appraisers best interest to make it dramatic if they want the publicity of being on air.