Ethan and Sharon are taking an art history class this semester. The first session was this morning. When Blair and I picked them up after class, they told us about a conversation. The professor was talking about art as an investment, and said that it’s like stocks, bonds or any other investment. Ethan said something along the lines of “not really…” And they were off to the races.
Ethan is absolutely right. As investments go, there absolutely
is a fundamental difference between art (or other collectibles) and stocks,
bonds or other financial instruments. But I suspect that he didn’t do a good
job of explaining it; he and Sharon reported that he didn’t convince anyone.
With that in mind, I’m going to take a shot at the explanation. Of course, brevity
will require some oversimplification.
Financial instruments such as stocks and bonds produce
income. Or at least that’s the hope. Bonds represent debt, and the issuer is
obligated to pay the borrowed money (with interest). A share in common stock
represents an ownership interest in a company and, with it, a share of that
company’s future income. The value of a stock or a bond is, essentially the present
value of future cash flows. It gets complicated because there can be
considerable uncertainty around those future cash flows. And a hundred different
investors may have a hundred different assessments of the value. And those
assessments may be constantly changing. But stocks and bonds have value because,
fundamentally, they are expected to produce income.
A painting doesn’t produce income. Its only value is in
people wanting to own it for its sake. I suppose there may be people who buy
art to rent to others, or to display for a paying audience. But that’s not what
the professor was referring to.
If your art starts DRIPping, you have a problem.
ReplyDeleteOK... That legit made me laugh.
DeleteA stock may not be paying dividends *now*. But the expectation is that, at some point in the future, the company will have to distribute its value to the shareholders.
ReplyDelete