Pictures of profitable shares
 

Paintings by Andy Warhol and Damien Hirst in the last ten years have grown in value much faster than the index Standard & Poor's 500. Such a conclusion is made resource ArtNet, evaluating works of art as an asset on its own methodology. According to the portal, from 2002 to 2007 of Hearst went up almost threefold, but over the next five years, the price of his paintings have declined slightly. As a result of the decade the average cost of sale by auction of Hirst works was 901,000 dollars. The cost of Warhol paintings, from 2002 to the end of 2011 increased more than fourfold. The prices for his works were peaking in 2007, after they began to decline. In 2011, the value of his works went back to maximum performance. Paintings Warhol and Hirst rose in price faster than the art world's 50 best-selling artists, estimated at ArtNet. During this time, the total capitalization of the companies
included in the S & P 500 rose just seven percent. In this often enough, when stock indexes fell, became more expensive works of art at auction. As noted by Bloomberg, during 2009-2011, the high demand for works by artists supported, including the expense of buyers from Russia, Asia and the Middle East that have not been so active before. Stock index S & P 500 includes the capitalization of the 500 largest U.S. companies. Joint stock companies are included in this index are traded on stock exchanges in the U.S., such as such as the New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. Art is an alternative way to invest money. Many opponents of such an investment areas consider it too risky. They explain this by saying that the price movement in a work of art is difficult to predict than the prospect of shares of individual companies.

Shares of leading U.S. companies can be bought at any moment, and to sell at any second , and the commission is close to zero . Secondly , hardly anyone puts on the index as a whole , people are buying certain companies and the growth of many of them in the past 10 years has made many times and many times , for example, Apple , from 14 dollars to 400 (?) .
So the comparison sucked from a finger.

mesedzh such ...

 
Standard & Poor's 500 vs paintings


picture is more profitable ...


artnet well and its methods

such a comparison is not clear for whom intended , with the shares of the players are not idiots , must be regarded as a commission when buying and selling , one must consider the costs of storage and insurance costs (purchase of shares are equal to zero) , and we must compare comparable - if the overall index, the general index of art market with the general index of the shares, if the most successful artists , from the most successful company shares . I guess in all parameters paintings lose.
 When Lloyd Weber sold his Picasso bought twenty years ago , I figured that if he invested in anything other than pictures, it would be more vyigrashe .
 In painting , there are other benefits , short-lived stock , compared with the paintings . After 100 years, 90 %of companies will disappear, and there is no Picasso .

art is long, life is short ...

And that's what?

A to those who make art should be at least as something (you) live ...

Stupidity is , of course , the journalists wrote. Once again .

... And yet they can admire and show off ..

To do this they created.