[artcol]

Сообщение от LCR

This is not so. Talk about the property: as long as you own it, it brings you nothing but the cost and headache (or need to have a huge fleet of locative property, I have a friend who lives with this, but he has more than 100 apartments). But capital multiply. For example, the price of my - rather modest - apartment in Paris since 1994, when I bought it, has tripled. Of course, we must take it into account the cost of credit, all taxes, etc., but nonetheless sold it, I would have received a good profit. In this case, it is a theory, since I bought it, so we have to Misha could live in it, and the other apartments I have not.

I believe in conservative investing big question is this: I have x euros (dollars,). How many actually I have left after 15 years if I them frozen in a bank at interest (also a conservative, neriskovanny, but it does not hurt a profitable way to keep their savings - on the inflation front, and forgot to think interest rates are low, respectively, voznagrazhenie capital approaches zero), if I bought the property, if I buy, say, a picture of Courbet, Budena or trade mark, if I bought a 6.8 carat diamond, it is more profitable?
I have a friend whose father was offered as a wedding gift to his mother on the choice of either a two-bedroom apartment in a good area of Paris, or diamond. Unfortunately, she chose a pebble, which she now could not even buy a room for servants on the top floor without elevator.

I have not done the calculations, but I have the impression that with paintings by old masters 10-15 years of ownership, you recover costs (and they are very high - I have already said), save your capital for inflation and you get a little - and sometimes substantial - profit.




Quite agree. Add that this is risky: to not be extreme



And here I agree, with a small caveat: Cezanne immeasurably more than sezannizm.
According to Monet or Pissarro this question does not arise - they are associated with Impressionism, and no component, so to speak, this equation does not suffer.
See the difference?

I mean, we are not talking about art, but only on its commercial aspect - we are talking osozdanii successful galleries, and it has no relation to art

Roginskii - fortunately or unfortunately - did not belong to any direction. But no one and no spins - so all the better in this best of all worlds

I would be tersely summarized
1) Still, the choice of conservative instruments /objects to invest the main criterion - reliability preserving capital, rather than yields on him. Although of course, the latter always is present (for they are conservative ). At the other extreme - a venture capital investment. Everything here is exactly the opposite.

2) If we talk about the gallery, then, of course, - is easier to position in the direction or something abstract detection?. But buying some artists, to-e and make this area interesting and popular. Therefore, the word direction here in my opinion is misleading, I would have talked about the outlook, the platform, style, etc. and under it picked up interesting artists . Meaning limit yourself some frames do not see

3) At Roginsky: as one?