"Kommersant" about Artinvestment

[LCR]

Сообщение от Admin

You think that all sales of transcendent prices of the same Bacon, Rothko, Freud, Kunst, Hirst random? /.../But, I assure you, all the "landmark" sales represent a well-planned action. And they are directed at the general rise of the total market. Because after these sales prices are significantly grow and artists second, followed by the third row. So ... rather naive to believe that the market regulates itself. This is partly true, but only partly. The behavior of the market one way or another controlled monopolies, but in this case, the major auctions. And the auction does not make sense to go in the wake of the market and allow for lower prices. Moreover, surely there is (perhaps unspoken, and, perhaps, explicit) collusion in auctions for similar actions aimed at the rise in prices for all markets.

  And the index you just to help. (Added - and auctions, by the way, too )

In no case do not want to blaspheme the indicators of the art market, and can not, because anything they do not understand. However, it is important to understand that they themselves indicators do not mean anything important methodology of working with them.

And make no mistake: at the exchange, there are many technical indicators (which I know fairly well), all grosso modo provide market trend and indicates a di market "too buyer, overheated or too sell" (I apologize for the barbaric expression, but I difficult to talk about it in Russian, I do not know the terminology).
But some, working with the indicators are geared to the continuation of the trend, others - for its inversion, and others (including me) are trying to identify within a strongly growing sectors of the "stragglers" enterprise, putting the fact that at some point they catch their companions. That is, I want to say that there are no good or bad indicators, there are more or less successful treating them to market participants, or, as a theatrical director, actor, zhaluyuschemusya on uncomfortable clothes: "Do not dress plays - the actor plays, and you have been r **** m, so it was! "

When I hear about "well-planned general rise in the market," then remember boom "of new technology and the Internet in late 1990. When purchasing input to the exchange of some of the newly established firmochki its shares for 100, after a few days to sell them for 1700, and the task before you, only one - to buy more shares at the beginning.
The market went up, by leaps and bounds, until just then how would collapse, and fall all the markets are always faster than the rise, and many were the result of its stock market adventures in the buff.

The contemporary art market can be compared with the NASDAQ, where Murakami, Koons and other dick (st) nya play a role firmochek, most of which simply does not exist, but less has been bought up on the cheap during the collapse. Add to this the countless and constant manipulation of the art market, its near zero liquidity, as well as the fact that, unlike the stock exchange in the market to sell short can not - me, this raises some troubling thoughts.

Supplement: the smaller the volume of transactions, the less revealing indicator. I do not know whether you are submitting yourself that enough ten or twelve private speculators to come to terms to completely change the display of some very low-liquid firms (but since it is presleduktsya law, none of this, as you know, never does)

[Эммануил Гедеонович]

Сообщение от LCR

and other dick (st) nya

Roughly, but true!

[artcol]

Сообщение от LCR

... far from zero liquidity ...

keyword