Revisiting Baumol's 'art as floating crap game'
We show that Baumol's conclusion that returns on bonds are higher than returns on paintings is too pessimistic. There are segments in the market for which returns are significantly higher than returns on bonds and stocks, during long periods of time (20 to 40 years); since tastes do change slowly (though not in a predictable way), this may imply that beating the market is not impossible. We also construct price indexes for paintings over the last 200 years.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Chanel, O. & Gerard-Varet, L.A. & Ginsburgh, V., 1990. "Is Art Such A Bad Investment?," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 90b03, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
- Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
- Baumol, William J, 1986. "Unnatural Value: Or Art Investment as Floating Crap Game," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(2), pages 10-14, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:37:y:1993:i:7:p:1351-1371. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.