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.
|Date of creation:||1993|
|Publication status:||Published in: European Economic Review (1993) v.37 n° 7,p.1351-1371|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: CP135, 50, avenue F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Bruxelles|
Web page: http://difusion.ulb.ac.be
More information through EDIRC
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.
- 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.
- 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..
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/1727. 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: (Benoit Pauwels)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.