Masterworks scares the hell out of me. The massive inflation of art prices is essentially a tax escape and money laundering scheme. Brining the regular people into this game will attract even more attention from the authorities. If this happens the art market can collapse if the governments will figure out the money laundering game.
I don't understand why you (and others) bring up certain objections to art as an asset, but you would never bring up those same objections in the context of other assets.
@@sergeyzelvenskiy5126 are you saying it's hard to value art? Because I'm not an expert in real estate, either. When we don't know something, we consult the experts. That's what appraisals are for. My point is that objections to art can be said of other assets, but that doesn't make the objections anymore sensible. The objections make no sense no matter what asset. If anything, you're misunderstanding investing in general.
@@MBarberfan4life Works of art as assets are great for high net worth individuals. These mostly used for tax avoidance, money laundering, and appreciation. The financial schemes around art are very complex. Partial ownership has very different properties. If I own Van Gogh nobody else can own this. This asset is unique and in very short supply, thus it appreciates and holds value. When Van Gogh is owned by 1000 people, each piece is not that unique. A person short of cash might not even realize the value and dump it at a lower cost. So the value of 1/1000 of Van Gogh is questionable. Liquidity is questionable. The valuation is questionable as it relies on 1000 people holding up something they don't really understand.
What is confusing is actual ownership. Mastworks says they cant securitise a work unless they own it, but then they "raise money" to pay back that artwork. Question is, that money for that artwork that you "invest" in, can Masterworks use that money to buy other artworks by loan or otherwise?
