A $180 Million Picasso: What’s Making the Art Market Sizzle
The art market is hotter than a hoisted Rembrandt.
Last night at Christie’s in New York, Picasso’s “Les Femmes d’Alger (Version O)” sold for almost $180 million – the highest price ever paid at auction for a piece of art. There were said to be five bidders, and the winner remains anonymous.
At the same sale, a Giacometti sculpture, “L’homme au doigt,” went for a total of more than $141 million.
On May 5, at the first major auction of the spring selling season, Sotheby’s pulled in $368 million. It was the second-highest sale of Impressionist and modern art in the history of the auction house, according to The New York Times. The top seller was van Gogh’s “L’allée Des Alyscamps,” which fetched $66.3 million.
Related: 6 Traits of an Emerging Millionaire. Are you one?
The haul represented a 67 percent increase over Sotheby’s spring sale a year earlier, according to Bloomberg, which noted that many of the buyers were Asian.
The May 5 auction was only the second-highest because Sotheby’s held a sale last November that took in $422 million.
And tonight at a Sotheby’s auction of contemporary art, a painting entitled “The Ring (Engagement)” by the Pop artist Roy Lichtenstein could sell for as much as $50 million, the Times said.
What’s behind all those staggering numbers?
About a year and a half ago, the columnist Felix Salmon (then at Reuters, now at Fusion) ruminated about whether there was a bubble, which he defined as often driven by FOMO (fear of missing out), or a speculative bubble, one fueled by flippers, in the art market. His conclusion: the art market bubble was definitely not speculative.
“The people spending millions of dollars on trophy art aren’t buying to flip…,” he wrote.
Related: Get Ready for Another Real Estate Bubble
Still, Salmon said he was seeing signs that the market could be turning speculative. But they may have been false signals.
Recently, The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Spurred by the momentum of several successful sale seasons and an influx of newly wealthy global bidders, the major auction houses…say demand for status art is at historic levels and shows no signs of tapering off.”
But why?
In an April 17 article, the global news website Worldcrunch asked Financial Times journalist Georgina Adam, who wrote the 2014 book Big Bucks—The Explosion of the Art Market in the 21st Century, why so much money is rolling around the art market and driving up prices.
“Rich people used to be rich in terms of estate or assets, but not so much in terms of cash, like they are today,” she said.
“This growing billionaire population from developed or developing economies has money to spend and invest,” said the Worldcrunch article by Catherine Cochard. “For many of them, art — in the same way as luxury cars or prêt-à-porter — is an entry pass to a globalized way of life accessible through their wealth.”
That is a development that the keen eyes at the auction houses haven’t missed.
The 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
The birth rate in the U.S. is finally seeing an uptick after falling during the recession. Births tend to fall during hard economic times because having a baby and raising a child are expensive propositions.
Costs are not the same everywhere, though. Some states are better than others for family budgets, and health care quality varies widely from place to place.
A new report from WalletHub looks at the cost of delivering a baby in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as overall health care quality and the general “baby-friendliness” of each state – a mix of variables including average birth weights, pollution levels and the availability of child care.
Mississippi ranks as the worst state to have a baby, despite having the lowest average infant-care costs in the nation. Unfortunately, the Magnolia State also has the highest rate of infant deaths and one of lowest numbers of pediatricians per capita.
Related: Which States Have the Most Unwanted Babies?
On the other end of the scale, Vermont ranks as the best state for having a baby. Vermont has both the highest number of pediatricians and the highest number of child centers per capita. But before packing your bags, it’s worth considering the frigid winters in the Green Mountain State and the amount of money you’ll need to spend on winter clothing and heat.
Here are the 10 worst and 10 best states for having a baby:
Top 10 Worst States to Have a Baby
1. Mississippi
- Budget Rank: 18
- Health Care Rank: 51
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 29
2. Pennsylvania
- Budget Rank: 37
- Health Care Rank: 36
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 51
3. West Virginia
- Budget Rank: 13
- Health Care Rank: 48
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 50
4. South Carolina
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 43
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 49
5. Nevada
- Budget Rank: 39
- Health Care Rank: 35
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 46
6. New York
- Budget Rank: 46
- Health Care Rank: 12
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 47
7. Louisiana
- Budget Rank: 8
- Health Care Rank: 50
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 26
8. Georgia
- Budget Rank: 6
- Health Care Rank: 46
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 43
9. Alabama
- Budget Rank: 3
- Health Care Rank: 47
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 44
10. Arkansas
- Budget Rank: 12
- Health Care Rank: 49
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 37
Top 10 Best States to Have a Baby
1. Vermont
- Budget Ranks: 17
- Health Care Rank: 1
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 5
2. North Dakota
- Budget Rank: 10
- Health Care Rank: 14
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 10
3. Oregon
- Budget Rank: 38
- Health Care Rank: 2
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 14
4. Hawaii
- Budget Rank: 31
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 1
5. Minnesota
- Budget Rank: 32
- Health Care Rank: 5
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 12
6. Kentucky
- Budget Rank: 1
- Health Care Rank: 33
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 20
7. Maine
- Budget Rank: 25
- Health Care Rank: 10
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 15
8. Wyoming
- Budget Rank: 22
- Health Care Rank: 17
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 7
9. Iowa
- Budget Rank: 14
- Health Care Rank: 25
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 9
10. Alaska
- Budget Rank: 50
- Health Care Rank: 6
- Baby Friendly Environment Rank: 2
Top Reads From The Fiscal Times
- The 10 Worst States for Property Taxes
- Americans Are About to Get a Nice Fat Pay Raise
- You’re Richer Than You Think. Really.
Worried About a Recession? Here’s When the Next Slump Will Hit
The next recession may be coming sooner than you think.
Eleven of the 31 economists recently surveyed by Bloomberg believed the American recession would hit in 2018, and all but two of them expected the recession to begin within the next five years.
If the recession begins in 2018, the expansion would have lasted nine years, making it the second-longest period of growth in U.S. history after the decade-long expansion that ended when the tech bubble burst in 2001. This average postwar expansion averages about five years.
The recent turmoil in the stock market and the slowdown in China has more investors and analysts using the “R-word,” but the economists surveyed by Bloomberg think we have a bit of time. They pegged the chance of recession over the next 12 months to just 10 percent.
Related: Stocks Are Sending a Recession Warning
While economists talk about the next official recession, many average Americans feel like they’re still climbing out of the last one. In a data brief released last week, the National Employment Law Project found that wages have declined since 2009 for most U.S. workers, when factoring in cost of living increases.
A full jobs recovery is at least two years away, according to an analysis by economist Elise Gould with the Economic Policy Institute. “Wage growth needs to be stronger—and consistently strong for a solid spell—before we can call this a healthy economy,” she wrote in a recent blog post.
Top Reads from The Fiscal Times:
- This CEO Makes 1,951 Times More Than Most of His Workers
- Seven Reasons Why the Fed Won’t Hike Interest Rates
- $42 Million for 54 Recruits: U.S. Program to Train Syrian Rebels Is a Disaster