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.
Majority of Tax Cuts Going to Filers Earning More Than $100K: JCT
Ahead of a House Ways and Means Committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, the Joint Committee on Taxation prepared an analysis of the distributional effects of the 2017 Republican tax bill. The New York Times’ Jim Tankersley highlighted the fact that according to the JCT analysis, about 75 percent of the individual and business benefits of the tax cuts will go to filers earning more than $100,000 in 2019. And nearly half of the benefits will flow to filers earning over $200,000.
The Trump Budget's $1.2 Trillion in 'Phantom Revenues'
President Trump’s 2020 budget includes up to $1.2 trillion in “potentially phantom revenues” — money that comes from taxes the administration opposes or from tax hikes that face strong opposition from businesses, The Wall Street Journal’s Richard Rubin reports, citing data from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That total, covering 2020 through 2029, includes as much as $390 billion in taxes created under the Affordable Care Act, which the president wants to repeal.
The $1.2 trillion in questionable revenue projections is in addition to the White House budget’s projected deficits of $7.3 trillion for the 10-year period. That total is itself questionable, given that the president’s budget relies on optimistic assumptions about economic growth and some unrealistic spending cuts, meaning that the deficits could be significantly higher than projected.
Republicans Push Ahead on Medicaid Restrictions
The Trump administration on Friday approved Ohio’s request to impose work requirements on Medicaid recipients. Starting in 2021, the state will require most able-bodied adults aged 19 to 49 to either work, go to school, be in job training or volunteer for 80 hours a month in order to receive Medicaid benefits. Those who fail to meet the requirements over 60 days will be removed from the system, although they can reapply immediately.
The new work requirements include exemptions for pregnant women, caretakers and those living in counties with high unemployment rates and will apply only to those covered through the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. There are currently about 540,000 people on Medicaid in Ohio who receive coverage through the expansion, according to Kaitlin Schroeder of The Dayton Daily News, compared to roughly 2.6 million Medicaid recipients in the state overall.
Once implemented, the work requirements are expected to result in 36,000 people losing their Medicaid eligibility, according to state officials, though critics say the reductions could be significantly larger. Similar work requirements in Arkansas pushed 18,000 people off the Medicaid rolls in six months.
A larger GOP project: The creation of new work requirements is part of a larger effort by Republicans to limit the expansion of Medicaid, says The Wall Street Journal’s Stephanie Armour. Since the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, 36 states have expanded their Medicaid programs under the ACA and the number of people in the program has grown by 50 percent, from roughly 50 million to about 75 million. But many red-state governors have expressed concerns about the cost of Medicaid expansion and worries about a lack of self-sufficiency among the able-bodied poor, and are embracing new limitations on the program for both fiscal and political reasons.
In 2017, the White House in 2017 gave states the green light to explore ways to limit the reach and expense of their Medicaid programs. Governors have proposed a variety of new rules, which require waivers from the federal government to enact. Kentucky, for example, wants to drug-test Medicaid recipients, and Utah wants a partial expansion and a cap on payments. Kaiser Health News summarizes the variety of waivers states have requested, which are governed by Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, in the chart below.
Legal challenges: Efforts to restrict Medicaid have received legal challenges, and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocked work requirements in Kentucky last year. The same judge, who has expressed doubts about the administration’s approach to Medicaid, will rule on the legality of work requirements in both Kentucky and Arkansas by April 1.
The bottom line: The Trump administration is seeking fundamental changes in how Medicaid works. Even if Boasberg rules against work requirements, expect the White House and Republican governors to continue to push for new limitations on the program.
Chart of the Day: Trump's Huge Proposed Cuts to Public Investment
Ben Ritz of the Progressive Policy Institute slams President Trump’s new budget:
“It would dismantle public investments that lay the foundation for economic growth, resulting in less innovation. It would shred the social safety net, resulting in more poverty. It would rip away access to affordable health care, resulting in more disease. It would cut taxes for the rich, resulting in more income inequality. It would bloat the defense budget, resulting in more wasteful spending. And all this would add up to a higher national debt than the policies in President Obama’s final budget proposal.”
Here’s Ritz’s breakdown of Trump’s proposed spending cuts to public investment in areas such as infrastructure, education and scientific research:
Chart of the Day: The Decline in Corporate Taxes
Since roughly the end of World War Two, individual income taxes in the U.S. have equaled about 8 percent of GDP. By contrast, the Tax Policy Center says, “corporate income tax revenues declined from 6% of GDP in 1950s to under 2% in the 1980s through the Great Recession, and have averaged 1.4% of GDP since then.”
