Browsing Category

Editorial

China and the End of Nice Things

China and the End of Nice Things

Last week my dishwasher broke. A 10 cent piece of plastic that held one of the baskets in place did what all plastic eventually does – it shattered. Disbelief quickly turned to anger when I remembered that I bought the appliance only 3 and 1/2 years ago. All I could think about was that if the manufacturer had spent a few extra cents on that inadequate plastic bit, my dishwasher would still be completely functional.

Unfortunately, the present-day trend toward poorly made consumer goods doesn’t look like it is about to end anytime soon. And there is one nation at the epicenter of this problem – China. China is by far the world’s largest producer of cheap and nasty consumer goods. The Western World, particularly the United States, imports container ship after container ship of their substandard products onto our shores every year. China is the reason we don’t have nice things anymore.

I realize that this assertion is a bit of an oversimplification. After all, giant multi-national corporations have moved their manufacturing capacity to China because it is generally the cheapest place to produce goods. If China didn’t exist, our corporate overlords would have relocated to some other sweatshop country, like Vietnam or Bangladesh.

And yet, the idea that Chinese manufacturing and nice things are mutually exclusive isn’t so farfetched. Since 2013, China has been the world’s largest producer of manufactured goods, with over 23% of global output. In spite of its manufacturing prowess, however, China is nowhere to be found when it comes to finely crafted luxury goods and other high quality items.

This is a shocking revelation when one considers that China became the world’s largest market for luxury goods in 2012. But wealthy Chinese generally don’t purchase Chinese-made luxury goods. Instead, they buy foreign branded and manufactured nice things.

Foreign brands, like Burberry, Cartier, Piaget, Louis Vuitton, Bulgari and Coach, are snapped up by Chinese citizens because they are considered to be the best quality luxury goods available. And these international luxury brands are inevitably not made in China. Rather, they are generally produced in traditional luxury goods production centers, like Italy, Switzerland, France, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.

It isn’t a coincidence most global luxury brands have opted to keep their manufacturing capacity in developed countries intact. The Western World has a strong and unbroken tradition of fine craftsmanship stretching back hundreds of years. If you want the best of the best, the very nicest of nice things, then you want something from a small Italian or Swiss workshop where techniques have been passed down uninterrupted from generation to generation. What you don’t want is a cobbled-together, not-quite-luxury-item assembled by an overworked Chinese peasant slaving away in a Shanghai sweatshop.

Now there are a handful of exceptions to this rule. There are a few Chinese jewelry companies, like Chow Tai Fook and Chow Sang Sang, that produce very high quality goods. However, it should be noted that most of these Chinese luxury goods companies were founded in Hong Kong. This is notable because Hong Kong was a British colony for more than 150 years, from 1841 until 1997. As a result, the native population of Hong Kong absorbed certain British cultural traditions, including a healthy respect for high quality craftsmanship and a general appreciation of the effort and pride necessary to create truly nice things.

Chinese jade carving is another luxury tradition that 40 years of oppressive communist rule on the mainland managed to decimate. Even today, most jade carving in China takes place in the city of Shenzen, which is located immediately adjacent to that most culturally distinct of Chinese cities, Hong Kong. While some jade carvings that come out of China today are truly superb, far too many are derivative and uninspired. This is in stark contrast to the amazingly skilled and inventive jade carvings that are becoming the norm among Western artists.

The fact is that most goods, particularly mass-produced goods, from China are junk. A handful of wonderful Chinese luxury goods float in an endless sea of cheap Chinese garbage. But these sparse Chinese luxury goods are all too often exceptions to the rule.

Most of the time the Chinese response to Western luxury brands is to create knock-off, unlicensed imitations. China has become a global byword for poor quality control and shoddy goods. No wonder the Chinese buy foreign luxury goods!

It is not that the Chinese people are genetically incapable of making nice things. To the contrary, Chinese civilization perfected some of the world’s most enduring art forms many centuries ago. These masterpieces have ranged from ancient Shang dynasty ceremonial bronzes to superlative Qing dynasty jade carvings to instantly-recognizable Ming dynasty blue and white porcelain.

The problem is that modern Chinese culture does not value attention to detail, artistic excellence or customer satisfaction. Instead, the prevailing Chinese business culture views customers as a resource to be exploited. Any sales technique, regardless of how unethical, is deemed acceptable by Chinese suppliers bent on separating naïve Westerners from their money. Slipshod mass-production of aesthetically boring, derivative works is the order of the day in China.

As terrible as it sounds, the relocation of global manufacturing to the Middle Kingdom has led to the end of nice things for most Western consumers. I believe that this makes high-quality, well-constructed antiques even more desirable. Savvy investors should take note.

 

Read more thought-provoking Antique Sage editorial articles here.

-or-

Read in-depth Antique Sage investment guides here.

Why Did the Major Auction Houses Abandon the Art Market’s Low End?

Why Did the Major Auction Houses Abandon the Art Market's Low End?

One of the most troubling art market trends of the last decade has been the stratospheric rise of ultra-expensive artwork while low to mid-priced works languish in obscurity.  A great example of this phenomenon was the November 2017 Christie’s auction of the recently rediscovered Leonardo Da Vinci painting, Salvator Mundi.  This work by that most celebrated of the Old Masters sold for an eye-watering $450.3 million, making it the world’s most expensive piece of art to date.

The bidding for the famous painting started at $100 million and rapidly rose in frenzied competition before finally settling at $400 million almost 20 minutes later.  Now you might well be wondering, if the hammer price for the work was $400, then where did the $450.3 million final price come from?  The answer to that, my friend, is the ultimate topic of this article.

The difference between the hammer price and the final price in an auction is called the buyer’s premium.  The buyer’s premium is effectively a commission paid by the winning bidder to the auction house for its services.  In the case of Leonardo Da Vinci’s Salvator Mundi, the buyer’s premium was a hefty $50.3 million.

Can you imagine it?  Getting paid over $50 million for auctioning a single artwork?  It must be nice work, if you can get it.  And the world’s two major art auction houses, Christie’s and Sotheby’s, get a lot of it.

Of course, Christie’s did incur certain expenses associated with auctioning the Renaissance masterpiece.  They had to pay for insurance, security, photography, authentication and marketing, in addition to the auction itself.  But even so, I’m certain Christie’s made a substantial profit on this particular transaction.  And this really encapsulates the prevailing business strategy of the world’s largest auction houses – conduct sales of the world’s most expensive artworks, charge a hefty buyer’s premium and then profit.

It didn’t used to be this way.  Back in the 1980s and 1990s, both Christie’s and Sotheby’s had divisions dedicated to auctioning art at the lower end of the market.  Christie’s affordable art subsidiary was known as Christie’s East, while Sotheby’s contender was called Sotheby’s Arcade.

Now when I use the term “lower end art” in this context, I am referring to works primarily priced between $1,000 and $5,000.  But I understand if you chafe at the thought that spending several thousand dollars on art is considered “low end”, especially when you can buy some really compelling works for just a few hundred dollars or less.

These “low price” divisions were an attempt by the two largest auction houses to compete for first-time art buyers, interior decorators and amateur art collectors.  These types of people were not lucrative, big-spending customers.  But the auction houses hoped they could one day be cultivated into dedicated art lovers – with budgets to match.

Unfortunately, this enlightened philosophy went out the window when the global economic storm clouds moved in.  Repeated financial crises in 2001 and 2008 hurt the middle class, damaging their ability and willingness to buy art.  Instead of toughing out these poor business conditions for the sake of building long-term relationships, the major auction houses cut and ran.  Christie’s closed its Christie’s East division in 2001, while Sotheby’s quietly wound down its Sotheby’s Arcade operations later on.  Neither company currently accepts any consignment that is estimated to be worth less than $5,000.

But that wasn’t the only move the big auction houses made to distance themselves from the low and mid range of the art market.  They have also engaged in an extensive series of buyer’s premium increases meant to discourage art collectors of more modest means.  These fee increases occurred in 2008, 2011, 2013, 2016 and 2017 for both major auction houses.  Right now, Christie’s and Sotheby’s levy an outrageous 25% buyer’s premium on purchases below $250,000 and $300,000, respectively.

If it seems suspicious to you that Christie’s and Sotheby’s tend to raise their prices in lockstep, you’re not alone.  Both companies were accused of price-fixing by U.S. regulators in the 1990s and ultimately agreed to pay a $512 million fine to settle the allegations.

It is clear that the largest auction houses do not want to be bothered with anything less than the very best and, by extension, most expensive artworks.  I believe there are a few major reasons for this.

First, the capital markets have become incredibly short sighted over the past 20 years.  Corporate CEOs are expected to produce immediate financial results regardless of the business environment.  CEOs who cannot or will not take the steps necessary to create prompt and robust profit growth are quickly ushered from their posts.  This ironclad law of modern business management has been ruthlessly applied to the world of auction houses, even though it is slowly gutting the industry from within.

Next, although the buyer’s premium (expressed as a percentage) declines as the value of an artwork sold at the major auction houses increases, the absolute value of commissions on high priced works is too lucrative to ignore.  The Leonardo Da Vinci Salvator Mundi painting mentioned earlier in the article is a prime example of this situation.  Christie’s and Sotheby’s would much rather make a billion dollars in sales by auctioning a hundred different $10 million paintings than by selling ten thousand paintings at only $100,000 each.

Finally, the increasing economic bifurcation between the middle class and the extravagantly wealthy has meant that the money is in the high end of the art market.  In fact, it is really in the ultra-high end of the market.  Generally, only the very best pieces by the most renowned artists, mostly in the post-World War II and contemporary space, have flourished in this environment.

While I feel that the worm will one day turn on this trend, for now it is inescapable.  The super-rich are buying more outrageously priced (and unconscionably ugly) art these days than ever before.  And it means that, for now at least, the major auction houses are content to ride the wave, even though I suspect they will come to regret their snubbing of the middle class one day.

 

Read more thought-provoking Antique Sage trend articles here.

-or-

Read in-depth Antique Sage investment guides here.

Beware of Wall Street Con Men

Beware of Wall Street Con Men

More than a decade ago I worked at a miserable back-office job in the bowels of the financial services industry.  But my true love was securities market analysis.  I was keenly interested in stock investing and was always looking for new investment strategies.  My specialty was options, a financial derivative that gives the buyer the right, but not the obligation, to purchase or sell a company’s stock for a fixed price within a certain period of time.

The thing I love most about options is that they are almost like Legos for investors.  You can put them together in almost any combination you can imagine in order to build exactly the kind of investment structure you want.  The best part is that you can easily determine the profit-loss characteristics of an options strategy before you invest a penny of your own money.  Pretty great, right?

But options, like all potentially complex financial instruments, must be treated with respect.  They are inherently levered derivative products that can just as easily magnify losses as gains.  So it is best for investors to tread carefully in this space.

But in 2005 I felt like a mad scientist, feverishly slapping different option spreads, collars and overwrites together in unorthodox combinations in order to synthesize the perfect investment.  One of the motivators behind my option-themed vision quest was the desire to create an investing strategy that could keep up with the then booming stock market, but with less risk.

And then I found it – the (nearly) perfect options strategy.  I was ecstatic.  This new options method boosted my projected investment returns by around 200 basis points, or 2%, per annum.  That is a massive performance increase in the world of investing.  Better yet, it increased potential returns while strictly controlling risk at the same time – a vitally important feature of any good investment plan.

But then I looked around and noticed something deeply disturbing.  You can’t compete with Wall Street con men.

If an honest man painstakingly finds a way to boost investment returns from 10% to 12%, the stock fraudsters will claim to be able to get 15% or 20%.  If an honest man discovers a new, low-risk investment strategy, the securities con artists will falsely say that their investments have no risk whatsoever.  If an honest man invents a legitimate way to lower volatility in a portfolio without compromising returns, the Wall Street con men will purport to construct portfolios with high returns and no volatility at all.

Unfortunately, my cynicism surrounding the securities industry is borne out of experience.  For example, back during the housing bubble in the mid 2000s, Wall Street con men in very expensive suits were selling shady CDO (collateralized debt obligation) and RMBS (residential mortgage-backed security) securities as substitutes for ultra-safe U.S. Treasury bonds.  Investment advisors and portfolio managers stuffed these dubious AAA-rated CDOs and RMBSs into the investment accounts of unsuspecting victims all over the country.

And they were AAA-rated securities, but only because the rating agencies had been bribed; they were cut-in on the action by the Wall Street con men!  In the end, huge numbers of these worthless CDO and RMBS securities went to zero during the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

Bernie Madoff is another poster child for the ubiquitous Wall Street crime syndicate.  He ran a well-respected wealth management business that claimed to use options to achieve exceedingly high returns with unnatural consistency. In reality, Madoff presided over one of the world’s greatest Ponzi schemes, which totaled some $50 billion.

And he kept up the charade for an astounding 15 plus years until it spectacularly collapsed in late 2008.  His victims, mostly non-profit charities, have only recovered a small fraction of their losses.  As a final insult, Bernie Madoff had served as the vice-chairman of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), Wall Street’s self-regulatory agency!

There is a trend here.  Whatever returns you can safely achieve in an investment will always be bettered by the Wall Street con men.  A con artist will always tell you exactly what you want to hear in order to separate you from your money.

This revelation is especially pertinent in our current bubble market environment.  Today’s Wall Street con men push stock investments in companies like graphics card manufacturer Nvidia, Chinese social media platform Weibo, or mobile app maker Snap.  All of these firms trade at prices that will never be justified by future business results.  But all that matters to smitten stock market investors right now is the siren song of easy profits.

The fact is that there is no such thing as a completely risk-free investment.  Even such staid financial instruments as U.S. Treasuries and bank CDs have some miniscule risk associated with them.  But there is a world of difference between the harrowing risks of today’s bubble stocks and the very modest risks of overlooked alternative assets, like fine art and antiques.

Buying bubble stocks is certain to make you destitute, but not before the Wall Street con men have paid themselves some very nice bonuses from your wallet first.  On the other hand, fine art, antiques and other tangible assets will earn you a nice, steady return on your money, provided you do your homework and choose wisely.

I encourage you to take a step back and really think about the investments you have in your retirement and brokerage accounts.  Steer clear of the “sure thing”, “can’t lose” investments pushed by glib Wall Street con men.  They will tell you anything they think you want to hear in order to get your money.  And when the inevitable financial crisis eventually arrives, they will disappear like thieves into the night, because they are thieves.

 

Read more thought-provoking Antique Sage investing articles here.

-or-

Read in-depth Antique Sage investment guides here.

The Importance of Premium Storage for Antiques and Valuables

The Importance of Premium Storage for Antiques and Valuables

One of the things I find most puzzling about valuables is how many people insist on storing them in the cheapest containers possible.  For example, my grandmother used to keep her old silver coins in leftover plastic pill bottles.  A lot of women store their best jewelry in the same cheap Wal-Mart jewelry box that they use for their nastiest costume jewelry.  Other people have no compunctions about tossing their treasured family heirlooms into cardboard shoeboxes.

Sure, I understand the reasoning behind the phenomenon.  A lot of people keep their valuables in non-premium storage because it is convenient (and cheap) to use whatever is on hand.  However, the Tupperware containers, plywood boxes and cardboard cartons most of us have lying around are rarely appropriate for the long-term storage of high value items.

As you can probably guess, I believe that valuables like antiques, jewelry and other precious items should be kept in premium storage.  Now, this very much reflects my personal opinion.  But it also makes a certain amount of sense.  After all, an item that costs hundreds or even thousands of dollars deserves to be housed in a container befitting its price tag.

Is it reasonable to bury your grandmother’s antique cameo brooch in your sock drawer?  Is it sensible to store your treasured Rolex watch in a cardboard box at the bottom of your closet?  Is it appropriate to dump your engagement ring into a plastic tray on top of your dresser at the end of a long day at work?

Sure, you can store valuables this way, but should you?  Is it logical to treat rare, high-value or sentimentally-important valuables as if they were common, everyday items that aren’t meaningful and can easily be replaced?

For many hundreds of years, the wealthiest members of society kept their very finest items in premium storage.  When European nobility became obsessed with collecting ancient Greek coins in the 16th and 17th centuries, they naturally gravitated towards a storage solution that was as regal as the coins themselves – mahogany coin cabinets.  Not only did cabinets made from mahogany look amazingly beautiful, but the wood was also chemically neutral.  This ensured that any coins stored in a mahogany coin case didn’t corrode or tarnish due to resins or oils exuded by the wood.

Of course, these days we have third-party certified coins, which are held in chemically inert, sonically-sealed, clear plastic holders.  And while these slabs are certainly practical from a handling and preservation standpoint, many collectors feel they are clinical and impersonal.

I tend to agree with these assessments, which is why I bought myself a real Honduran mahogany coin cabinet by a skilled British woodworker, Peter Nichols.  Peter Nichol’s mahogany coin cabinets might be expensive, but they really are the ultimate premium storage solution for uncertified rare coins.  I feel it was money well spent; so do most people who see it.

Of course, other valuables besides coins can benefit from the right premium storage too.  This is one of the reasons I’m obsessed with fine hardwood boxes.  The very best hardwood boxes are typically hand-crafted from the finest woods known to man.  They can be made from either deciduous or tropical hardwoods, including walnut, mahogany, cherry, rosewood and ebony.  These beautiful hardwood boxes are the perfect premium storage pieces for high-end jewelry, wristwatches or objets d’art.  The best of the best are even signed by their makers; they transcend being mere boxes and become works of art in their own right.

I’m also a fan of antiques that come with their original cases.  These can be tough to find, but they are a real treat when you do come across them.  Vintage fountain pens, cigarette holders and estate jewelry are among the most likely antiques to come with their original (sometimes fitted) cases.  Original cases not only provide stylish premium storage, but they also raise the value of the antiques in question, provided they are still in good condition.

However, an item doesn’t have to be old to come with a great original case.  In 2008, the U.S. Mint decided to update the packaging for its 1 troy ounce proof American Buffalo gold coin.  These coins are the collector’s version of the popular American Buffalo gold bullion coin.  The mint ended up going with an aesthetically-striking, leatherette-trimmed hardwood display case that evokes images of the Old West.  It perfectly captured the rugged zeitgeist of the American Buffalo gold coin.

I have no doubt that in the future coin collectors will ardently seek out these proof gold coins in their original mint packaging.  And they may not be as easy to find as you think either.  Many of these coins are removed from their original cases and sent to third-party grading services shortly after leaving the U.S. Mint.  In 40 or 50 years, these masterpiece proof coins in their original issue packaging may be quite scarce.

I believe that plastic and cardboard are acceptable for some applications.  I expect my kitchen appliances to make liberal use of plastic, for instance.  I expect the items I order from Amazon to arrive entombed in (a multitude) of cardboard containers.  But I don’t think the most monetarily valuable objects that I own should be wrapped in cheap plastics, chipboard and cardboard.

Luckily, premium storage made from high end materials, like hardwoods, velvet and leather, offers a great solution.  Yes, buying a fine hardwood valet or jewelry box will cost more than a few dollars.  But I think it is worth it to avoid having yet another cheap, mass produced, “made in China” box floating around the house.

 

Read more thought-provoking Antique Sage editorial articles here.

-or-

Read in-depth Antique Sage investment guides here.