DesignAddict Forums


	> Edit your post


	title of this thread your message As an aside, the staggeringly high prices paid for paintings started back in the 1980s when an American regional shopping center developer reputedly was going through a lean cash flow period and got inspired to buy an old, but struggling art auction house in NYC and introduce financing to the art market reputedly to help inflate its values, spike auction house revenues, and help the person, whomever he was, through some lean times. If true, it was a classic financial play. Introduce financing, watch the number of potential bidders hugely expand, then watch prices skyrocket from the leverage. Booms and busts took over the once conservative, stable art market, just as one observes in other markets of financed assets. But once art markets got addicted to financing, it never went away and I believe continues to contribute to some extent to rising prices. So all things considered, while there maybe a lot of room for great architecture to appreciate in value, it seems there are understandable drivers for Picasso paintings to be worth a lot more than a Wright house. Now, to question number 1: is furniture undervalued versus real estate? By this I think you mean, should furniture, due to its huge contribution to the utility of a house, constitute a larger component of the total value of a furnished home? Furniture's percentage of total property value is based on the tendency for most of it to decline in value over time to almost nothing. USA tax law, in fact, depreciates commercial buildings over something like 30 years, and furniture and fixtures at something like 3-5 years. Furniture is also usually considered part of the business and not part of the real estate, at least in commercial real estate, so furniture's price is underpinned mostly by what a business can justify spending, rather than what the real estate enterprise can justify. Built in furnishings are considered part of the fixed assets of real estate, but even they may have shorter depreciable lives to the tax man in segmented cost accounting than the building itself. But getting more basic still, furniture costs less than, say, a commercial real estate building, because an single building, regardless of who designs it, is a much larger constellation of sunken contractual costs than would be a single, chair, or even all of the furniture in a building, unless that building were full of priceless masterpieces of furniture. associated web images (optional) associated web link (optional) your email your password create a forums account \| you forgot your password?