I am a businessman and art collector who was recently
approached by a colleague with an interesting proposition: Would I lend him
money, using his art collection as collateral. My art advisor, who did not feel
the work meshed well with my own collection, warned against it, and I declined.
But I was intrigued. Under what circumstances would such a deal make sense, and
what would be the important steps/considerations to keep in mind? There are few circumstances in
which it makes sense for an investor to lend money using art as collateral. The
art world is complex, and even with the right art advisor at your side, it can
be difficult to fully understand the market value of the collection in question.
Large firms such as Sotheby’s offer short-term loans to collectors using art as
collateral, but they rely on a wide base of market knowledge to protect
themselves. Citigroup offers loans using art as collateral through its private
bank, but its customers have significant liquid assets in addition to their art
collections. When lending money against an art collection, the first step is
to obtain a fair-market value appraisal. Instead of contacting the art dealer
who originally sold the art, seek an independent appraiser with proven
credentials in the field. If you proceed, lend no more than 50 percent of the
total value of the collection. Bear in mind that in the event of a default and
liquidation, transaction costs can be high—as much as 20 percent in the case of
auction houses, sometimes more when selling through private dealers. And if the
collection does not sell at once, storage fees may accrue. Theses hidden costs
are often enough to discourage private investors from involvement with loans
using art as collateral. Wendy Cromwell, Cromwell Art, New York Art lending
is common, but is a skilled process involving
relatively high risk. The most difficult thing to establish is the value of a
piece. The insurance (or full retail replacement cost) value is naturally higher
than the mid-auction estimate. Art loans would normally be up to 50 percent of
this lower valuation, and the valuation would be from an obviously independent
and expert valuer. At the same time, the art itself would need to be liquid, so if
the lender did keep it, there would be a market where he could sell and realize
cash to satisfy the debt. The art must be properly insured. Finally, lenders
have encountered problems in which clients have disappeared with both the loan
and their art; this is a risk that insurers will not normally cover. Charles Dupplin, fine art and private client division, Hiscox, London Unless you
want to own the art, don’t
lend money if you aren’t confident that you will be repaid. Should the loan go
bad and it’s not art you want for your collection, you should be prepared to
sell or donate it. For these purposes, you must be assured prior to lending the
money that the works are internationally marketable and desirable in the current
marketplace. You should also obtain a reputable appraisal from one of the major
auction houses supporting the amount you are lending (the standard loan-to-value
ratio is 50 percent). When properly structured, art loans allow the borrower to gain
liquidity from a traditionally illiquid asset without having to sell the art,
and give the lender an opportunity to offer a unique, low-risk lending
solution. Suzanne Gyorgy, art finance director, Citigroup Private Bank, New
York In this case,
using art as collateral for loans would not seem to be a sound business
decision. If the person wanting to borrow the money is a friend or colleague, it
could strain the relationship if any of the variable risks, such as a default,
were to occur. It would be difficult to have the collection accurately appraised
and evaluated, and insuring the art could be complicated. Also, the art market
or the particular genre could suffer a big correction. If you had no desire to
keep the artwork, it would have to be sold at substantial discounts. There are times when such a move might be considered, however.
If: • The lender is in the business of buying/selling art and
knows the art market. • The lender is experienced in loaning money against
tangible assets, such as art, for high returns. • The lender would not need to liquidate if the loan
defaulted and could wait for the right opportunity to sell. • The lender feels the risk is worth the return and the
possibility of owning the art collection. Julie Cline, Julie Cline Fine Arts Advisory Service, Santa
Barbara, Calif. Send Us Your Questions. Are you wrestling
with family issues, business governance or succession decisions, investment or
estate planning dilemmas, problems related to philanthropic activities or
foundations, or a similar predicament? We invite you to email a detailed
question to advisorsforum@worth.com.
|