sure. here's the work i am refering to, incase anyone has any interest. SAC paid 20 million for this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/gallery/image/0,8543,-10404640117,00.html surfer
I know a few HFMs reading here, but they do not contribute anything. It was sub $10M for the 15 feet of dead tigershark. But Cohen paid $100M for a Jackson Pollock and a Andy Warhol.
there are various stories concerning the actual cost: "Damien Hirstâs sudden embrace of painting coincides with a similar shift on the part of his most famous patron, Charles Saatchi. Last January, the press-shy collector celebrated the twentieth anniversary of his London gallery by mounting a show called âThe Triumph of Painting,â relegating his considerable holdings of âSensationâ-era sculpture, installation, and conceptual art to storage. That same month, Saatchi divested himself of Hirstâs shark-in-a-vitrine, purchased in 1992 for $93,000, and sold to hedge-fund manager Stephen Cohen for $13 million." http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/11086/ http://improbable.typepad.com/improbable_research_whats/2005/02/preserving_the_.html i stand corrected on the figure. thank you for the information. surfer
At first I wrote "more like 10M" but then my recollection was slightly fading towars "sub 10M", so I edited my post. Think you are right this time, it was above 10M.
reality: http://www.iasg.com/mainframe.asp? http://www.hedgeindex.com/ The value of fine art is always a function of how much money is floating around the world. The taste involved is somewhat more revealing of the purchaser.
Damn, I would better be careful with my predictions, they might decide to play it and I will be responsible for a few millions in the red, if it doesn't get fullfilled.
These days anybody with USD100k in their account is calling themselves a hedge fund manager...............
i have noticed that the term "hedge fund" has lost its cache'. "asset management" "private fund" these words, among others seem to be taking the place. surfer