Art Is a Rising Focus for Wealth Managers and Family Offices

The value of art and collectibles owned by the world’s wealthiest individuals totaled nearly US$2.2 trillion as of last year, an amount that could grow to nearly US$2.9 trillion by 2026, according to recent analysis from wealth management advisor Deloitte Private and ArtTactic, a research and analysis firm. Yet, the art market overall has grown only 0.6% annually since 2008, failing to keep up with inflation, and with the surge of growth in overall global wealth.

Deloitte Private—a division of U.K.-based Deloitte—and London-based ArtTactic said in the eighth edition of their biennial Art & Finance Report. That means there are many more wealthy people who could own art. The report proposes an intriguing reason for the stunted growth: The fact that more than three-quarters of auction sales are generated by the work of a little more than 1% of all artists.

“We can assume that only a small percent of art buyers are behind these transactions, which leaves us with a heavy concentration around a small number of artists and buyers—plus a small number of art professionals (galleries, auction houses, etc.),” the report said. “Could this be one of the main reasons for the art market’s overall lacklustre growth in the last decade?”

The more than 400-page report, which examines trends and developments at the intersection of art and wealth management, is informed by surveys with private wealth managers and this year, with several family offices, where art and collectibles comprise 13.4% of client assets—five percentage points more than at private banks.

“While art and collectibles provide portfolio diversification and potential value appreciation, they often are a more personal investment with emotional ties to the family’s interests and preferences,” Wolf Tone, the global leader of Deloitte Private, said in the report.

Overall, 89% of wealth managers in addition to collectors and art professionals who were also surveyed, believe “art and collectible wealth should be part of a wealth management offering,” up from 65% that said so in the first Art & Finance survey in 2011. One reason art is touted as an investment option is its value doesn’t move in sync with traditional market instruments; another reason is the perception that the art market’s performance has been relatively strong compared with measures such as the S&P 500—a broad measure of U.S. stocks.

Fine art indexes developed by New York-based Artnet Worldwide Corp. reveal a more nuanced picture. In the five years up to the first half of 2023, the compound annual growth rate for fine art was a negative 0.4% compared with a 10.4% gain for the S&P 500, according to Artnet. Looking at individual investing categories, European Old Masters recorded a 1.6% CAGR in that period, while global post-war art (by those born between 1911 and 1944) posted a CAGR of 1.4%. Over 10 years, the CAGR for fine art overall was only 0.1% compared with a 10.7% gain for the S&P 500, according to Artnet. Artnet analysts noted in the report, however, that art—as a physical asset—is a better hedge against inflation than traditional market instruments, such as stocks, which are valued according to the expected future cash flows of their underlying businesses. Fine art returns rose 4.2% between January 2022 and July 2023 compared with a 6.6% decline in the S&P 500.

“Despite a spike in inflation and higher interest rates, art prices suffered less than other asset classes during this period of economic stress, demonstrating the asset class’ ability to serve partially as an effective hedge, especially regarding the blue-chip, high-end fine art category,” the report said. Though the report confirmed that most people still buy art because they like it—60% of collectors are driven by art’s “emotional value,” consistent with past years—financial factors are rising in importance. For the first time, 41% of collectors surveyed said their primary motivation for buying art was financial, overtaking “social value” as the second-ranked motivation.

One reason is that younger collectors are largely driven by financial considerations: 83% cite potential investment returns as a key reason to buy art, up from 50% in the last survey in 2021. Of those surveyed, 61% also cited portfolio diversification as a driver and 51% said art can be a safe haven in uncertain times, up from 34% in 2021.

“This tells us about how the new generation of collectors may relate to art as an alternative capital asset class, both now and in the future,” the report said. The rise of art investment vehicles, particularly fractional-art platforms that allow individuals to buy a share in a painting as they would a share of stock, are another factor: 50% of younger collectors are interested in fractional ownership, up from 43% in 2021, the report said. The most popular way to buy art remains just that—directly buying a piece, according to 88% of collectors and 83% of art professionals.

Yet fractional ownership is making inroads, particularly as more initiatives offer options that are supervised by regulators in the U.S., Europe, and Asia. Though resistance remains, the report said the emergence of these platforms “could allow art and collectible assets to be more easily integrated into asset management allocation strategies in the future.”

A sharp technology sell-off has exposed a new anxiety on global markets: whether the enormous borrowing behind the artificial-intelligence infrastructure boom can generate sufficient returns as interest rates rise and Chinese competition intensifies.

The artificial-intelligence investment boom has powered technology shares, semiconductor manufacturers and data-centre operators to extraordinary heights. Last week, investors were given a reminder that much of this expansion is being built with borrowed money.

The technology-heavy Nasdaq Composite fell 4.5 per cent over the week ended October 16, its weakest performance since late June. Semiconductor shares suffered an even deeper correction, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index losing about 11.4 per cent.

The selling spread quickly through global markets. Micron Technology fell 14.6 per cent over the week, while South Korea’s Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix dropped approximately 18 per cent and 24 per cent respectively.

This was more than a routine bout of profit-taking. Investors were reassessing three interconnected risks: higher interest rates, the rapidly expanding debt burden attached to AI infrastructure and the prospect of stronger competition from Chinese memory-chip manufacturers.

The debt behind the AI build-out

Artificial intelligence requires a physical infrastructure network of enormous scale. Data centres must be built, advanced processors purchased, power supplies secured and cooling systems installed before customers begin generating meaningful revenue from them.

Technology companies are increasingly supplementing their own cash with corporate bonds, syndicated loans, equipment leases, private credit and project-level financing.

JPMorgan describes the emerging funding model as a combination of conventional corporate borrowing and project finance tied to individual data-centre assets. In Australia, the Reserve Bank estimates that syndicated loans accounted for approximately three-quarters of data-centre financing during 2025 and 2026 to date.

The numbers are becoming large enough to affect broader credit markets. The Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has cited Wall Street estimates suggesting AI-related investment-grade bond issuance could approach US$300 billion in 2026 alone.

That borrowing is not automatically problematic. Debt can be an efficient way to finance long-lived infrastructure when future revenue is sufficiently predictable. The concern is that AI technology, customer demand and computing economics are changing much faster than the repayment schedules attached to the assets.

A data centre financed today may carry debt for years. Investors must therefore make assumptions about future utilisation rates, electricity prices, chip performance, customer concentration and the amount businesses will ultimately pay for AI computing.

When interest rates rise, those assumptions become less forgiving.

Inflation changes the calculation

September’s US inflation data intensified the pressure. Consumer prices increased 3.7 per cent over the year, ahead of market expectations and up from 3.4 per cent in August.

The hotter reading reduced confidence that interest rates would fall quickly and pushed bond yields higher. That matters particularly for companies whose valuations depend on profits expected well into the future, as well as highly leveraged infrastructure operators that may need to refinance.

CoreWeave has emerged as a closely watched test case. The specialist cloud-computing company has accumulated substantial debt and lease obligations to build AI capacity, while relying on a concentrated group of large technology customers.

Its shares fell sharply during the sell-off, while the cost of insuring its debt against default climbed. CoreWeave has argued that its contracted backlog more than covers its obligations and that financial markets do not always understand its business model. Nevertheless, its securities have become a proxy for investor confidence in debt-funded AI infrastructure.

Oracle, another major investor in AI computing capacity, fell 8.8 per cent in Friday trading, while CoreWeave dropped 15.5 per cent.

The question is shifting from how much AI infrastructure can be built to how profitably it can be operated.

China adds another source of pressure

Interest rates were not the only catalyst. Reports of advances by Chinese memory-chip producer ChangXin Memory Technologies raised concerns that lower-cost Chinese products could increase competition across the global semiconductor industry.

Memory chips are essential to AI systems, but the industry is historically cyclical. Periods of tight supply and high pricing can encourage rapid investment, eventually producing oversupply and falling margins.

The prospect of a well-funded Chinese competitor expanding its technological capabilities unsettled investors in Samsung, SK Hynix and Micron. It also demonstrated that AI-related demand does not insulate chipmakers from conventional competitive pressures.

That combination—slower rate cuts, more expensive financing and potentially cheaper supply—challenged the assumption that every company exposed to AI would enjoy continually expanding margins.

A reset rather than the end of the boom

The sell-off does not establish that the AI boom is ending. Demand for computing power remains strong, the largest technology companies continue to generate formidable cash flows and many infrastructure projects are backed by long-term customer contracts.

What has changed is the market’s willingness to overlook the price and financing structure of that growth.

The most resilient companies are likely to be those able to fund investment from operating cash flow, secure long-duration customers and demonstrate that new capacity will earn returns comfortably above its financing costs.

More speculative operators may face greater scrutiny, particularly where debt is expensive, customers are concentrated or expected revenue depends on demand that has not yet materialised.

For Australian investors, the lesson extends beyond US technology shares. Local data-centre operators, infrastructure funds, electricity suppliers and property groups are increasingly exposed to the same investment cycle.

Artificial intelligence may remain one of the defining growth themes of the decade. But last week’s correction showed that enthusiasm for the technology does not eliminate financial discipline.

The next stage of the AI boom will be judged not only by computing power, model performance or demand for chips, but by something more traditional: whether the assets being financed can generate enough cash to repay the money borrowed to build them.

Fact box

Nasdaq Composite: Down 4.5 per cent for the week ended October 16, 2026

Philadelphia Semiconductor Index: Down approximately 11.4 per cent

Micron Technology: Down approximately 14.6 per cent

Samsung Electronics: Down approximately 18 per cent

SK Hynix: Down approximately 24 per cent

US September inflation: 3.7 per cent annually

Estimated 2026 AI-related investment-grade issuance: Approximately US$300 billion