Sky-high pricey artworks may not be flying off the auction block right now, but the art market is actually doing just fine.
That’s a key takeaway from a 190-plus page report written by Art Economics founder Clare McAndrew and published Thursday morning by Art Basel and UBS. The results were based on a survey of more than 3,600 collectors with US$1 million in investable assets located in 14 markets around the world.
That the art market is doing relatively well is backed by several data points from the survey that show collectors are buying plenty of art—just at lower prices—and that they are making more purchases through galleries and art fairs versus auction houses.
It’s also backed by the perception of a “robust art market feeling,” which was evident at Art Basel Paris last week, says Matthew Newton, art advisory specialist with UBS Family Office Solutions in New York.
“It was busy and the galleries were doing well,” Newton says, noting that several dealers offered top-tier works—“the kind of stuff you only bring out to share if you have a decent amount of confidence.”
That optimism is reflected in the survey results, which found 91% of respondents were optimistic about the global art market in the next six months. That’s up from the 77% who expressed optimism at the end of last year.
Moreover, the median expenditure on fine art, decorative art and antiques, and other collectibles in the first half by those surveyed was US$25,555. If that level is maintained for the second half, it would “reflect a stable annual level of spending,” the report said. It would also exceed meet or exceed the median level of spending for the past two years.
The changes in collector behaviour noted in the report—including a decline in average spending, and buying through more diverse channels—“are likely to contribute to the ongoing shift in focus away from the narrow high-end of sales that has dominated in previous years, potentially expanding the market’s base and encouraging growth in more affordable art segments, which could provide greater stability in future,” McAndrew said in a statement.
One reason the art market may appear from the outside to be teetering is the performance of the major auction houses has been pretty dismal since last year. Aggregate sales for the first half of the year at Christie’s, Sotheby’s, Phillips, and Bonhams, reached only US$4.7 billion in the first half, down from US$6.3 billion in the first half a year ago and US$7.4 billion in the same period in 2022, the report said.
Meanwhile, the number of “fully published” sales in the first half reached 951 at the four auction houses, up from 896 in the same period last year and 811 in 2022. Considering the lower overall results in sales value, the figures imply an increase in transactions of lower-priced works.
“They’re basically just working harder for less,” Newton says.
One reason the auction houses are having difficulties is many sellers have been unwilling to part with high-value works out of concern they won’t get the kind of prices they would have at the art market’s recent highs coming out of the pandemic in 2021 and 2022. “You really only get one chance to sell it,” he says.
Also, counterintuitively, art collectors who have benefited from strength in the stock market and the greater economy may be “feeling a positive wealth effect right now,” so they don’t need to sell, Newton says. “They can wait until those ‘animal spirits’ pick back up,” referring to human emotions that can drive the market.
That collectors are focusing on art at more modest price points right now is also evident in data from the Association of Professional Art Advisors that was included in the report. According to APAA survey data of its advisors, if sales they facilitated in the first half continue at the same pace, the total number of works sold this year will be 23% more than 2023.
Most of the works purchased so far were bought for less than US$100,000, with the most common price point between US$25,000 and US$50,000.
The advisors surveyed also said that 80% of the US$500 million in transactions they conducted in the first half of this year involved buying art rather than selling it. If this pattern holds, the proportion of art bought vs. sold will be 17% more than last year and the value of those transactions will be 10% more.
“This suggests that these advisors are much more active in building collections than editing or dismantling them,” the report said.
The collectors surveyed spend most of their art dollars with dealers. Although the percentage of their spending through this channel dipped to 49% in the first half from 52% in all of last year, spending at art fairs (made largely through gallery booths) increased to 11% in the first half from 9% last year.
Collectors also bought slightly more art directly from artists (9% in the first half vs. 7% last year), and they bought more art privately (7% vs. 6%). The percentage spent at auction houses declined to 20% from 23%.
The data also showed a shift in buying trends, as 88% of those polled said they bought art from a new gallery in the past two years, and 52% bought works by new and emerging artists in 2023 and this year.
The latter data point is interesting, since works by many of these artists fall into the ultra contemporary category, where art soared to multiples of original purchase prices in a speculative frenzy from 2021-22. That bubble has burst, but the best of those artists are showing staying power, Newton says.
“You’re seeing that kind of diversion between what’s most interesting and will maintain its value over time, versus maybe what’s a little bit less interesting
and might have had speculative buying behind it,” he says.
Collectors appear better prepared to uncover the best artists, as more of those surveyed are doing background research or are seeking advice before they buy. Less than 1% of those surveyed said they buy on impulse, down from 10% a year earlier, the report said.
Not all collectors are alike so the Art Basel-UBS report goes into considerable detail breaking down preferences and actions by individuals according to the regions where they live and their age range, for instance. The lion’s share of spending on art today is by Gen X, for instance—those who are roughly 45-60 years old.
Despite a predominately optimistic view of the market, of those surveyed only 43% plan to buy more art in the next 12 months, down from more than 50% in the previous two years, the report said. Buyers in mainland China were an exception, with 70% saying they plan to buy.
Overall, more than half of all collectors surveyed across age groups and regions plan to sell, a reversal from past years. That data point could foretell a coming buyer’s market, the report said, or it “could be indicative of more hopeful forecasts on pricing or the perception that there could be better opportunities for sales in some segments in the near future than there are at present.”
In the U.S., where 48% of collectors plan to buy, Newton says he’s seeing a lot of interest in art from wealth management clients.
“They’re looking for ideas. They’re looking for names of artists that can be compelling and have staying power,” Newton says. “That’s definitely happening from an optimistic standpoint.”
From making unpopular decisions to learning when to listen, leaders from five businesses reveal what nobody prepared them for — and how running a company has challenged their expectations.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
Technology and semiconductor shares fell sharply as investors questioned the debt financing the AI infrastructure boom and confronted higher rates and Chinese competition.
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
Barnet, in North London, lays claim to two of the country’s most expensive roads to own a home.
Three-Michelin-starred chef Massimiliano Alajmo will host an intimate Mediterranean sailing aboard Crystal Serenity, redefining fine dining at sea.










