Fancy a slice of a masterpiece?

Why is this model gaining traction right now?

Firstly, because the high‑end art market has traditionally been almost impossible to access for many people. Fractional ownership lowers the barriers to entry. Investors can participate in works that would normally only be available to very wealthy collectors and do so with comparatively modest amounts. Secondly, the model fits a broader trend: art is increasingly viewed as an alternative asset class with its own risk-and-return profile. The market has grown accordingly – we are now talking about a global volume in the mid-hundreds of millions, and it is still rising.

That initially sounds like a classic win‑win situation. Where do the risks lie?

The advantages are real – but they come with substantial risks and a high degree of complexity. Fractional ownership is legally, regulatorily and operationally demanding. The beneficial owners – the shareholders – usually have no say in key risk‑relevant decisions: for example, where the artwork is stored, whether it is transported or exhibited, and which conservation measures are taken.

At the same time, the success of the investment depends heavily on the integrity and professionalism of the platform. A lack of transparency, weak corporate governance or conflicts of interest can quickly lead to significant losses in value. In past decades, we have already seen structures – such as certain art funds – where exactly these factors became problematic.

What role does fraud prevention play in this context?

A very central one, because opaque markets are prone to abuse. In the past, there have been cases where art dealers sold more than 100 per cent of a work, or where works were used as collateral for multiple loans. Fractional ownership is also not directly comparable with full ownership; limited control, reduced marketability and the need for collective decision‑making can all lead to valuation discounts, which in turn affect insured values, premiums and claims settlements.

What does this mean in concrete terms for art insurance?

We need to clarify whether there is an insurable interest at all when ownership structures are unclear, overlapping or granted multiple times. The focus is not only on the artwork itself, but also on the quality of the structures behind it: platform transparency, clear lines of responsibility, thorough checks on provenance, authenticity and condition, and the ongoing updating of documentation.

Risk assessment therefore shifts significantly to the level of the platform and its processes. Put simply: it’s not just the artwork that counts, but also the “operating system” of the platform that slices it into shares.

What additional challenges arise from digital certificates?

Digital ownership certificates raise new questions about cyber risks and system failures. Crucially, what matters is what happens if certificates are hacked, manipulated or deleted – and the issue lies not with the physical object, but with the digital system that records ownership. Going forward, we will need to determine whether, and in what way, certificates, registers or platform systems themselves should be considered part of the insurance cover. This is an exciting but demanding development, because this is where art trading intersects very directly with IT risks.

What is your overall conclusion – where is art insurance headed in this field?

Fractional ownership is an exciting step in the evolution of the art market. It democratises access, makes art as an asset class more broadly investable – and challenges us as insurers to further develop our models and adapt them to new types of risk.

For insurers, this means moving away from a narrow focus on the object itself towards an assessment of structures, responsibilities and trust. In the end, we are no longer insuring just “the picture on the wall”, but also the platforms and processes that make this new market possible in the first place.