Lessons from a proposed New York art exchange and the evolving markets in China and the United States

In 2015, a group of Wall Street financiers, private business owners and a lawyer from China’s Dacheng law firm invited me to participate in an ambitious proposed venture: the New York Art Exchange. The concept drew inspiration from the cultural and art exchanges that had emerged in China. We wanted to explore whether an organized trading platform in New York could bring some of the accessibility and market structure associated with stock exchanges to works of art.

I was invited in my capacity as a securities lawyer. The project appealed to my interest in new business models and to my experience with corporate transactions, investment and cross-border business. As part of my due diligence, I traveled to Shanghai to visit a cultural exchange and examine the model more closely.

The venture ultimately did not proceed. A central obstacle was the absence of a widely accepted basis for valuing the artworks that would give participants sufficient confidence in the proposed market. More than a decade later, as I help develop Becker’s Art Law practice, that experience feels especially relevant. Art investment platforms have continued to evolve, but the relationship among valuation, ownership and liquidity remains fundamental.

China’s early cultural exchanges formed part of a broader effort to connect culture and capital. Their activities extended beyond paintings: cultural property could include business equity, intellectual property and other interests. A Ministry of Culture account of Shanghai’s experience described the cultural property exchange established there in June 2009 as a platform for investment, financing and transfers of cultural assets. It would therefore be misleading to treat every Chinese cultural exchange as a stock market for art. ^[1]

Some platforms nevertheless developed models in which interests in artworks were divided into units for trading. Tianjin’s fractional art market became a prominent example of rapid price increases and the risks accompanying this experiment. The appeal was understandable: smaller investment amounts could make expensive works accessible to more participants. The difficult question was whether the price of a small traded interest provided a dependable indication of what the entire artwork could realize in a sale. ^[2]

The regulatory response began well before our 2015 project. In November 2011, the State Council issued Decision No. 38 to address risks at trading venues. Outside the specified exceptions for legally established securities exchanges and State Council-approved financial-product venues, it prohibited dividing rights into equal units for public issuance and imposed restrictions on centralized and continuous standardized trading. Implementing opinions in 2012 expressly covered cultural and art rights. They also distinguished negotiated transfers and lawful auctions from the prohibited forms of centralized trading. ^{[3, 4]}

The distinction remains important. The concern was the development of unauthorized securities-like markets, with risks such as speculation, manipulation and misuse of customer funds. In 2019, the China Securities Regulatory Commission reported that previously widespread unlawful fractional art trading and certain other unauthorized trading activities had largely stopped. That statement concerned those activities; cultural property transactions and the institutions serving them have continued in other forms. ^{[3, 5]}

The United States presents its own threshold question: what, legally, is the investor buying? Purchasing a painting in the hope that it appreciates does not, by itself, make the purchase a securities transaction. Selling investment interests through an entity or managed arrangement can produce a different result. Where an arrangement must be assessed as an investment contract, the analysis includes an investment of money in a common enterprise and a reasonable expectation of profits derived from the essential managerial efforts of others. The economic substance matters more than the label attached to the product. ^[6]

Masterworks illustrates one U.S. approach. Its offering materials describe securities issued through entities or series associated with particular artworks. Investors acquire interests in the relevant investment vehicle, with rights governed by its documents. The structure can broaden financial participation without giving each investor possession of a painting or an unrestricted right to direct its sale. This is a different legal proposition from an ordinary purchase of an artwork. ^[7]

Regulation A, used in this market, provides an exemption from Securities Act registration subject to applicable conditions. An offering statement must be qualified before sales under that exemption. Qualification is not an SEC endorsement of the investment, the artwork’s value or the accuracy of every representation. Nor does the ability to offer securities establish that investors will be able to resell them when they wish. ^[8]

The trading venue raises a separate set of issues. An alternative trading system, or ATS, can operate under an exemption from registration as a national securities exchange if it satisfies applicable requirements, including those governing its broker-dealer operator. A compliant offering does not itself authorize the operation of a securities trading venue. Issuers, intermediaries and platform operators must each assess the obligations arising from their actual activities. ^[9]

My experience in 2015 also calls for a more precise description of the valuation problem. Art has professional appraisal frameworks. The IRS, for example, states that its Art Appraisal Services appraisers are trained in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. An appraisal, however, answers a valuation question under particular assumptions and for a particular purpose. It does not guarantee that a buyer will appear at that price when an owner wants to sell. ^[10]

Looking back, I see our difficulty as a market-design problem as much as an appraisal problem. Markets do not require universal agreement on an asset’s intrinsic value; disagreement is part of trading. They do require participants to understand the asset, trust the information and believe that the process treats them fairly. An art platform must also explain how its quoted prices relate to the underlying work, particularly when only small interests change hands.

Art adds a distinctive challenge. Shares within the same class can carry identical rights, while two paintings by the same artist can differ substantially in condition, history and desirability. Dividing ownership can standardize the interests being sold, but the underlying artwork remains individual. For investors, the analysis must reach beyond an attractive purchase price to fees, custody, insurance, decision-making authority and the practical means of recovering their capital.

Recent U.S. disclosures make the liquidity issue concrete. In a July 8, 2026 Form 1-U, Masterworks Vault 4 reported that Masterworks had given notice on June 17 terminating the agreements supporting secondary trading on the PPEX ATS, effective on or about December 14, 2026. The filing said the affected shares would cease trading on that venue after termination. It contemplated alternative arrangements but offered no assurance that a replacement would be implemented or provide liquidity. As of this article’s research date, the disclosed termination date is still in the future. ^[11]

An August 2026 Masterworks Vault 3 offering circular similarly discussed the planned end of its ATS arrangement and warned that trading through a contemplated bulletin board was expected to be extremely limited. These disclosures demonstrate why an investor should examine the actual exit mechanism and its durability. The existence of a platform, an offering or a record of ownership cannot establish that another investor will be willing to buy. ^[7]

China’s current position also requires attention to the particular institution and activity. In 2025, Jilin’s financial regulator included the provincial cultural property exchange in its annual inspection program, with attention to compliance, reductions in existing business and consolidation. At the same time, Shenzhen’s 2026–2030 development plan supports its cultural property exchange and cultural data infrastructure, and calls for stronger art-market rules covering authentication, storage, valuation and trading. These are policy objectives, not evidence that a universally accepted valuation system has already been achieved. ^{[12, 13]}

My reading of these developments is that the ambition to connect art and finance continues, while the legal structures and commercial promises require closer definition. Cultural asset transfers, copyright transactions, investment offerings and secondary securities trading are distinct activities. Describing all of them as an “art exchange” can obscure the rights being transferred and the regulatory questions that follow. Moving records onto a digital platform does not remove the need to resolve those questions.

This is where my securities and M&A background informs the practice I am building. An art-related investment has at least two subjects for diligence: the artwork and the business arrangement around it. The first calls for scrutiny of ownership, provenance, authenticity, condition and any claims affecting the work. The second calls for examination of the entity, its liabilities, governance, contracts and financial arrangements. Lawyers, appraisers, provenance researchers and other specialists each contribute different expertise.

An acquisition of a painting presents different issues from an acquisition of the company that owns it. An investment in a gallery or platform adds another set of questions, including which works the business owns, which it holds for others, and what obligations it has to artists, consignors and customers. Corporate and M&A tools can help address these issues through diligence, transaction structure, closing conditions, representations and negotiated remedies.

For a fractional investment structure, I would begin with the rights an investor will actually receive. The documents should make clear who holds title, who safeguards the work, who chooses the sale date and who receives the proceeds. They should explain how the acquisition price is determined, how the sponsor is compensated and how conflicts are handled. The exit provisions deserve particular attention: investors need to understand the difference between a possible resale opportunity and a contractual right to redemption.

For businesses operating between the United States and Asia, the legal analysis must also follow the parties, assets and activities across borders. A model developed for one jurisdiction cannot simply be assumed to work in another. That makes coordination among transaction counsel, local counsel and art specialists an essential part of evaluating the proposed business.

The project I explored in 2015 never became the exchange we envisioned. It nevertheless gave me an early opportunity to examine the point at which an ambitious art-market idea meets the demands of securities law and commercial reality. Today, the questions it raised provide a useful starting point for advising collectors, investors, entrepreneurs and art businesses.

As Becker develops its Art Law practice, I want to bring that perspective to clients: an openness to new ideas, disciplined attention to the rights and risks within a transaction, and a realistic understanding of how an investment can end. A durable art market depends on credible information, clear ownership, responsible governance and workable ways to transact. Helping clients build those foundations is the contribution I aim to make.

Sources

1. Ministry of Culture, “Shanghai’s Experience Integrating Culture and Finance,” March 28, 2014. Official account of the June 2009 cultural property exchange and its broader functions. Chinese-language source.
2. Ministry of Finance, cultural assets office analysis of fractional art trading and the Tianjin example. Analysis of the model’s valuation, speculation and regulatory problems. Chinese-language source.
3. State Council Decision No. 38 (2011), November 11, 2011. Decision on cleaning up trading venues and preventing financial risks; official government reproduction. Chinese-language source.
4. State Council General Office Implementing Opinions No. 37 (2012), July 2012. Scope, prohibited trading models and treatment of negotiated transfers and lawful auctions. Chinese-language source.
5. China Securities Regulatory Commission, report on the fourth interministerial meeting on trading-venue cleanup, July 25, 2019. Official assessment of unauthorized fractional art trading and continuing regulatory work. Chinese-language source.
6. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Small Business Glossary, “Securities.” Explanation of securities and the investment-contract analysis derived from SEC v. W. J. Howey Co.
7. Masterworks Vault 3, LLC, Post-Qualification Amendment No. 29, August 7, 2026, offering circular. See offering structure and the sections discussing secondary trading, the ATS termination and the proposed bulletin board. Issuer disclosure filed with the SEC.
8. SEC Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Updated Investor Bulletin: Regulation A, April 14, 2021. Offering qualification, investor protections and liquidity limitations.
9. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Alternative Trading System List and accompanying explanation. Distinction between a national securities exchange and an ATS operating under Regulation ATS.
10. Internal Revenue Service, Art Appraisal Services. Professional appraisal expertise and training in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
11. Masterworks Vault 4, LLC, Form 1-U, July 8, 2026, Item 9. June 17 notice of termination, expected December 14, 2026 effective date and uncertainty concerning alternative liquidity. Issuer disclosure filed with the SEC.
12. Jilin provincial financial regulator, notice on 2025 annual inspections and on-site supervision of trading venues, August 25, 2025. Published August 27, 2025; includes the provincial cultural property exchange. Chinese-language source.
13. Shenzhen Fifteenth Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development, 2026–2030, Chapter 11, Section 2. Cultural trading infrastructure and planned rules for art authentication, storage, valuation and transactions. Chinese-language source.

Editorial note for the author and Becker marketing: The account of the proposed New York Art Exchange and the Shanghai visit is based on the author’s recollection. The Shanghai institution is intentionally unnamed in that account because its identity has not been confirmed. References to Masterworks describe the cited issuers’ disclosures and the announced future termination date, rather than an already completed termination.

从纽约艺术品交易所的早期探索看中美市场的演变

作者：修洁成英（Jie Chengying Xiu）｜Becker 律师事务所

审阅稿｜资料核查截至2026年9月29日

2015年，一批华尔街金融人士、民营企业主，以及一位来自中国大成律师事务所的律师，邀请我参与一项颇具雄心的筹建计划：纽约艺术品交易所（New York Art Exchange）。这一构想受到中国此前兴起的文化产权及艺术品交易所的启发。我们希望探索，能否在纽约建立一个有组织的交易平台，将股票交易所所具备的部分市场机制和便捷的参与方式引入艺术品交易。

我受邀以证券律师的身份参与这个项目。我对新商业模式的兴趣，以及在公司交易、投资和跨境业务方面积累的经验，都使这个项目对我颇具吸引力。作为尽职调查的一部分，我还专程前往上海，考察了一家文化交易所，希望更深入地了解这一模式。

这个项目最终没有继续推进。一个关键障碍在于，我们尚未找到一个获得广泛认可、足以让参与者对拟议市场建立信心的艺术品估值依据。十余年后，当我开始参与建设 Becker 的艺术法业务时，这段经历显得格外切题。艺术品投资平台一直在演变，但估值、所有权与流动性之间的关系，始终是其中的根本问题。

中国早期文化产权交易所的兴起，是推动文化与资本对接这一更广泛进程的一部分。它们的业务并不限于绘画作品，文化产权还可以包括企业股权、知识产权及其他权益。文化部刊载的一篇介绍上海经验的文章，将当地于2009年6月成立的文化产权交易所描述为一个服务于文化资产投融资及产权交易的平台。因此，把中国所有文化交易所都视为艺术品的股票市场，并不准确。 ^[1]

不过，一些平台确实发展出将艺术品权益拆分成份额进行交易的模式。天津的艺术品份额化交易，成为价格迅速上涨及其伴生风险的一个典型案例。这一模式的吸引力不难理解：降低单笔投资金额，可以让更多人参与原本价格高昂的艺术品投资。真正困难的问题在于，一小部分权益的交易价格，能否可靠地反映整件艺术品出售时可以实现的价值。 ^[2]

监管部门的应对，早在我们2015年的项目之前就已开始。2011年11月，国务院发布国发〔2011〕38号文件，以处理各类交易场所的风险。除依法设立的证券交易所及经国务院批准从事金融产品交易的交易场所等规定的例外情形外，该文件禁止将权益拆分为均等份额公开发行，并对集中交易和标准化连续交易作出限制。2012年出台的实施意见明确将文化艺术品权益纳入适用范围，同时将协议转让和依法进行的拍卖，与受到禁止的集中交易方式作了区分。 ^[3,4]

这种区分至今仍然重要。监管所关注的是未经授权、类似证券市场的交易机制，以及由此带来的投机、操纵市场和挪用客户资金等风险。2019年，中国证监会在有关工作通报中指出，此前一度泛滥的违规艺术品份额化交易及其他若干违规交易活动已基本停止。这一表述针对的是相关违规活动；文化产权交易及为其提供服务的机构，仍以其他形式继续发展。 ^[3,5]

在美国，首先需要回答的是一个法律问题：投资者究竟买到了什么？仅仅因为买方希望一幅画升值，并不会使这笔购买本身成为证券交易。但如果通过某个实体或管理安排出售投资权益，法律结论就可能不同。当一项安排需要按“投资合同”进行判断时，分析要素包括：是否向一个共同事业投入资金，以及是否合理预期通过他人的关键管理活动获得收益。判断的重点在于经济实质，而非产品所使用的名称。 ^[6]

Masterworks 展示了美国市场的一种做法。其发行文件描述了通过与特定艺术品相对应的实体或系列单元（series）发行证券的结构。投资者取得的是相关投资载体中的权益，其权利由相应法律文件界定。这种结构可以扩大艺术品的投资参与范围，但不意味着每位投资者都能占有那幅画，或不受限制地决定将其出售。从法律上看，这与普通的艺术品购买是不同的交易。 ^[7]

这一市场所采用的 Regulation A（A条例），在符合适用条件的前提下，提供了《证券法》项下的证券发行注册豁免。依据这一豁免销售证券之前，发行申报文件须经美国证券交易委员会（SEC）核准生效（qualification）。这种核准不代表 SEC 对投资本身、艺术品价值或各项陈述的准确性作出认可。能够依法发行证券，也不意味着投资者在希望退出时一定能够转售。 ^[8]

交易场所本身则涉及另一组法律问题。另类交易系统（Alternative Trading System，简称 ATS）在满足适用要求的情况下，可以豁免注册为全国性证券交易所；相关要求也包括对其经纪交易商运营主体的监管。一项合规的证券发行，本身并不赋予任何人运营证券交易场所的资格。发行人、中介机构和平台运营方，都必须根据各自实际从事的活动，分别判断其法律义务。 ^[9]

回顾2015年的经历，也有必要更准确地说明我们当时遇到的估值问题。艺术品领域并非没有专业评估框架。例如，美国国税局说明，其艺术品评估服务部门的评估人员接受过《专业评估实务统一准则》（Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice，简称 USPAP）方面的培训。但评估是在特定假设下、为特定目的回答价值问题，并不保证当作品所有人希望出售时，就一定有买方愿意按评估价格购买。 ^[10]

现在回看，我们遇到的困难，既是估值问题，也是市场制度设计的问题。市场并不要求所有人对某项资产的内在价值达成一致；分歧本来就是交易的一部分。市场真正需要的是，参与者能够理解资产、信任信息，并相信交易过程是公平的。艺术品平台还需要说明，其报价与底层艺术品之间究竟是什么关系，尤其是在市场上仅有少量份额易手的情况下。

艺术品的独特性又增加了一层挑战。同一类别的股份可以享有相同权利，但即使出自同一位艺术家之手，两幅画也可能在保存状况、流传历史和市场吸引力上存在显著差异。将所有权拆分，可以使出售的权益份额趋于标准化，却不会消除底层艺术品的个体差异。对投资者而言，分析不能停留在一个有吸引力的购买价格上，还应涵盖费用、保管、保险、决策权限，以及实际收回投资资金的途径。

美国近期的披露文件，使流动性问题变得十分具体。Masterworks Vault 4 在2026年7月8日的 Form 1-U 临时报告中披露，Masterworks 已于6月17日发出通知，终止为 PPEX 另类交易系统上的二级交易提供安排的相关协议，预计于2026年12月14日前后生效。报告称，终止生效后，相关份额将不再通过该场所交易。报告提及可能安排替代方案，但不保证替代方案一定能够实施，也不保证其能够提供流动性。截至本文资料核查之日，所披露的终止日期尚未到来。 ^[11]

Masterworks Vault 3 于2026年8月披露的发行说明书，同样讨论了终止现有 ATS 安排的计划，并提示，拟设公告板所能促成的交易预计将极为有限。这些披露说明，投资者需要认真审视实际的退出机制，以及这一机制能否持续运作。一个平台、一项发行或一份所有权记录的存在，本身都不能证明会有另一位投资者愿意接手。 ^[7]

理解中国目前的情况，也需要具体区分相关机构及其业务。2025年，吉林省金融监管部门将省内文化产权交易所纳入年度检查，关注合规经营、存量业务压降及整合等事项。与此同时，深圳的2026年至2030年发展规划支持文化产权交易所及文化数据基础设施建设，并提出完善艺术品鉴定、存储、评估和交易等规则。这些是政策目标，并不意味着一个获得普遍认可的估值体系已经建成。 ^[12,13]

对于这些进展，我的理解是，推动艺术与金融对接的愿望依然存在，但相关法律结构和商业承诺需要更加明确。文化资产转让、版权交易、投资产品发行和证券二级市场交易，是不同的活动。把它们统称为“艺术品交易所”，可能掩盖实际转让的权利，以及随之而来的监管问题。将记录移至数字平台，也不能免除对这些问题的分析和解决。

这正是我的证券与并购业务背景，能够为正在建设的艺术法业务提供支持的地方。一项艺术品相关投资，至少有两个层面的尽职调查对象：艺术品本身，以及围绕它建立的商业安排。前者需要审查权属、来源与流传记录、真伪、保存状况，以及可能影响作品的权利主张；后者则需要审查相关实体、负债、治理、合同和财务安排。律师、评估师、来源研究人员及其他专业人士，各自发挥不同的专业作用。

购买一幅画，与收购持有这幅画的公司，所涉及的问题并不相同。如果投资对象是一家画廊或交易平台，还需进一步查明：哪些作品归企业所有，哪些只是代他人持有，以及企业对艺术家、委托人和客户承担哪些义务。公司法与并购业务中的方法，可以通过尽职调查、交易结构设计、交割条件、陈述条款及协商确定的救济安排，帮助处理这些问题。

对于艺术品份额化投资安排，我会首先明确投资者实际获得哪些权利。交易文件应说明：谁拥有艺术品，谁负责保管，谁决定出售时点，以及出售所得由谁取得。文件还应解释收购价格如何确定、发起方如何获得报酬，以及利益冲突如何处理。退出条款尤其值得重视：投资者需要理解，潜在的转售机会与合同赋予的赎回权，是两回事。

对于往来于美国与亚洲市场的企业，法律分析也必须跟随当事人、资产及业务活动跨越国界。适用于一个司法管辖区的模式，不能当然地照搬到另一个司法管辖区。因此，交易律师、当地律师与艺术领域专业人士之间的协作，是评估拟议业务不可缺少的一部分。

我在2015年参与探索的项目，最终没有成为我们设想中的交易所。但它让我较早地有机会审视，一个雄心勃勃的艺术市场构想，如何面对证券法的要求与商业现实。今天，当年提出的那些问题，仍然是为收藏家、投资者、创业者和艺术相关企业提供法律服务的有益起点。

随着 Becker 艺术法业务的发展，我希望带给客户的，正是这样一种视角：对新想法保持开放，严谨审视交易中的权利与风险，并对投资如何退出保持现实、清醒的判断。一个能够持久发展的艺术品市场，离不开可信的信息、清晰的权属、负责任的治理和切实可行的交易机制。帮助客户建立这些基础，是我希望作出的贡献。

参考资料

1. 文化部：《文化金融融合发展的上海经验》，2014年3月28日。介绍2009年6月成立的文化产权交易所及其更广泛的业务功能。中文资料。
2. 财政部文化资产管理办公室关于艺术品份额化交易及天津文交所案例的分析。分析这一模式的估值、投机及监管问题。中文资料。
3. 国务院国发〔2011〕38号文件，2011年11月11日。《国务院关于清理整顿各类交易场所切实防范金融风险的决定》，政府网站转载。中文资料。
4. 国务院办公厅国办发〔2012〕37号文件，2012年7月。《国务院办公厅关于清理整顿各类交易场所的实施意见》，涉及适用范围、被禁止的交易模式，以及对协议转让和依法拍卖的规定。中文资料。
5. 中国证监会关于清理整顿各类交易场所部际联席会议第四次会议的通报，2019年7月25日。对违规艺术品份额化交易及后续监管工作的官方评述。中文资料。
6. 美国证券交易委员会：《小企业术语表》中的“Securities”（证券）条目。解释证券概念，以及源自 SEC v. W. J. Howey Co. 案的投资合同分析。
7. Masterworks Vault 3, LLC，2026年8月7日第29号核准后修订文件所附发行说明书。参见发行结构、二级交易、ATS 安排终止及拟设公告板的相关章节。该资料为发行人向 SEC 提交的披露文件。
8. SEC 投资者教育与倡导办公室：《投资者公告更新版——Regulation A》，2021年4月14日。涉及发行核准、投资者保护及流动性限制。
9. 美国证券交易委员会：《另类交易系统名单》及随附说明。说明全国性证券交易所与依据 Regulation ATS 运行的另类交易系统之间的区别。
10. 美国国税局：《艺术品评估服务》。介绍专业评估能力及《专业评估实务统一准则》方面的培训。
11. Masterworks Vault 4, LLC，2026年7月8日 Form 1-U 临时报告，第9项。涉及6月17日的终止通知、预计于2026年12月14日生效的终止安排，以及替代流动性安排的不确定性。该资料为发行人向 SEC 提交的披露文件。
12. 吉林省地方金融管理局：《关于开展交易场所2025年度检查暨实地督导工作的通知》，2025年8月25日。于2025年8月27日发布；检查对象包括省内文化产权交易所。中文资料。
13. 《深圳市国民经济和社会发展第十五个五年规划纲要》，2026年至2030年，第十一章第二节。涉及文化交易基础设施，以及艺术品鉴定、存储、评估和交易规则的规划。中文资料。

供作者及 Becker 市场部审阅的编辑说明：关于拟议中的纽约艺术品交易所及上海考察的叙述，依据作者本人回忆。由于尚未确认上海受访机构的具体身份，个人经历部分暂不列明其名称。文中关于 Masterworks 的内容，是对所引发行人披露文件及其公布的未来终止日期的说明，并非表示相关终止安排已经完成。