The 2005 Chateau Petrus debuted recently at nearly $5,000 a bottle, which puts my Petrus Index at 1,000. The Petrus Index is my own, personal measure of the distance between my indulgence in wine and the wine market. It's a simple calculation: A comparison of the cost of the newest vintage of Chateau Petrus and the highest price I would conceivably pay for a bottle of wine, expressed as a percentage.
When I first calculated the Petrus Index, Petrus was selling for about $150 a bottle and the highest price I could conceive of paying for a bottle of wine was $50. The Petrus Index stood at 300. At the time, I had never paid anything close to $50 for a bottle of wine, but I could imagine myself getting rich and taking my wife out for some incredible indulgence. For a long time, my dream bottle -- the bottle that was just out there over my comfort threshold -- was Stags Leap Cellars cab, going for about $25, so you can imagine the gasping audacity of telling myself that someday -- when the screenplay sells, when the business plan gets funded, when the liquidity event occurs -- I would go out and spend twice that much on a bottle of fine wine.
Over the years my income and wine prices have gone up together, but not proportionally. Every year, the Petrus Index has climbed -- from 300 to 400 to 500. This year, the Index nearly doubled. 2005 was a great year in Bordeaux, at least according to the critics, and the wine business guessing-game before the producers started selling the vintage was how much can the market bear? How high can prices go?
You think oil has shot up; take a look at high-status wines, and for exactly the same reason. The adoption of capitalism in China and India has created throngs of nouveau riche who long for classiness, and there's no better way for an arriviste to announce "I've arrived" than hosting a colossally expensive restaurant feed that includes a few bottles of precious, brand-name wine. Which means that a lot of Bordeaux and Burgundy that 10 years ago would have come to the United States is ending up in Shanghai.
Supply and demand being what it is, that's meant that the status producers have not yet found the price point that will create market resistance. To a guy who's just banked his first hundred-million-dollars, the difference between a $600 bottle of wine -- Petrus' price just a few years ago -- and a $5,000 bottle of wine is almost nothing. Given a great vintage like 2005, which creates a must-have mentality among those who collect and consume high-status wines, that prices have recently headed into outer space is no surprise.
But here's the thing: there's also a lot of high-status wine being bought for investment purposes. In the last 20 years, wine prices have done nothing but go up, and nothing attracts speculation like constant increases in price. Back when we lived in Los Angeles, we used to marvel at how we were never going to be able to afford a house. Prices were going up faster than our incomes, so no matter how much we saved we did nothing but lose ground. I remember saying, repeatedly, that housing prices couldn't go up like that forever, that something had to break. Ten years after we left L.A. the market broke, the bubble popped, the creative and corrupting financing schemes predicated on the belief that market prices would continue to rise forever cracked wide open and all it took was a price hiccup throwing people with 125% mortgages into a panic.
I know a guy who knows nothing about wine -- he's a bourbon drinker, actually -- but he has a few cases of Grand Cru socked away on the assumption that five years from now it'll be worth 10 times as much as it is now. He's got a graph, and when he extends the trend line of the last five years five years forward, he sees not just wine to drink but a new vacation home or a boat.
I, myself, noodled with a business plan for importing and aging small-production Barolos -- though I decided against it because I simply don't believe prices skyrocket forever, and putting my own money into a business predicated on the party lasting 15 more years struck me as maybe just a little bit insane. But I was there, thinking about it, considering the possibilities and making lists of potential investors I'd approach for capital.
I am, it turns out, a prude. Here's a report about Chinese gunslingers who are acquiring quantities of wine as an investment. They're not just importing Petrus and Lafite and DRC; the sure-thing mentality has spread beyond that. They're buying early vintages of new, high-status Chinese wines, confident that they, too, will ascend in value forever. It's a no brainer; look what's happened in just the last few years.
As one Chinese food industry analyst says:
"Luxury wine, like art, is a good investment, especially when the financial markets are in turmoil."
And Lord knows there's never been a collapse of art prices.
I think my Petrus Index indicates that what's going on with wine prices is a pure bubble. See, I'm pretty indulgent in my buying of wine. I can conceive of choosing to spending equivalent sums building a dinner around a great bottle instead of, say, taking a vacation. As it is, I spend more on wine than I should, so much that I routinely lie about it when friends ask. "Oh, I've got a few bottles downstairs. Nothing much, really. When I find something on sale, I buy a bunch of it. I think I'm saving money, over all." I don't think anyone believes me, but I'm embarrassed by the pile of boxes down there. It's not really defensible when what I really need to spend my money on is a new roof for the house.
My point is, if wine prices were rational, I'd be getting closer to a bottle of Petrus, not farther away.
And still the Petrus Index climbs. The bubble grows larger, another sure thing that's going to last forever.