Wine Investment

References: [1] Abadie, A. (2005), “Semiparametric difference-in-difference estimators,” Review of Economic Studies, 72, 1-19. [2] Avery, C. and J. Chevalier (1999), “Identifying investor sentiment from price paths: the case of football betting,” Journal of Business, 72, 493-521. [3] Bauwens, L. and V. Ginsburgh (2000), “Art experts and auctions. Are pre-sale estimates unbiased and fully informative?,” Louvain Economic Review, 66, 131-144. [4] Chossat, V. and O. Gergaud (2003), “Expert opinion and gastronomy: the recipe for success,” Journal of Cultural Economics, 27, 127-141. [5] Combris, P., S. Lecocq and M. Visser (1997), “Estimation of a hedonic price equation for Bordeaux wine: does quality matter?,” Economic Journal, 107, 390-402. [6] Di Vittorio, A. and V. Ginsburgh (1996), “Des ench`res comme r´v´lateurs du classement des e e e vins,” Journal de la Soci´t´ Statistique de Paris, 137, 19-49. ee [7] Dubois, P. and C. Nauges (2005), “Identifying the effect of unobserved quality and experts’ reviews in the pricing of experience goods: empirical application on Bordeaux wine,” Working Paper, University of Toulouse. [8] F´vrier, P., W. Roos and M. Visser (2003), “The buyer’s option in multi-unit ascending auce tions: the case of wine auctions at Drouot,” Working Paper #2003-03, CREST, forthcoming in Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. [9] Ginsburgh, V. (2003), “Awards, success and aesthetic quality in the arts,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17, 99-111. [10] Ginsburgh, V., M. Monzak and A. Monzak (1994) “Red wines of Medoc: what is wine tasting worth,” Verona: Vineyard Data Quantification Society. 22 [11] Hadj Ali, H. (2002), “La commercialisation des vins en primeur,” PhD Thesis, University of Toulouse. [12] Hadj Ali, H. and C. Nauges (2004), “Reputation and quality effects in the pricing of experience goods: the case of en primeur wine,” Working Paper, INRA-LEERNA. [13] H¨rdle, W. (1990), Applied Nonparametric Regression. Cambridge, Massachussets: Cambridge a University Press. [14] Heckman, J.J. (1990), “Varieties of selection bias,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 80, 313-318. [15] Heckman, J.J., H. Ichimura and P.E. Todd (1997), “Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator: evidence from evaluating a job training programme,” Review of Economic Studies, 64, 605-654. [16] Heckman, J.J., L. Lochner and C. Taber (1998), “General-equilibrium treatment effects: a study of tuition policy,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 88, 381-386. [17] Jones, G.V. and K.-H. Storchmann (2001), “Wine market prices and investment under uncertainty: an econometric model for Bordeaux crus class´s,” Agricultural Economics, 26, 115-133. e [18] Rubin, D.B. (1974), “Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688-701. [19] Rubin, D.B. (1980), “Discussion of paper by D. Basu,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591-593. [20] Shleifer, A. (1986), “Do demand curves for stocks slope down?,” Journal of Finance, 41, 579590. [21] Silverman, B.W. (1986), Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. London: Chapman and Hall. 23 [22] Wooldridge, J.M. (2002), Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, Massachussets: The MIT Press. 24 Table 1. Descriptive statistics Ranking 1er Cru Class´ e 2`me Cru Class´ e e 3`me Cru Class´ e e 4`me Cru Class´ e e 5`me Cru Class´ e e Cru Bourgeois 1er Grand Cru Class´ A e 1er Grand Cru Class´ B e Grand Cru Class´ e Cru Class´ e Cru Non Class´ e Total Appellation Barsac Bordeaux Blanc Bordeaux Sup´rieur e Cˆtes de Castillon o Fronsac Graves Blanc Graves Rouge 1.29 2.15 0.43 2.58 1.29 1.29 0.86 5.15 8.58 4.29 3.86 6.44 14.16 0.43 2.15 9.44 6.01 39.48 100.00 Appellation Haut-M´doc e Lalande-de-Pomerol Listrac Margaux M´doc e Montagne-St-Emilion Moulis Pauillac Pessac-L´ognan e Pomerol 1`res Cˆtes de Blaye e o 1`res Cˆtes de Bordeaux e o Puisseguin-St-Emilion St-Emilion Grand Cru St-Estephe St-Georges St-Emilion St-Julien Sauternes Total 6.87 2.58 1.29 10.30 0.43 1.72 1.72 8.15 11.16 6.44 0.86 0.43 0.86 21.89 3.86 0.43 5.58 5.58 100.00 Note: The descriptive statistics are based on the sample of 233 chˆteaux and give for each variable the percentage a of observations that is equal to one. 25