When someone asks whether a yacht is liquid, I hear a reasonable concern about freedom. The owner wants to know that a future change of plans will not leave them without choices. That concern deserves a serious answer. I do not think a single score can provide it, because the score cannot know what the owner will be willing to do when an exit actually becomes relevant.
A yacht is bought to be lived in and enjoyed. It may later become the starting point for another yacht, another cruising programme or a different arrangement for the family. The future transaction is worth preparing for, but preparation begins by identifying the decision the owner may face—not by attaching a permanent verdict to a model today.
What would a liquidity score have to measure?
Consider the word “liquid” in ordinary conversation. Does it mean a yacht could attract enquiries within a month? That a sale could be completed within a season? That it could be sold without materially changing the asking price? Or that a broker could identify an audience likely to appreciate its configuration? These are different claims, and each requires a date, market, price and standard of evidence.
Even if historical transactions are available, they describe yachts that reached the market under their own conditions. The denominator is difficult: we do not observe every owner who considered selling but chose to wait, every offer rejected as too low, or every condition issue resolved before listing. An apparently fast sale could reflect a particularly attractive price. A longer sale could reflect an owner with no urgency. Time alone does not tell us whether either result met the owner's goal.
That is a structural problem for a catalogue score. The LYRA catalogue can give directional information that opens a conversation. It cannot choose a future reserve price, decide how much time an owner is willing to wait, or know what another yacht will be available when the owner wants to move. I would not ask the field to answer questions it was never built to answer.
Write an exit mandate, not an exit prediction
The better question is: what would the owner want the team to optimise if a sale became necessary? A family moving to a larger yacht may want the two transactions coordinated so it never loses a summer. Another owner may prefer to wait for a buyer who values a distinctive layout. A third may want a quick, orderly transfer because the family's use has changed. All three can own excellent yachts, yet “liquidity” means something different to each.
I would record the owner's current answer as a mandate with choices and boundaries, not a financial forecast. Who can begin exploring a sale? When should the owner be asked to approve a pricing strategy? Is continuity of use more important than speed? Which terms beyond price would matter? Who needs to coordinate the next purchase or transfer? The mandate can be revisited as life changes; it should not pretend to bind the future owner to today's preferences.
This also changes the purchase conversation. A yacht that creates exceptional value now can be chosen knowingly even if its future audience may be more specialised. The owner can decide that the years aboard justify that possibility. Conversely, an owner who expects to move through several yachts may place greater value on flexibility. Neither answer is inherently wiser. The important point is that the trade-off belongs to the owner, not to a number dressed as an objective verdict.
Make later decisions possible without scripting them
An ownership system can preserve options without forecasting the sale. Keep the exact specification, modifications, service history and significant decisions intelligible. Address recurring technical issues rather than letting them become a mystery for a future buyer. Maintain a current understanding of who holds documents and who can instruct a broker or specialist when circumstances change.
These records have a present purpose too: they help the yacht be cared for and used well. At a later exit, they make the yacht easier to explain. Their value does not depend on a claim that they will add a measurable amount to resale proceeds. A future buyer will still make their own assessment, with their own survey and professional advice.
When the decision to sell arrives, market evidence can finally be tied to the actual yacht, location, condition, proposed price and timing. The owner may then choose between a more patient strategy and a faster one. That choice should be made with current commercial advice, not through a score calculated years earlier. The market's response can lead to a revised mandate, but responsibility for that revision remains visible.
The honest value of discussing liquidity during purchase is that the owner can think about optionality while still choosing a yacht for the life they want to live. Later, if a sale becomes real, the owner will face a specific choice about time, price and what comes next. A well-governed ownership relationship makes that choice possible without pretending to make it years in advance.
