New Ebay policies.....Sigh

[CKB]

 Originally Posted By: *spoon* Pontoon

I haven't sold anything in a while, and don't add charges beyond the actual postage, but some of those maximum shipping limits look low to me. And what ebay repeats ad nasueam in their FAQ is that they based these new limits on "what buyers feel is reasonable."

 

Yes, there are shipping profiters on ebay but this is the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" solution to the problem.

 

From my earlier post, of the leaked EBay Memo, it was stated that the company was going to push for, and slowly implement, a "free shipping" mandate to better compete with Amazon and take a double-dip on shipping fees (which would be incorporated into the price).

 

Wait and see.

So, how many sellers would be willing to risk starting an auction at 99 cents and taking a bath on "free" shipping? Instead, all bidding now starts at $4.80, therefore higher eBay insertion fees, ca-ching ca-ching ca-ching.

You know, I think all this has driven me to changing all my store listings to free shipping. I use calculated shipping in order to save people on the east coast money - it just isn't worth it any more. I will assume all packages are going to the west coast and change the cost of my items to reflect it. Then, at my discretion, I will give partial paypal refunds to buyers whose shipping charges are actually lower.Imperfect, but simple, like Donut's flat rate stand.

[steveout22]

I love the part about having to remove any references to checks or MO's in your auctions. Recently in my store auctions I started adding a message that buyers should send me an email or at least mark it on their check out if paying by check or MO. I think I have about 500 listings up with that message. It will be a lot of fun going through them one at a time and removing those messages. Thank God I don't have it in all 3500+ store auctions.... Leave it ebay. Every change they make sucks and smacks of greed, and seems to inconvenience me in some way, and cost me money...

 

Man I'm

 

Anyone else

[dekeuk]

 

Ebay is a desperate company, just look at this stock chart.

 

Price peaked at $60 several years ago, they are back down to $24 and headed lower. It is trading at the same price is was in 1999...... 9 years of no growth in share price.

 

No wonder Meg took her money and ran.

 

This is a desperate company, any company would be desperate after 9 years of no growth in share price. They just don't know how to fix it. The fact is, it is probably unfixable. The only way to grow the company is to acquire other newer growth companies, like Google did with Youtube.

 

 

[joe_collector]

Price peaked at $60 several years ago, they are back down to $24 and headed lower.

There was a stock split in early 2005, which contributed to the drop, but it's still less than the $30 a pop investors got out of it. EBay was doing okay until Meg left, and reportedly, she was asked to implement this plan, and proceeded to empty her desk and sell off her shares & options. It's that crazy folks.

[Scrooge]

I'm pretty confident that the chart is already adjusted for split so you can't say that the split "contributed" to the drop. It's already reflected and the split has NOTHING to do with the price drop.

 

Also, the mention of no-growth is also silly. This time, because of the split, there has been growth, it's simply not reflected in the chart of the price itself but would be reflected by the number of shares the investors accumulated through the various stock splits.

[joe_collector]

I don't think so, as the main reason for a stock split is to devalue the price so that more investors can buy it.

 

An $80 stock split 2-1 would be worth $40, and thus, more attractive to more investors.

 

Trust me, I took more than a few securities courses.

[Scrooge]

I don't think so, as the main reason for a stock split is to devalue the price so that more investors can buy it.

 

An $80 stock split 2-1 would be worth $40, and thus, more attractive to more investors.

 

Trust me, I took more than a few securities courses.

Listen, if that chart had not been adjusted for splits, the high price would show at $120 not $60 since the adjustment would not have been made. Then and only then would you understand that, yes, the stock split would explain the drop from $120 to $60 but no way does it explain the drop from $60 down to $40 or whatever the price was.Trust me, I have taught more than a few securities courses

[Scrooge]

I don't think so, as the main reason for a stock split is to devalue the price so that more investors can buy it.

 

An $80 stock split 2-1 would be worth $40, and thus, more attractive to more investors.

 

Trust me, I took more than a few securities courses.

Also for reference so that people don't blindly listen to JC (I know ... I know ... noone does). While it is true that companies try to play to their clientele by keeping their stock price "affordable", i.e., you can place a round-lot order of 100 shares without tilting your portfolio too heavily into one stock (Berkshire anyone), at heart, the stock is no more attractive to investors after the split than before the split. The market implicitely assumes that firms split their stock before a big rise in the value of the firm. Firms take advantage of this belief and issue split in the hope the market will react as such. Truth be told, splits are not great predictors of future health and profitability by firms. Only in those instances when firms combine a split with an increase in dividends, i.e., committing $$$ to the signal, can we document that the split is indeed a signal of future higher returns.

[dekeuk]

Any stock price chart worth anything reflects all splits in the chart. Otherwise it would be useless.

 

(I have an MBA and a Series 3 and am 100% sure of this)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[joe_collector]

 Originally Posted By: joe_collector

I don't think so, as the main reason for a stock split is to devalue the price so that more investors can buy it.

 

An $80 stock split 2-1 would be worth $40, and thus, more attractive to more investors.

 

Trust me, I took more than a few securities courses.

 

Listen, if that chart had not been adjusted for splits, the high price would show at $120 not $60 since the adjustment would not have been made. Then and only then would you understand that, yes, the stock split would explain the drop from $120 to $60 but no way does it explain the drop from $60 down to $40 or whatever the price was.

 

Trust me, I have taught more than a few securities courses

I think I'm getting mixed up between internal data and external data. I worked inside on the real stuff with trading engines and data for the TSE/NYSE, not the pre-fab consumer end. When a stock split, its market capitalization never changed, and any data I would see reflected that. I never worked on the other end of the process, and couldn't sell a stock to save my life.

[FlyingDonut]

 Originally Posted By: joe_collector

I don't think so, as the main reason for a stock split is to devalue the price so that more investors can buy it.

 

An $80 stock split 2-1 would be worth $40, and thus, more attractive to more investors.

 

Trust me, I took more than a few securities courses.

 

Also for reference so that people don't blindly listen to JC (I know ... I know ... noone does). While it is true that companies try to play to their clientele by keeping their stock price "affordable", i.e., you can place a round-lot order of 100 shares without tilting your portfolio too heavily into one stock (Berkshire anyone), at heart, the stock is no more attractive to investors after the split than before the split. The market implicitely assumes that firms split their stock before a big rise in the value of the firm. Firms take advantage of this belief and issue split in the hope the market will react as such. Truth be told, splits are not great predictors of future health and profitability by firms. Only in those instances when firms combine a split with an increase in dividends, i.e., committing $$$ to the signal, can we document that the split is indeed a signal of future higher returns.

That chart reflects all splits that eBay has had.I have an MBA, and, more importantly, have been an eBay shareholder since the company went public.

[the blob]

Oh jeez, editing my store items, great. I don't make a refereence to M.O.s, but I checked the box for it on my store items. Is ebay going to uncheck the box? Unfortunately, they didn't uncheck bidpay for me either.

[joe_collector]

Yeah, I'm sure EBay will automate that part of it, as that option will no longer be available.

 

I think it's only the custom stuff you have to worry about.

[the blob]

my auctions still say bidpay and every time I revise a listing it tells me that bidpay is no longer allowed. ebay hasn't removed bidpay system-wide.

 

gosh, i wish there was an easier way to do mass editing. i'm in the process of raising my s/h to $5 for flat rate priority, which involves going into each listing, etc. and is a real PITA. at night i start to fall asleep after about 6 or 7 revisions. by the time I'm done priority will probably be $6 or $7.

 

does turbolister allow this to be done easier? my wife was very much against turbolister because she thought it gave ebay too much access to our computer and such, too many cookies or whatever, something irritated her about it, I dunno. she's the IT/Tech person in the house (which isn't saying much, but she actually programs, albeit in some weird niche academic computer language that nobody in the mainstream uses)

[joe_collector]

Then personally speaking, I wouldn't worry about it and let EBay fix it if necessary.

[skypinkblu]

I've had quite a few people not willing to pay with paypal, and since I don't take credit cards, I suppose those people will just not be able to buy any longer...

 

What really bothers me about this, is I sold some china for a friend. The first bidder had private feedback, never paid, never got back to me, had a phoney phone number/address, and he's still on the site.

 

The 2nd time I listed it, someone did pay and Paypal announced they were holding the money for 21 days...I DID do free shipping, so I'll be out the fees and shipping for at least the 21 days, because they CAN hold it for longer.

 

I called them and asked what was up, since I have quite a bit of feedback and my only neg was from a seller, 9 years ago...and I was told, that it doesn't matter, on certain items, they will just hold the money ...I guess collectible china is one of them.

 

I used to love that site, I so don't to list there anymore...and I'm afraid, my days of 99 cent auctions are going to be over...

[skypinkblu]

and I'm wondering if someone can argue, restraint of trade...

 

Meanwhile, I was going to sell some classics (not comics) I had in the attic, as a group, but since you can only charge $15.00 for up to 100 books (not comics, BIG books_)...

 

I think I'll be visiting the Salvation Army a lot;)

[shiverbones]

Wow, I hadn't heard these were coming at all, I have been living in a bubble the last few weeks. It's starting to feel more regulated than a vegas ho-house, and not in a good way. I have to reread the changes & make sure I am grasping everything. I don't mind the price drop on BIN, but don't like the added duration. A buyer is more likely to pull the trigger on day six if it's only up for 7 days, but I think if it is stretched that long, it's more of a ho-hum sort of deal. Wait & see approach will lead to less sales.

[Ringfinger]

E-Bay stinks lately.

[dunefan]

Sigh indeed. I'll be off eBay since I don't use Paypal. I shop online regularly but I will not use Paypal. I've been on ebay since 3/15/97. I haven't done much comic shopping for a while but I'll miss looking for other collectibles (Dune-stuff).

 

As with many others here, I have a large collection to sell so when I'm ready, it will be via the forums, clink, etc.