Does the lack of MH sales hurt or help the growth of GA prices?

[Bronty]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

[Paratrooper]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

 

If it has Obama on the cover $100k is worth the cost!

[capt_comics]

wow that upper deck card is a joke. the woods card I have less of a problem with. overpriced but at least its not a manufactured collectible like the first one

 

I concur, hence only 4 buckets O puke for that one.

 

A number of years ago when the whole frankencards thing started, I went to a card shop, bought a $7 pack of cards, got one decent one and sold it on ebay for $200 the same week. The whole time I actually felt sorry for the guy who bought it. Of course to each his own. But I still threw up a bit over it. Of course that's probably b/c I was jumping up and down in jubilation over the sale of that POS card.

 

And you could go back to your card shop, buy 20 more packs for $7 each and not pull a thing worth more than $10-20

 

 

[Bronty]

the best part about limited numbered cards, ebay sellers selling a card numbered 5 of 25 as "one of a kind". "It's the only #5 in existence!"

 

heheh, that's pure gold

[hockey&comicsguy]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

 

If it has Obama on the cover $100k is worth the cost!

 

 

We all know you don't like Spider Man Vaughn.

[Paratrooper]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

 

If it has Obama on the cover $100k is worth the cost!

 

 

We all know you like Spider Man Vaughn.

 

Something about a dude in red tights swinging around a city just appeals to me

[hockey&comicsguy]

wow that upper deck card is a joke. the woods card I have less of a problem with. overpriced but at least its not a manufactured collectible like the first one

 

I concur, hence only 4 buckets O puke for that one.

 

A number of years ago when the whole frankencards thing started, I went to a card shop, bought a $7 pack of cards, got one decent one and sold it on ebay for $200 the same week. The whole time I actually felt sorry for the guy who bought it. Of course to each his own. But I still threw up a bit over it. Of course that's probably b/c I was jumping up and down in jubilation over the sale of that POS card.

 

And you could go back to your card shop, buy 20 more packs for $7 each and not pull a thing worth more than $10-20

 

 

I believe that Jordan/Lebron card was a $500 per pack item. I remember reading about the packs coming in a friggin' purple, velvet box or something. For $500 bucks the pack had 3 cards in it I think.

[hockey&comicsguy]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

 

If it has Obama on the cover $100k is worth the cost!

 

 

We all know you like Spider Man Vaughn.

 

Something about a dude in red tights swinging around a city just appeals to me

 

It would if he had a limited supply of webbing and had to parachute to safety.

[capt_comics]

wow that upper deck card is a joke. the woods card I have less of a problem with. overpriced but at least its not a manufactured collectible like the first one

 

I concur, hence only 4 buckets O puke for that one.

 

A number of years ago when the whole frankencards thing started, I went to a card shop, bought a $7 pack of cards, got one decent one and sold it on ebay for $200 the same week. The whole time I actually felt sorry for the guy who bought it. Of course to each his own. But I still threw up a bit over it. Of course that's probably b/c I was jumping up and down in jubilation over the sale of that POS card.

 

And you could go back to your card shop, buy 20 more packs for $7 each and not pull a thing worth more than $10-20

 

 

I believe that Jordan/Lebron card was a $500 per pack item. I remember reading about the packs coming in a friggin' purple, velvet box or something. For $500 bucks the pack had 3 cards in it I think.

 

And this market is really taking a hit in the current state of the economy

 

We have a dealer that just sells wax(boxes) and supplies at our show in Greenville SC

 

He stated his sales were down at our SuperBowl Saturday show 50% from last year's show. And he was still somewhat pleased as he said most of the shows he does in the Atlanta GA area (where he is from) were down 60-70%

 

 

 

 

 

[Paratrooper]

Can you imagine 1 of 1 comics? ie Spiderman #600 is printed with a print run of ONE so that those five people that want a complete set at all costs pay $100k for it? Its stooping pretty low IMO

 

If it has Obama on the cover $100k is worth the cost!

 

 

We all know you like Spider Man Vaughn.

 

Something about a dude in red tights swinging around a city just appeals to me

 

It would if he had a limited supply of webbing and had to parachute to safety.

 

That would be too manly for 'ol Spidey.

[jkrk]

Overwhelming and I mean overwhelmingly the richest people on wallstreet became rich by collecting commissions on running mutual funds and hedge funds and the like.They did not become rich picking stocks.They do not have an edge.it is all bull.It is all a smoke screen to bring in the real source of wealth on wallstreet.Commissions,bonus and ludicrous salaries for RUNNING THE FUNDS and not and I repeat not from picking the stocks.

 

While there are many who benefited just from collecting management fees, the overwhelming majority of hedge fund fees until recently were earned through incentive compensation. In other words, both hedge funds and their investors shared in the profits earned. No smoke and no mirrors.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

I've spent 25 years as a private investor. Wall street serves a vital purpose by raising capital / restructuring for various companies. The complaint I always had revolved around the compensation granted to employees. Everyone I knew at the investments banks worked an enormous number of hours. They deserved to be well paid as they were working the equivalence of two jobs. I never begrudged the company for paying the substantial compensation during the great years. I always believed that whoever had an enormous upside should have a downside in poor years. A smaller bonus didn't exactly seem like payback. However, if shareholders didn't complain was it my business?

 

Today, I see the hedge funds in exactly the same position. The managers compensation is on an incentive basis. They receive their 2 & 20. Most keep a bit of their compensation in the firm for good faith. However, a system that gives them the opportunity to use Other people's money creates an incentive for them to take educated "shots". ? In essence they are leveraging their capital. In good years they are benefiting from their investment account and the management fees but more importantly from their return on investors profits. In poor years, their investment account declines, they pocket the management fees, but must make their investors whole before the 20% fees begin. Managers are always using their investors money to make the investors whole. The downside isn't great enough so the system encourages risk. If the losses are too great, the managers will close down and look to start up at a future point in time.

 

Maybe, I'm jealous. I have always had to play the game taking all the risk. The upside

is that I accept all the rewards. I produce nothing for society. I don't feel bad. I am not a burden to society and can even afford a comic or two.

 

 

 

 

:

 

[lou_fine]

I think the unavailability of MANY of the best books in the hobby has helped to keep down prices and suppress the profile of this hobby.

 

In addition, not only have most of the best books not traded hands in recent memory, no one even knows what they look like.

 

AF #15's have been available by the truckload yet prices still seem to soar.

 

Trooper;

 

You've definitely validated Tim's theory with your AF #15 example! (thumbs u

 

Yes, AF #15 has an ample supply available and as a result of being able to fill the demand, has definitely helped to fuel the surge in prices for this book.

[tth2]

Trading in the aftermarket for stocks is precisely akin to trading in baseball cards. You aren't developing natural resources, you aren't manufacturing a product, and you aren't even investing in a business. All you are doing is buying and selling pieces of paper to and from other investor with no proceeds from that transaction going to the company whose name is on the piece of paper. It is wealth transference, not wealth creation.

If there wasn`t a dynamic and liquid aftermarket for stocks, companies would never be able to raise capital by publicly offering their stock in the first place. Who would buy the stock, except perhaps as a pure dividend play, but then you`d be better off buying debt?

 

So trading stocks does in fact indirectly lead to "real" wealth creation, unless you really believe that we`d be better off in a world in which all companies are privately held and the only financing available is through debt.

[tth2]

I agree that seeing the big books change hands every few years would have raised values. AF15s have benefitted by enough copies in play to meet the demand.

 

but, whatever.... DA and other collectors bought these books cause they wanted them and STILL want them. goosing the market is not their concern. It will get there anyway. Slower maybe, but it will get there. Why should they care if they are not selling?

 

As for keeping them in the dark, thats a more personal question. Id like to see them all! But I understand the reluctance.

Damn, guys, why is everyone reading Buttock`s question as some sort of personal attack on Anderson and Co or criticism of their collecting decisions? It`s not, okay?

 

He`s just asking a conceptual question whether prices would be higher if the best books did change hands every now and then, and whether the hobby would be more high profile if they did.

[tth2]

I don't feel bad. I am not a burden to society and can even afford a comic or two.

Yes, but you can`t figure out how to use the quote function.

[Bronty]

Trading in the aftermarket for stocks is precisely akin to trading in baseball cards. You aren't developing natural resources, you aren't manufacturing a product, and you aren't even investing in a business. All you are doing is buying and selling pieces of paper to and from other investor with no proceeds from that transaction going to the company whose name is on the piece of paper. It is wealth transference, not wealth creation.

If there wasn`t a dynamic and liquid aftermarket for stocks, companies would never be able to raise capital by publicly offering their stock in the first place. Who would buy the stock, except perhaps as a pure dividend play, but then you`d be better off buying debt?

 

So trading stocks does in fact indirectly lead to "real" wealth creation, unless you really believe that we`d be better off in a world in which all companies are privately held and the only financing available is through debt.

 

the answer to whether or not it creates wealth is tied up in how you define the industry. Clearly the raising of capital leads to wealth creation but "picking" stocks does not.

[Socratic Wonder]

There are some who have said Dave Anderson was doing things to hurt the hobby.

I don't think this is what they had in mind.

 

Yup (thumbs u

[tth2]

Trading in the aftermarket for stocks is precisely akin to trading in baseball cards. You aren't developing natural resources, you aren't manufacturing a product, and you aren't even investing in a business. All you are doing is buying and selling pieces of paper to and from other investor with no proceeds from that transaction going to the company whose name is on the piece of paper. It is wealth transference, not wealth creation.

If there wasn`t a dynamic and liquid aftermarket for stocks, companies would never be able to raise capital by publicly offering their stock in the first place. Who would buy the stock, except perhaps as a pure dividend play, but then you`d be better off buying debt?

 

So trading stocks does in fact indirectly lead to "real" wealth creation, unless you really believe that we`d be better off in a world in which all companies are privately held and the only financing available is through debt.

 

the answer to whether or not it creates wealth is tied up in how you define the industry. Clearly the raising of capital leads to wealth creation but "picking" stocks does not.

You`d think that might be the case, but the fact is that secondary stock markets in which the majority of trading volume is from institutional trading (i.e., your "stock pickers") rather than individual retail trading tend to be much more liquid and orderly. This in turn attracts more companies to list on those stock markets which further contributes to liquidity and depth, etc. etc.

 

Anyone who`s lived in emerging market countries during the past 25 years would agree without hesitation that moving from stock markets dominated by mom & pop retail traders to stock markets dominated by institutional traders has been absolutely critical in the growth of these countries and their economies.

[Bronty]

I'm not saying that having an orderly stock market isn't necessary, clearly it is. but its the ability to pick not the picking itself that creates that necessary liquidity

[MrBedrock]

I agree that seeing the big books change hands every few years would have raised values. AF15s have benefitted by enough copies in play to meet the demand.

 

but, whatever.... DA and other collectors bought these books cause they wanted them and STILL want them. goosing the market is not their concern. It will get there anyway. Slower maybe, but it will get there. Why should they care if they are not selling?

 

As for keeping them in the dark, thats a more personal question. Id like to see them all! But I understand the reluctance.

Damn, guys, why is everyone reading Buttock`s question as some sort of personal attack on Anderson and Co or criticism of their collecting decisions? It`s not, okay?

 

He`s just asking a conceptual question whether prices would be higher if the best books did change hands every now and then, and whether the hobby would be more high profile if they did.

I have no idea how others are viewing the question but if I were in Dave's shoes as far as owning the MH Actions and the killer run of Detectives he has put together, I would have no inclination to sell them. Especially if I could afford to keep them.

I wouldn't even consider whether or not their sale would have any impact on the hobby as a whole. It is kind of a given.

 

That being said, at what point is the money such a life changing amount that it outweighs the appeal of having the books? That is the real question. That number is different for every collector. Dave's threshold is high enough that those books are a non-factor in the overall market for now. The same can be said for John Verzyl and the MH Timelys.