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

[Guardian Comics]

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.

MH Timelys.

 

Mile High Timelys =

 

Jim

[adamstrange]

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.

MH Timelys.

 

Mile High Timelys =

 

Jim

 

I agree!

 

[MrBedrock]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

[VintageComics]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

[adamstrange]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

I'm as evil as Dave A!

[MrBedrock]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

I'm as evil as Dave A!

Dave would be one of the guys lining up to pay a ton for it.

[adamstrange]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

I'm as evil as Dave A!

Dave would be one of the guys lining up to pay a ton for it.

 

Do you think he'd trade for some Actions?

[MrBedrock]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

I'm as evil as Dave A!

Dave would be one of the guys lining up to pay a ton for it.

 

Do you think he'd trade for some Actions?

Yeah...ones he bought off the stands in the 1980's.

[VintageComics]

Just an unbelievable book! (thumbs u

If it ever came up for sale it would definitely help the growth of Golden Age prices.

 

I'm as evil as Dave A!

Dave would be one of the guys lining up to pay a ton for it.

 

Do you think he'd trade for some Actions?

Yeah...ones he bought off the stands in the 1980's.

 

But if they had the Church code on them they might be worth it.

[Guardian Comics]

I think if you bring up here the one and only post Dave Anderson ever made on these boards[[and it is lengthy] You can garner tibits from it as to why he chooses to be private in regard to his collection.

Does anyone have this link to his post? I can't find it on the search :doh:

Nevermind, I found it. Personable fella isn't he?

 

Thomas: Can you at least post a link for those of us lacking skills in the art of searching?

 

Jim

[Crowzilla]

2004 Upper Deck Lebron James/Michael Jordan card sold for $150,100. It is the only 1 of its kind.

5 out of 5 on the puke-o-meter.

 

I think I'd be sick if i bought this since it looks like Kobe to me.

 

[delekkerste]

Well, since it's still being talked about...

 

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.

 

I think the hedge fund compensation system is very well thought out. The vast majority of the funds out there depend on their management fees just to keep the lights on (especially at the smaller funds, of course), so at a time when the industry is not earning incentive compensation, it's not like people are raking it in by any means. I don't see any problem with managers leveraging other people's money for their own profit - they were the ones who had to go out and raise that money (often at substantial cost - I could tell you stories that would make your head explode) and keep the money through performance. Remember, investors can pull their money out if they aren't happy with what they're getting. The managers only participate on the upside when their client does (and the latter keeps 80% of the gains) and, if they lose money, they have to make it up before they start earning fees again. It's only when the funds lock investors in against their will or when they shut down to start over do any questions of ethics, moral hazard, etc. come into play.

 

And don't give yourself such short-shrift - individually, it may not seem like you are producing anything, but private, risk-taking investors as a whole contribute tremendously to the efficiency of both the economy and financial markets, the effects of which are felt throughout.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

 

It's not just liquidity that matters, but the price discovery process as a whole which requires many participants, with differing points of view, putting their capital at risk. In doing so, information gets impounded into prices, liquidity is created and market efficiency is achieved. Obviously, the real world doesn't work 100% that way, but without mass participation, it wouldn't work at all. By definition, not everybody can have "above average" stock picking ability, and it takes two sides to make a market.

 

Tim is right - the development of large, deep, liquid, institutionally-dominated financial markets has a tremendous effect on economic growth and development. For developed economies/markets, it keeps costs down for both investors and borrowers. This saves the U.S. economy billions of dollars annually (just think about how much higher borrowing costs would be and multiply that by the trillions of dollars of debt outstanding, just for starters).

[tth2]

The managers only participate on the upside when their client does (and the latter keeps 80% of the gains) and, if they lose money, they have to make it up before they start earning fees again. It's only when the funds lock investors in against their will or when they shut down to start over do any questions of ethics, moral hazard, etc. come into play.

Unfortunately, this is what happens all too much. I can`t blame the funds, since they`re allowed to do that and their investors (who are supposed to be sophisticated investors) agreed to it. If I were the legal advisor of a fund who was badly underperforming, my advice from a purely legal perspective would be to just wind up the fund and hope that the manager`s reputation wasn`t so tarnished that he`d be able to raise a new fund again some day. Which, given investors` incredibly short memories, isn`t such an unlikely prospect.

 

This ability gives people the impression that funds are in a "tails I win heads you lose" position.

[action1kid]

The managers only participate on the upside when their client does (and the latter keeps 80% of the gains) and, if they lose money, they have to make it up before they start earning fees again. It's only when the funds lock investors in against their will or when they shut down to start over do any questions of ethics, moral hazard, etc. come into play.

Unfortunately, this is what happens all too much. I can`t blame the funds, since they`re allowed to do that and their investors (who are supposed to be sophisticated investors) agreed to it. If I were the legal advisor of a fund who was badly underperforming, my advice from a purely legal perspective would be to just wind up the fund and hope that the manager`s reputation wasn`t so tarnished that he`d be able to raise a new fund again some day. Which, given investors` incredibly short memories, isn`t such an unlikely prospect.

 

This ability gives people the impression that funds are in a "tails I win heads you

 

lose" position.

 

I dont dought that the majority of investors in Hedge funds are not sophisticated investors.That is a word you can paint with a very broad brush.What they invest in certainly is more sophisticated [long,short,arbitrage,options,calls,puts]sure....I certainly believe that alot of unsophisticated investors were pulled in to a more .sufiscated way of taking a bigger risk for the potential of a bigger reward.

[jkrk]

Well, since it's still being talked about...

 

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.

 

I think the hedge fund compensation system is very well thought out. The vast majority of the funds out there depend on their management fees just to keep the lights on (especially at the smaller funds, of course), so at a time when the industry is not earning incentive compensation, it's not like people are raking it in by any means. I don't see any problem with managers leveraging other people's money for their own profit - they were the ones who had to go out and raise that money (often at substantial cost - I could tell you stories that would make your head explode) and keep the money through performance. Remember, investors can pull their money out if they aren't happy with what they're getting. The managers only participate on the upside when their client does (and the latter keeps 80% of the gains) and, if they lose money, they have to make it up before they start earning fees again. It's only when the funds lock investors in against their will or when they shut down to start over do any questions of ethics, moral hazard, etc. come into play.

 

And don't give yourself such short-shrift - individually, it may not seem like you are producing anything, but private, risk-taking investors as a whole contribute tremendously to the efficiency of both the economy and financial markets, the effects of which are felt throughout.

 

 

traders to stock markets dominated by institutional traders has been absolutely critical in the growth of these countries and their economies.

 

 

I shouldn't blame the funds for taking advantage of a game in which most of their investors are clueless. I personally know the capabilities of a number of hedge fudge managers and the thought of giving them a loaded gun (excess leverage) (or worse some of my money) is somewhat nauseating. Some managers are truly outstanding. Most are poor to average. Unfortunately I understand the business better than most pros so I can evaluate talent. However, my performance for the past 25 years would place me in the top 1-2% of all managers so can I truly judge the proper standard?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tth2]

The managers only participate on the upside when their client does (and the latter keeps 80% of the gains) and, if they lose money, they have to make it up before they start earning fees again. It's only when the funds lock investors in against their will or when they shut down to start over do any questions of ethics, moral hazard, etc. come into play.

Unfortunately, this is what happens all too much. I can`t blame the funds, since they`re allowed to do that and their investors (who are supposed to be sophisticated investors) agreed to it. If I were the legal advisor of a fund who was badly underperforming, my advice from a purely legal perspective would be to just wind up the fund and hope that the manager`s reputation wasn`t so tarnished that he`d be able to raise a new fund again some day. Which, given investors` incredibly short memories, isn`t such an unlikely prospect.

 

This ability gives people the impression that funds are in a "tails I win heads you

 

lose" position.

 

I dont dought that the majority of investors in Hedge funds are not sophisticated investors.That is a word you can paint with a very broad brush.What they invest in certainly is more sophisticated [long,short,arbitrage,options,calls,puts]sure....I certainly believe that alot of unsophisticated investors were pulled in to a more .sufiscated way of taking a bigger risk for the potential of a bigger reward.

All of those investors signed documents certifying that they were sophisticated investors. So if they lied in order to get in on the latest investment fad, it's their own damn fault, isn't it?