Comic Book Investing

[mysterio]

That`s what I think he was trying to get at. A good number of Americans are rich on paper because of their houses worth, but in fact they are living paycheck to paycheck.

An example is my cousin owns or is paying a bank the next 30 years to pay off a house that has a perceived value of 1 million. On paper my cousin can say they are worth one million because of that house`s perceived value, but in reality they are not, as they struggle just to make the bank mortgage payments, pay car loans, come up with gas money, and what not.

Why you get so many Americans think they are richer then what they really are is because of their perceived house`s value.

 

 

Only the part you have paid off contributes to net worth. If you owe $500,000 and have $60,000 in equity that equates to a -$440,000 contribution to your net worth. That is not rich on paper or anywhere else.

 

We are grossly off topic again, but no, this is not correct. If you have a $500,000 value house with a $440,000 mortgage, that $60,000 in equity is applied to your net worth. The caveat to this is, that the equity in your owner occupied property is not applied to your net worth in a financial analysis.

 

-J.

 

Not to get any farther off topic, but how is that not correct? Net worth is assets minus liabilities. I completely agree that the $60,000 in equity goes on the asset side, but you can't ignore the remaining mortgage debt.

 

No comment on the topic at hand, but has anyone else told you they figured out your avatar is the error printing of FF #110...?

 

 

No, you're the first!

[oakman29]

 

160K is NOT middle income. And if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are doing something wrong. You are in the top 5% of all wage earners in this country.

 

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx

 

Maybe buying too many comic books?

 

Yeah paying for daughters apartment,food...yadayada.Foster parenting her two boys,house payment,bills,my classic car,gas(big one)wife goes through 800 a month in gas,then comics! whew,I got a tad dizzy for a moment.

 

Another example of cost of living increase.

Who knows what gas will be 15 years from now?

I bet in the year 2000 nobody thought they would be paying 800 a month for gas.

 

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

 

cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. my home in NYC costs a million give or take (not that i paid that thank goodness, although the bank owns most of it, as i am reminded every month). my same home in a similar neighborhood in cleveland probably costs $85,000, maybe less. $150-200,000 income in NYC or LA or SF with 2 or 3 kids does not go far. i know it's hard for someone from a low COL area have a tough time grasping this, like i have a tough time grasping buying a nice home for $140K.

 

So sad but true

These are average examples of houses in NY vs Houses in pretty much the rest of this country

 

 

 

It's just bad form (and a little tacky IMO) to be crying poverty and to claim to be barely getting by as you choose to live in your 1 million dollar house in Beverly Hills or condo in NYC or whatever other affluent area. No, you are not middle class, no you do not know what it means to he struggling, and yes you are being disrespectful to those people in the other 95% of the country who actually are. If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

Rant over.

 

-J.

I think it's a tad tacky to tell me that because I make x amount of money that I'm not struggling.The money I make may make it real well in your little podunk town,but I truly have a hard time keeping up with my bills,grandkids,car and everything else.So before you think that there was any bragging you are out of line.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

By the way...

 

Gold isn't an investment, it's a hedge. Same with most other precious metals.

 

You don't buy metals to make money; you buy them to not lose it.

 

An ounce of gold in 1914 buys pretty much the same thing that an ounce of gold buys in 2014. That $20 gold certificate from 1914...?

 

Well. It ain't worth an ounce of gold, that's for sure. At one time, though, you could trade it for just about an ounce of gold.

 

And....

 

Those who let it ride through 2008, without panicking and selling off have done fairly well...thus far.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

That`s what I think he was trying to get at. A good number of Americans are rich on paper because of their houses worth, but in fact they are living paycheck to paycheck.

An example is my cousin owns or is paying a bank the next 30 years to pay off a house that has a perceived value of 1 million. On paper my cousin can say they are worth one million because of that house`s perceived value, but in reality they are not, as they struggle just to make the bank mortgage payments, pay car loans, come up with gas money, and what not.

Why you get so many Americans think they are richer then what they really are is because of their perceived house`s value.

 

 

Only the part you have paid off contributes to net worth. If you owe $500,000 and have $60,000 in equity that equates to a -$440,000 contribution to your net worth. That is not rich on paper or anywhere else.

 

We are grossly off topic again, but no, this is not correct. If you have a $500,000 value house with a $440,000 mortgage, that $60,000 in equity is applied to your net worth. The caveat to this is, that the equity in your owner occupied property is not applied to your net worth in a financial analysis.

 

-J.

 

Not to get any farther off topic, but how is that not correct? Net worth is assets minus liabilities. I completely agree that the $60,000 in equity goes on the asset side, but you can't ignore the remaining mortgage debt.

 

No comment on the topic at hand, but has anyone else told you they figured out your avatar is the error printing of FF #110...?

 

 

No, you're the first!

 

Yeah, I'd recognize that seasick Ben Grimm expression anywhere.

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hado's avatar threw me for a while, too. It looked like some fancy dinosaur skull. Then, I looked closely at it for the first time the other day, and lo and behold!....it's Spiderwoman!

 

[mysterio]

Hado's avatar threw me for a while, too. It looked like some fancy dinosaur skull. Then, I looked closely at it for the first time the other day, and lo and behold!....it's Spiderwoman!

 

 

I change it around every once in a while, and just scanned a copy of this the other day. I love that cover, so I snagged the Thing for my new avatar.

[stroszek]

Not to mention first Green Arrow Petey. So if you had a choice. 1000 shares of AAPL or the Church 9.4 More Fun 73 what do you pick? I imagine the MF73 would fetch more than the 91kish the Aapl would fetch, but the commissions would be way high to liquidate. It fetched $75k back in 2/12 on a Heritage auction. I would assume 15-20% appreciation since the sale, but of course there are no guarantees.

 

AAPL pays dividends, conducts R&D, can introduce new products, and has a powerful global brand.

 

Aquaman talks to fish.

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

Hado's avatar threw me for a while, too. It looked like some fancy dinosaur skull. Then, I looked closely at it for the first time the other day, and lo and behold!....it's Spiderwoman!

 

 

I change it around every once in a while, and just scanned a copy of this the other day. I love that cover, so I snagged the Thing for my new avatar.

 

I know you change your avatar. It bugs the snot out of me.

 

Visually oriented people tend to associate people with their avatars. If it changes, disorientation sets in. If Bedrock, or Beyonder, or Gator, or Ciorac, etc, ever changed their avatars, I'd be a bit confused for a while.

 

If someone changes their name AND their avatar, I have no clue who they are.

[Underground44]

 

160K is NOT middle income. And if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are doing something wrong. You are in the top 5% of all wage earners in this country.

 

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx

 

Maybe buying too many comic books?

 

Yeah paying for daughters apartment,food...yadayada.Foster parenting her two boys,house payment,bills,my classic car,gas(big one)wife goes through 800 a month in gas,then comics! whew,I got a tad dizzy for a moment.

 

Another example of cost of living increase.

Who knows what gas will be 15 years from now?

I bet in the year 2000 nobody thought they would be paying 800 a month for gas.

 

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

 

cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. my home in NYC costs a million give or take (not that i paid that thank goodness, although the bank owns most of it, as i am reminded every month). my same home in a similar neighborhood in cleveland probably costs $85,000, maybe less. $150-200,000 income in NYC or LA or SF with 2 or 3 kids does not go far. i know it's hard for someone from a low COL area have a tough time grasping this, like i have a tough time grasping buying a nice home for $140K.

 

So sad but true

These are average examples of houses in NY vs Houses in pretty much the rest of this country

 

 

 

It's just bad form (and a little tacky IMO) to be crying poverty and to claim to be barely getting by as you choose to live in your 1 million dollar house in Beverly Hills or condo in NYC or whatever other affluent area. No, you are not middle class, no you do not know what it means to he struggling, and yes you are being disrespectful to those people in the other 95% of the country who actually are. If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

Rant over.

 

-J.

I think it's a tad tacky to tell me that because I make x amount of money that I'm not struggling.The money I make may make it real well in your little podunk town,but I truly have a hard time keeping up with my bills,grandkids,car and everything else.So before you think that there was any bragging you are out of line.

 

+1 Absolutely out of line.

[shadroch]

By the way...

 

Gold isn't an investment, it's a hedge. Same with most other precious metals.

 

You don't buy metals to make money; you buy them to not lose it.

 

An ounce of gold in 1914 buys pretty much the same thing that an ounce of gold buys in 2014. That $20 gold certificate from 1914...?

 

 

 

 

You keep repeating this, but you are very wrong. A dollar in 1914 is worth about $23.50 today. A $20 gold coin contained just under an ounce of gold, so you multiply 23 x20 and you come up with $460. Even rounding up to $500, just to be generous, you are still not even close to today's cost of an ounce of gold.

You could buy a car in 1914 for $1,000 or 50 ounces of gold. Today, a new car would cost about 15 ounces.

That $20 Gold Certificate you mention, in uncirculated condition, just might have held up a lot better than you think.

[anonymous user-migration]

 

160K is NOT middle income. And if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are doing something wrong. You are in the top 5% of all wage earners in this country.

 

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/top-1-percent-earn.aspx

 

Maybe buying too many comic books?

 

Yeah paying for daughters apartment,food...yadayada.Foster parenting her two boys,house payment,bills,my classic car,gas(big one)wife goes through 800 a month in gas,then comics! whew,I got a tad dizzy for a moment.

 

Another example of cost of living increase.

Who knows what gas will be 15 years from now?

I bet in the year 2000 nobody thought they would be paying 800 a month for gas.

 

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

 

cost of living, cost of living, cost of living. my home in NYC costs a million give or take (not that i paid that thank goodness, although the bank owns most of it, as i am reminded every month). my same home in a similar neighborhood in cleveland probably costs $85,000, maybe less. $150-200,000 income in NYC or LA or SF with 2 or 3 kids does not go far. i know it's hard for someone from a low COL area have a tough time grasping this, like i have a tough time grasping buying a nice home for $140K.

 

So sad but true

These are average examples of houses in NY vs Houses in pretty much the rest of this country

 

 

 

It's just bad form (and a little tacky IMO) to be crying poverty and to claim to be barely getting by as you choose to live in your 1 million dollar house in Beverly Hills or condo in NYC or whatever other affluent area. No, you are not middle class, no you do not know what it means to he struggling, and yes you are being disrespectful to those people in the other 95% of the country who actually are. If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

Rant over.

 

-J.

I think it's a tad tacky to tell me that because I make x amount of money that I'm not struggling.The money I make may make it real well in your little podunk town,but I truly have a hard time keeping up with my bills,grandkids,car and everything else.So before you think that there was any bragging you are out of line.

 

+1 Absolutely out of line.

 

 

I paid 50K for a house which is prettier than all those pictured, My little town ranks in the top 99% for least crime rate. With no major crimes reported in this century.

 

Being middle class is way over-rated. When we were considered middle class we struggled to keep the bills paid. Now that we are once again in the working poor class, we have it made in the shade. Food stamps and free health care. We get thousands back from Uncle Sam every March from money we never paid in, and take 2 vacations a year. Vehicles that are paid off and i can jump in and drive coast to coast. More DVD's and comic books than used book stores have. A garage full of big boy toys. Not to mention enough money left over at the end of the month to help my kids with their bills. Life is good for the working poor, at least in my little town.

 

Middle class might be something others shoot for, i've been there and done that, and i like working poor class much better. More money in my pocket.

 

[mintcollector]

Movies seem to be driving the marketplace and the only film on the horizon is GOTG and those books are outrageously priced. I'd like to hear some thoughts on books from each age that folks think will do well over the next 6-12 months. In an effort to stir the pot, ill go first.

 

Golden Age-How about All Star #3? 1st superhero team ever, but the book never seems to put up huge numbers. I believe that could change.

Silver Age-Taking a bit of a gamble here. I'm in the camp that thinks there might be a bit of a bubble in SA Marvels. That said, TOS #46 is compelling. It's only a matter of time before the classic US vs USSR angle hits the big screen. It's tried and true and Crimson Dynamo is as good a bet as any to play the protagonist.

Bronze Age-Forever People #1. No brainer. Probably more of these in circulation due to it being Kirby's baby than say GL #76 or HOS #92, but c'mon people. The first full Darkseid shouldn't be trading at the same price as the first full Taskmaster.

Copper Age-New Mutants 98 hasn't budged over the past year, making it still fairly affordable.

Modern Age-Walking Dead #100 chrome. Should pop when Negan shows up on AMC.

 

Just my take, guys. I'd love to hear some other opinions. Thanks in advance.

 

 

http://www.worthpoint.com/blog-entry/rinker-collectibles-myth-guaranteed-collectible

 

The above is an article you should read. The problem with comic books over the long term is that they are nothing short of being pop culture. As someone once mentioned and as what I have stated many times in other threads, Westerns (and even pulps) were once extremely popular at one time. Unfortunately, now as the generation who grew up with Westerns moves into retirement homes (err...retirement age); Westerns are no longer popular to mainstream audiences and as such their related collectibles have dropped anywhere from 30-60% of their value. The noted author of the article I wanted you to at least read (as noted above) recently sold off his collection and all his so called pop culture toys and collectibles did not break record prices. He is also a very smart collector who educates on the trade, has written numerous books, and is highly successful.

 

With any kind of antique or collectible you get no income stream while the item sits in storage, your house, or a safe deposit box. In fact, what you do get are lots of expenses that increase with the cost of your collection. Just my personal comic book collection alone costs close to a thousand of dollars a year to insure and I still have to pay for supplies and related off-site storage to hold the collection. Is it an investment? I don't consider it one and don't even bother to consider it part of my net worth (which technically I could).

 

In conclusion if you were dead set on investing in tangible assets for your retirement you would do far better with investment grade antiques, but even that has risks and does not generate any positive cash flow while you own them. Still, it is not akin to buying pop culture based collectibles that can move out of flavor rather quickly. Don't you think the current popularity and mainstream obsession with comic books as 'investments' is enough of a warning to signify that these items have reached their near maximum potential and a speculative bubble may have emerged? Marvel will not remain popular forever bringing out new movies ever month. I would also venture to say that Guardians of the Galaxy will have a few strong opening weekends and then fall back into obscurity. The preview I saw drew a lack of attention from several people I know including myself whop refuse to sit through that kind of movie. Hopefully it will appeal to kids who want a light Marvel comic book movie outside the mainstream.

 

 

[namisgr]

If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

I'd say, if you're doing well financially, share what you know in a thread devoted to comic book 'investing'. Explaining why issues of liquidity, scale, price instability, intrinsic value, and health of the sector make comic books terrible investments today relative to traditional vehicles like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds could be of considerable help to those who are at once struggling financially, and attempting to use the comic hobby as a major 'investment' strategy.

 

And +1 to the post directly above.

[Gatsby77]

There's no need for comics (or any antiques or collectibles, for that matter) to generate cash flow during your holding period to qualify or disqualify them as investments.

 

And unlike with say...stocks (absent high-speed trading capabilities), arbitrage is possible (even easy) with comics - both between auction/buying venues, where fluctuations can swing as high as +/- 40%, and with sourcing private collections (buying wholesale in bulk & selling at 80-85% retail).

 

My primary issue is with liquidity - selling/storing/sorting comics takes times, whereas instant withdrawals from my paycheck into an index fund does not. I can draw the funds within a few clicks of a mouse, vs. (potentially) the hours it takes to turn comic books into cash.

 

And yes - scale's hard. One "smart" investment strategy would be to buy bulk Copper collections wholesale (still possible), sell them at 70-80% retail, and thus build a war chest to buy SA keys at a certain value threshold (say, $500-$1,500+). All you're really doing is increasing the liquidity - but the opportunity cost is time.

 

And yes - market timing is key (as in all things).

[mintcollector]

If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

I'd say, if you're doing well financially, share what you know in a thread devoted to comic book 'investing'. Explaining why issues of liquidity, scale, price instability, intrinsic value, and health of the sector make comic books terrible investments today relative to traditional vehicles like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds could be of considerable help to those who are at once struggling financially, and attempting to use the comic hobby as a major 'investment' strategy.

 

And +1 to the post directly above.

 

Exactly. I don't know what is so hard as to having a well diversified portfolio in index funds offered by a low cost fund company (Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, etc.) for the long term. While it is true I made a lot of my money in stocks (got lucky with Apple and eBay early on and sold at the right times) and the other half in the antiques and the collectibles business (factory sealed video games and high end art glass ironically); the majority of my core holdings are simply diversified in indexed funds that equate to nothing more than a mix of stocks, bonds, and specialty funds that I favor.

 

Truth be told I do hold way too much in antiques and collectibles (40% to 50% of my net worth), but those holdings are so well diversified I never truly lose. I also don't actually count these items as part of my net worth because they are a labor of love and cost a LOT of money to maintain, insure, and store.

 

I would never ever think of putting that 40% to 50% in only ONE kind of antique or collectible; nor do I intend to retire off of these items. Most likely I will be buried with them. I have turned down some tremendous offers on some of these items. It was at that point I realized that calling these things 'investments' was only a way to trick myself into buying them in the first place. Right now I have been getting a lot of interest in the various Chinese antiques that fellow collectors in the trade know I have. I keep refusing to sell and the market could not be hotter for this kind of high quality material. Same could be said for the vast collection of Mid Century Modern furniture I have sitting in storage. Vintage Knoll and Eames chairs are very hot and collectible right now. If I was a true 'investor' I would be selling as I don't see the market for these items getting any hotter. When people are paying $5,000 for a chair I paid $500 for that someone else paid $200 for in the 1960's or 1970's I think it can truly be said that I am crazy.

 

Just an opinion, but if there is something called a high quality/value hoarder than I may fit the description perfectly and I still recognize the importance of having a firmly rooted portfolio comprised of REAL financial assets. Still the thought of selling some items does cross my mind at times. I was speaking to a young millennial who once told me that the secret of life was to be possession free. I don't think he will ever be a collector and he had an X-men shirt on. Ironically, I do remember the infamous quote that 'attachment is the origin of pain.' In some manner I can't help but to agree...

 

 

[kav]

If you're doing well financially, good for you. But keep it to yourself, this is a board for comic books.

 

I'd say, if you're doing well financially, share what you know in a thread devoted to comic book 'investing'. Explaining why issues of liquidity, scale, price instability, intrinsic value, and health of the sector make comic books terrible investments today relative to traditional vehicles like stocks, bonds, and mutual funds could be of considerable help to those who are at once struggling financially, and attempting to use the comic hobby as a major 'investment' strategy.

 

And +1 to the post directly above.

Yeah I'm not getting this class envy thing at all. It bothers me not at all if people are doing well and it's on-topic in a thread about investing.

 

[HighStakesComics]

I love your post, Mint. You make excellent points. From the sound of it you are sitting on one helluva collection. $1000 a year for insurance is more than my homeowners. When I use the term investing, please remember investments can be both short and long term in nature. Also, with any type of collectible or antique there are opportunities to find items that are mispriced. This can occur in comics when a book is undergraded, or placed in an auction that ends at an obscure time of day, or a massive collection like yours that falls in the hands of a relative that would rather have instant gratification than another $1000 insurance bill. These opportunities don't exist in the stock market. Real time quotes are readily availible. As for the popularity regarding the movies that is more or less a timing issue. Disney will almost certainly maximize their investment with good storylines and actors/actresses that are in favor, and don't forget there is a finite amount of silver age keys, especially those in 7.0 or better. The GOTG keys will most likely sell for less AFTER the movie is released than they will right now. The prices on lower grade TTA 13's are borderline ridiculous. Ill check out that article.

[mintcollector]

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=5930177#Post5930177

 

I 'bumped' another thread on this topic. It appears to be a very popular subject around these parts...

[mysterio]

The prices on lower grade TTA 13's are borderline flat out ridiculous. Ill check out that article.

 

Made a slight adjustment.

[roulette44]