Comic Book Investing

[mysterio]

with that said i have stuff from the 50s that has better page color than books bagged and boarded in the 90s. go figure.

 

Not better than my X-Force # 1's and my Youngblood # 1's. I have multiple copies of each and will be super rich when I decide to finally sell them. Also Spawn # 1. Didn't see that coming, didja?

If Spawn # 1 was bought at cover price or less then you at least doubled your value.

Spawn # 1 even with it million plus print run sells for over cover.

This is without a new movie which will eventually jumpstart Spawn again.

So I am bullish on Spawn # 1.

 

So does that mean Walking Dead #100, arguably the biggest key since #19, can appreciate with its 400,000 issue run?

 

Don't some of the covers do ok? (Not talking about the fancy variants) The michone cover I think sells for $3-$5 on any given day. Not exactly an investment, true. My LCS puts 100 out on the racks in a bag and board with a $5 sticker on it and it sells to someone every week.

 

That is a comic shop comic. It'll sell for $3-$5 a pop so long as there is interest in the show. Not briskly, but to non-comic collectors wandering into the shop, etc.

 

Pretty sure #100 had a $2.99 cover price, so an LCS selling copies for $3 isn't going to help the investment thesis nor the opinion that WD #100 is a particularly hot/desirable book.

[ComicConnoisseur]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

Believe it or not Pokémon shouldn`t be counted out like POGS.

I had an experience a month back.

My 25 year old nephew who has a Masters had just gotten married, and after the wedding as I was sitting with a bunch of 20 something year olds at the wedding reception. I found all the talk was about how back in the day they all collected Pokémon, and how they are all nostalgic for it.

Mind you now these were people in their mid-twenties who have just gotten their law degrees,Masters in Psychology and MBAs. These people are the ones who will have the disposable income to buy those Pokémon keys. So yeah expect some of the Pokémon stuff to have value.

[october]

Geez, guys, it's not that complicated.

Cherry picking illustrations in hindsight (20/20) is probably the worst way to make any argument about future investments (sadly, it's very popular in the investing world, though). Instead of saying what about the 'average' comic investor who bought walking dead 1, 10 years ago, or as an analogy to stocks, what about the 'average' investor who bought AAPL 10 years ago , it makes far more sense to point out to some type of index or basket of investments as a reference... the longer, preferably, the better. This is a better proxy for what any 'average' investor bought.

 

(thumbs u

 

That's why I started the list off showing the 5-year return of the S&P 500 (+136%; incidentally, the Nasdaq QQQ ETF returned 172% and the Russell 2000 ETF returned 150%), which is about as representative of an "average" stock market investment you can get, and then listed a lot of large-cap, household name companies. If I wanted to, I could have easily cherry picked a bunch of quadruple-digit 5-year winners that would be the equivalent of picking Atlas horror comics, but these are things that hardly any investors would have known about or considered 5 years ago.

 

Saying that the average collector would have had any idea to buy the stuff that Richard listed 5 years ago is a wild stretch, to say the least. That list certainly does not show that the average collector who buys things that the average collector likes would have fared really well compared to what they could have made elsewhere. And therein lies a major flaw with investing in comics - buying what you like often does not lead to the best investment opportunities, and emotional/nostalgic attachments can also lead you to overpaying on entry and/or holding on too long (among numerous other pitfalls).

 

But, hey, knock yourselves out - I'm just having a polite conversation here, not trying to sell anybody anything or talking my book.

 

The "average" collector wasn't buying Atlas horror or early Archies, but they weren't buying lone top census bronze, $2000 9.6 ASM 122s, #1 copper registry sets, $10,000 a pop Church More Funs and Adventures either....so not sure how you can object to Richard's list without invalidating your own.

 

You want to know what an "average" collector buys when they want to drop some money, invest, whatever, on a comic? They buy mid-grade Hulk 181s. They buy nice raw copies of ASM 300. They buy fine range ASM 121s, 122s and 129s. They buy Cap 100s and Iron Man 1s in VG/F. They buy Batman 227s and 232s. Or, if they have a bit more discretionary income, they buy low/mid grade copies of JiM 83, TOS 39, Avengers 1 and 4, etc. How do you think those purchases have fared over the last decade? Far from going down, they steadily increase year in and year out.

 

I know this because I have set up at enough shows and sold enough stuff to dealers to know what the mid-level collector always wants. Year after year, the same stuff that's hard to keep in stock. They don't want 9.6/9.8 keys priced at $2,000-$10,000. That's a niche market. Not the norm. Extrapolating market trends (as you continue to do) from the extreme high end isn't valid. The extreme high end bronze and silver books have suffered. You are right on that. That's also a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the comic market that most collectors don't understand, spend their money on, or generally give a damn about.

[delekkerste]

It's "Once hot, hot again" You can never really prove it wrong, but it has surprising merit. It's a rule of thumb but you still have to watch the trends. I still can't believe I just sold a Transformers #8 cgc 9.6 for $175 last weekend. If you watch the trends you'll see things heating up that were hot before.

 

For every property that makes a comeback, there are so, so many that don't. Mintcollector once posted this debunking of the Rule of 25 which I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

In any case, how many times can one sell a Transformers #8 9.6 for $175? And how many would you have to sell to make it worth the time and effort? As one friend of mine commented about someone on the Boards who claims to consistently make money buying and reselling comics: "He must value his time at zero. That's not investing; that's working a second job in retail."

[Jaydogrules]

Stocks do NOT have intrinsic value. It is common knowledge that they are in fact the polar opposite of an investment vehicle that has intrinsic value. Real estate, bullion/jewelry, classic cars, art and yes comic books have intrinsic value. Enron stock certificates become worthless, you ball them up and throw it in the trash. That guy who paid 20k for a hulk 181 in a 9.8 takes a bath on his investment but still owns the first (full) appearance of wolverine that he can hold in his hand and read and enjoy anytime he wants at its original purpose, regardless of whether or not the value of it has diminished. And oh yeah, he could still sell it for around 10k even now if he so wished.

 

-J.

 

I'm sorry, but this is 100% wrong. You are confusing "intrinsic value" with "tangibility".

 

Investopedia Definition of Intrinsic Value

 

Dictionary definition of intrinsic value

 

A Hulk #181 9.8 is a tangible asset. Its intrinsic value is minimal, maybe a few bucks as something to read. The rest of the item's worth is extrinsic value - the portion of the item's worth that is derived from external factors (e.g., the market's perception of its rarity and desirability) as opposed to its inherent value as a comic book magazine (again, not much more than a few bucks). The intrinsic value of a rare gold coin is its bullion content. The rest of the coin's value is extrinsic value based on the market's perception of its rarity and desirability.

 

Again, intrinsic value is a completely different concept than whether something is a tangible or intangible asset.

 

Thus endeth the lesson.

 

I'm sorry but your interpretation of the meaning of intrinsic value is just plain wrong and is clearly clouded by your obsession with stocks and disdain of the notion that comic books are and have been a wonderful money making investment for many that has rivaled or surpassed even the best stock you could name.

 

I don't normally like using Wikipedia for anything but since I'm short on time, here it is:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)

 

Stocks have exactly 0 intrinsic value. Nothing even in your prior post actually even disputed that. The intrinsic value of a comic book however is more than just the paper that it is printed on. It's the art, the nostalgia, the pop cultural significance, the creativity, the story, these things have an INTRINSIC value, and this is why we (presumably you included, but I don't know I think you would be better suited on a stock lover's forum) love comic books, and derive enjoyment from them whether they have an investment value as well or not.

 

-J.

 

 

[Gatsby77]

Both stocks and comics have "intrinsic value" - but it's two different meanings of the word.

 

Comics have "intrinsic beauty" - as in "belonging to the essential nature of a thing" -- they bring some folks joy regardless of market value because they provide story, art and distraction. For me, comic books have intrinsic value just as novels do -- and baseball cards & pogs don't.

 

In finance, "intrinsic value" refers to "the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis (i.e., discounted cash-flow) without reference to its current price (or market value)."

 

These are different shades of the same term, but they are also both correct. Comics have intrinsic value the way sunsets do; stocks' have intrinsic value once you take away the share price bloat.

[delekkerste]

The "average" collector wasn't buying Atlas horror or early Archies, but they weren't buying lone top census bronze, $2000 9.6 ASM 122s, #1 copper registry sets, $10,000 a pop Church More Funs and Adventures either....so not sure how you can object to Richard's list without invalidating your own.

 

Because most people grew up with Bronze and Copper Age books, given the age range of most collectors. The thought of buying Atlas, Archie, Timelys, etc. would not even occur to most collectors. The thought of buying X-Men, Spidey, etc. would. And much of this market is both new enough and priced at levels where higher grades are more common than not. Taking out the Church books, all the other stuff is material that a large swath of collectors would be interested in, and does not encompass just top census copies (though many of those have suffered the most).

 

Sure, the mid-grade material has probably fared better, because most people never really speculated on these books as investments (other than the keys), and so it's been a much more stable market. Not sure how great an investment they've been, and their lower dollar value makes it harder to scale to meaningfully sized positions, but, sure, I'll give you that they haven't crashed like a lot of popular books at the high end of the grading spectrum.

[HighStakesComics]

with that said i have stuff from the 50s that has better page color than books bagged and boarded in the 90s. go figure.

 

Not better than my X-Force # 1's and my Youngblood # 1's. I have multiple copies of each and will be super rich when I decide to finally sell them. Also Spawn # 1. Didn't see that coming, didja?

If Spawn # 1 was bought at cover price or less then you at least doubled your value.

Spawn # 1 even with it million plus print run sells for over cover.

This is without a new movie which will eventually jumpstart Spawn again.

So I am bullish on Spawn # 1.

 

So does that mean Walking Dead #100, arguably the biggest key since #19, can appreciate with its 400,000 issue run?

 

Don't some of the covers do ok? (Not talking about the fancy variants) The michone cover I think sells for $3-$5 on any given day. Not exactly an investment, true. My LCS puts 100 out on the racks in a bag and board with a $5 sticker on it and it sells to someone every week.

 

That is a comic shop comic. It'll sell for $3-$5 a pop so long as there is interest in the show. Not briskly, but to non-comic collectors wandering into the shop, etc.

 

Pretty sure #100 had a $2.99 cover price, so an LCS selling copies for $3 isn't going to help the investment thesis nor the opinion that WD #100 is a particularly hot/desirable book.

 

Not yet at least. For issues that still trade at cover this is one that could be at $25-$50 in the bat of an eye. It will all come down to how AMC handles Negan on the TV show. If they can pull it off, Id love to be sitting on a few chromium CGC 9.9's.

[Jaydogrules]

Both stocks and comics have "intrinsic value" - but it's two different meanings of the word.

 

Comics have "intrinsic beauty" - as in "belonging to the essential nature of a thing" -- they bring some folks joy regardless of market value because they provide story, art and distraction. For me, comic books have intrinsic value just as novels do -- and baseball cards & pogs don't.

 

In finance, "intrinsic value" refers to "the value of a company, stock, currency or product determined through fundamental analysis (i.e., discounted cash-flow) without reference to its current price (or market value)."

 

These are different shades of the same term, but they are also both correct. Comics have intrinsic value the way sunsets do; stocks' have intrinsic value once you take away the share price bloat.

 

Again I must respectfully disagree in that a "stock" becomes completely useless and worthless should a company go out of business be shut down, etc. Should a comic book (and other examples I mentioned) become worthless "on paper", the comic book itself still exists for enjoyment. Similarly, regardless of whether a house is worth a million dollars, or 1000 dollars, it can still be used as shelter from the rain. That is its intrinsic value. If your art collection loses all its value you can still hang it on the wall and enjoy it. If gold plummets to zero you can still wear your jewelry or rolex and tell time with it. Stocks enjoy no such parallel benefit.

 

-J.

[october]

As one friend of mine commented about someone on the Boards who claims to consistently make money buying and reselling comics: "He must value his time at zero. That's not investing; that's working a second job in retail."

 

I sense some bitterness (and a lot of disbelief) in your posts towards people who have fun making money in comics. Why is that? Do you begrudge people for liking their job or side business?

 

My time isn't worth nothing, far from it. Every hour I spend in the hobby is pleasurable. Hunting down deals, getting things in the mail, going to shows, adding the occasional book to my collection, meeting new collectors and dealers and making them happy by selling a decent price, grading, sorting, even bagging and boarding...all of it's fun. It's not my life, but my life would be less without it.

 

Just because you derive no pleasure from it doesn't mean others can't. Lose some of the attitude.

 

[delekkerste]

I'm sorry but your interpretation of the meaning of intrinsic value is just plain wrong and is clearly clouded by your obsession with stocks and disdain of the notion that comic books are and have been a wonderful money making investment for many that has rivaled or surpassed even the best stock you could name.

 

I don't normally like using Wikipedia for anything but since I'm short on time, here it is:

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_value_(ethics)

 

Stocks have exactly 0 intrinsic value. Nothing even in your prior post actually even disputed that. The intrinsic value of a comic book however is more than just the paper that it is printed on. It's the art, the nostalgia, the pop cultural significance, the creativity, the story, these things have an INTRINSIC value, and this is why we (presumably you included, but I don't know I think you would be better suited on a stock lover's forum) love comic books, and derive enjoyment from them whether they have an investment value as well or not.

 

-J.

 

 

I'm sorry, but you continue to be 100% wrong. Even the Wikipedia definition of intrinsic value talks about the value something has of itself. Stocks represent claims on real assets and earnings. They have intrinsic value separate from their perceived market value, derived from the underlying assets and cash flows. So, do bonds for that matter - by your incredibly flawed logic, bonds have no intrinsic value because you can't hold a bond, other than as a worthless piece of paper. And yet, it represents an obligation to pay a scheduled set of cash flows that can be mathematically distilled down to a concrete value.

 

What you don't get is that the intrinsic value of most comics is no more than a few bucks. The story, the creativity, etc. can all be had from a $3 reprint. That is the intrinsic value. Maybe you add a little bit of value for decorative or other purposes for the original, but, in the grand scheme of things, it's minimal. The vast majority of a vintage comic's value is derived from extrinsic value - people's perception of its rarity and desirability. That's NOT intrinsic value, no matter how much you claim it is.

 

Again, whether something has intrinsic value has no relation to whether it is a tangible or intangible asset. Until you recognize this basic fact, you will continue to be 100% wrong about your interpretation of intrinsic value.

[Gatsby77]

 

I'm sorry, but you continue to be 100% wrong. Even the Wikipedia definition of intrinsic value talks about the value something has of itself. Stocks represent claims on real assets and earnings. They have intrinsic value separate from their perceived market value, derived from the underlying assets and cash flows. So, do bonds for that matter - by your incredibly flawed logic, bonds have no intrinsic value because you can't hold a bond, other than as a worthless piece of paper. And yet, it represents an obligation to pay a scheduled set of cash flows that can be mathematically distilled down to a concrete value.

 

What you don't get is that the intrinsic value of most comics is no more than a few bucks. The story, the creativity, etc. can all be had from a $3 reprint. That is the intrinsic value. Maybe you add a little bit of value for decorative or other purposes for the original, but, in the grand scheme of things, it's minimal. The vast majority of a vintage comic's value is derived from extrinsic value - people's perception of its rarity and desirability. That's NOT intrinsic value, no matter how much you claim it is.

 

Again, whether something has intrinsic value has no relation to whether it is a tangible or intangible asset. Until you recognize this basic fact, you will continue to be 100% wrong about your interpretation of intrinsic value.

 

 

wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

You are using only the finance definition of "intrinsic value" -- for 98% of the world "intrinsic value" refers to value derived from something's inherent value, most of which is non-monetary. i.e., gold's intrinsic value is that it's pretty and can be worn as jewelry -- even if its precious metal value and value as a conductor in electronics falls to zero.

 

[HighStakesComics]

Geez, guys, it's not that complicated.

Cherry picking illustrations in hindsight (20/20) is probably the worst way to make any argument about future investments (sadly, it's very popular in the investing world, though). Instead of saying what about the 'average' comic investor who bought walking dead 1, 10 years ago, or as an analogy to stocks, what about the 'average' investor who bought AAPL 10 years ago , it makes far more sense to point out to some type of index or basket of investments as a reference... the longer, preferably, the better. This is a better proxy for what any 'average' investor bought.

 

(thumbs u

 

That's why I started the list off showing the 5-year return of the S&P 500 (+136%; incidentally, the Nasdaq QQQ ETF returned 172% and the Russell 2000 ETF returned 150%), which is about as representative of an "average" stock market investment you can get, and then listed a lot of large-cap, household name companies. If I wanted to, I could have easily cherry picked a bunch of quadruple-digit 5-year winners that would be the equivalent of picking Atlas horror comics, but these are things that hardly any investors would have known about or considered 5 years ago.

 

Saying that the average collector would have had any idea to buy the stuff that Richard listed 5 years ago is a wild stretch, to say the least. That list certainly does not show that the average collector who buys things that the average collector likes would have fared really well compared to what they could have made elsewhere. And therein lies a major flaw with investing in comics - buying what you like often does not lead to the best investment opportunities, and emotional/nostalgic attachments can also lead you to overpaying on entry and/or holding on too long (among numerous other pitfalls).

 

But, hey, knock yourselves out - I'm just having a polite conversation here, not trying to sell anybody anything or talking my book.

 

The "average" collector wasn't buying Atlas horror or early Archies, but they weren't buying lone top census bronze, $2000 9.6 ASM 122s, #1 copper registry sets, $10,000 a pop Church More Funs and Adventures either....so not sure how you can object to Richard's list without invalidating your own.

 

You want to know what an "average" collector buys when they want to drop some money, invest, whatever, on a comic? They buy mid-grade Hulk 181s. They buy nice raw copies of ASM 300. They buy fine range ASM 121s, 122s and 129s. They buy Cap 100s and Iron Man 1s in VG/F. They buy Batman 227s and 232s. Or, if they have a bit more discretionary income, they buy low/mid grade copies of JiM 83, TOS 39, Avengers 1 and 4, etc. How do you think those purchases have fared over the last decade? Far from going down, they steadily increase year in and year out.

 

I know this because I have set up at enough shows and sold enough stuff to dealers to know what the mid-level collector always wants. Year after year, the same stuff that's hard to keep in stock. They don't want 9.6/9.8 keys priced at $2,000-$10,000. That's a niche market. Not the norm. Extrapolating market trends (as you continue to do) from the extreme high end isn't valid. The extreme high end bronze and silver books have suffered. You are right on that. That's also a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the comic market that most collectors don't understand, spend their money on, or generally give a damn about.

 

+1

 

And just for the record. Highest ever GPA sales of Avengers #4 and JIM #85 in Universal 6.5?

<<<<<<<

[october]

The "average" collector wasn't buying Atlas horror or early Archies, but they weren't buying lone top census bronze, $2000 9.6 ASM 122s, #1 copper registry sets, $10,000 a pop Church More Funs and Adventures either....so not sure how you can object to Richard's list without invalidating your own.

 

Because most people grew up with Bronze and Copper Age books, given the age range of most collectors. The thought of buying Atlas, Archie, Timelys, etc. would not even occur to most collectors. The thought of buying X-Men, Spidey, etc. would. And much of this market is both new enough and priced at levels where higher grades are more common than not. Taking out the Church books, all the other stuff is material that a large swath of collectors would be interested in, and does not encompass just top census copies (though many of those have suffered the most).

 

Sure, the mid-grade material has probably fared better, because most people never really speculated on these books as investments (other than the keys), and so it's been a much more stable market. Not sure how great an investment they've been, and their lower dollar value makes it harder to scale to meaningfully sized positions, but, sure, I'll give you that they haven't crashed like a lot of popular books at the high end of the grading spectrum.

 

You posts on the average collector would be more compelling if they didn't mention Doug Schmell, Tom Brulato and Gary Keller. Large swaths of collectors have about as much in common with those guys and the books they chase and my neighbor across the street with $50k in the market has in common with George Soros.

[delekkerste]

wildly_fanciful_statement.

 

You are using only the finance definition of "intrinsic value" -- for 98% of the world "intrinsic value" refers to value derived from something's inherent value, most of which is non-monetary. i.e., gold's intrinsic value is that it's pretty and can be worn as jewelry -- even if its precious metal value and value as a conductor in electronics falls to zero.

 

Wrong. Whereas the other gentleman is confusing tangibility with intrinsic value, you are confusing extrinsic value with intrinsic value. In your flawed example above, the precious metal value of gold will never fall to zero even if its value as a conductor in electronics is obsoleted, precisely because it does have intrinsic value as adornment or jewelry. And that value of such will be reflected in the market price of gold.

 

Let's take Hulk #181 9.8 as an example. Forget that it ever sold for $20-$30k at its peak. Let's say its market price is $10K right now. What would you say is its intrinsic value? Mathematically speaking, of course, because if we can't put a number to it in an investment thread, it's a totally worthless concept (sorry, but "Hey, my Hulk #181 9.8 went to zero, but at least it still has intrinsic value...whatever that means" is about as useful to this discussion as a chocolate teapot). It is as RMA said earlier in the thread - maybe $3 as a comic that can be read (just like a reprint of the book, which performs the same purpose as the book originally was intended to). Maybe if you wanted to put a fine point on it, I'll give you some extra credit for its decorative value. But, the rest of the price is extrinsic value derived from the rarity and desirability that collector psychology has placed on it. That is patently NOT intrinsic value, in the philosophical, financial or any other sense of the term.

[OrangeNemesis]

yall still talking bout this mess?

[mysterio]

with that said i have stuff from the 50s that has better page color than books bagged and boarded in the 90s. go figure.

 

Not better than my X-Force # 1's and my Youngblood # 1's. I have multiple copies of each and will be super rich when I decide to finally sell them. Also Spawn # 1. Didn't see that coming, didja?

If Spawn # 1 was bought at cover price or less then you at least doubled your value.

Spawn # 1 even with it million plus print run sells for over cover.

This is without a new movie which will eventually jumpstart Spawn again.

So I am bullish on Spawn # 1.

 

So does that mean Walking Dead #100, arguably the biggest key since #19, can appreciate with its 400,000 issue run?

 

Don't some of the covers do ok? (Not talking about the fancy variants) The michone cover I think sells for $3-$5 on any given day. Not exactly an investment, true. My LCS puts 100 out on the racks in a bag and board with a $5 sticker on it and it sells to someone every week.

 

That is a comic shop comic. It'll sell for $3-$5 a pop so long as there is interest in the show. Not briskly, but to non-comic collectors wandering into the shop, etc.

 

Pretty sure #100 had a $2.99 cover price, so an LCS selling copies for $3 isn't going to help the investment thesis nor the opinion that WD #100 is a particularly hot/desirable book.

 

Not yet at least. For issues that still trade at cover this is one that could be at $25-$50 in the bat of an eye. It will all come down to how AMC handles Negan on the TV show. If they can pull it off, Id love to be sitting on a few chromium CGC 9.9's.

 

If that book pops up to $25-50 around the TV show then sell all you can as quickly as you can into that narrow window. That will be a blip, not a trend. As for 9.9s, the only people that seem to make any money on them are the ones that get the grade in a submission and sell to the label-happy collector. That is a serious niche market, and the last place to be investing comic money.

[techtre2003]

I've seen a lot of people say that you can enjoy your comic collection and selling for profit is an added bonus. To me, this is not investing. Even if you are buying comics you love with the hope that they will increase in value over time (don't we all?) I still see collecting as a hobby, not an investment. If we are going to lump "hobby" and "investment" together as one and the same then sure, comics are a great investment because you can't lose buying something for enjoyment.

[adamstrange]

You mean all those Charizard holofoil cards we bought for my son aren't the solution for putting him through college?

They'll be hot just after he receives his diploma.

[the blob]

The stock investor essentially profits off the labors of others, one of many invisible faces seeking dividends while executive boards downsize jobs, cut benefits, move businesses overseas and take food from children's mouths.

 

 

Sorry Dave, but this statement is just ridiculous.

 

What about companies that give even the grunts stock options and a share in the company? Or force it down their throats via the pension plan? Either way the employees benefit from strong stock prices.

 

Germany has a law that gives the company workers a spot on the Board of Directors. Sure, that smells of "socialism", but it also means that the workers are especially in tune with the long-term health of the company.

 

Capitalism need not be cruel.

 

Our government could have and should have done a heck of a lot more to eliminate tax incentives to overseas outsourcing. But lobbyists control both sides of the aisle and nothing ever gets done. Is moving a factory overseas still a tax deductable business expense? If it isn't now, it was for a long time. It should have been a heavy tax penalty all along so that only the most obvious stuff got moved. Heck, some companies (GE) realized this was a mistake for some products that require skill to put together and have now moved those operations back to the U.S.

 

People raise a stink about Mitt Romney paying a 14% income tax on $100 million+ in income, but nothing has been done about the ridiculous law that allows it. When they tried to the lobbyists raised a stink about how that would impact retiree incomes. Ridiculous. Make the first $50K or $100K of gains taxable at 14%, fine. The rest gets taxed like any other income. Fair is fair.

 

I won't get into executive compensation. Yes I will. When you have a world where executives sitting on boards decide what is proper compensation you have a world where that compensation will explode because those executives want to raise the "tide" for themselves when it comes time to negotiate compensation. Sure, maybe it's the "market", but only because the "market" has been manipulated. It's like having baseball players decide proper salaries for other baseball players. The backup utility infielder will make $20 million a year.