Comic Book Investing

[the blob]

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.

 

Good lord I hate pokeman so much. My son spends half his day obsessed with Minecraft and half Pokeman. I hate them all so much.

 

Folks say $3 for a comic doesn't give much entertainment value for kids, and while I agree, that should be for a 64 page comic (I don't care if the last 45 pages are reprints, they'll provide entertainment value), but a pack of pokeman cards are $3 or more and you only get 2 decent cards in there. Literally, not three minutes after I give this monkey a pack he is begging me for another one. He knows I have one left to dole out and literally he bugs me every 5 minutes for it. I'm not giving it to him until I have 4 hours with him where he doesn't bug me for it.

[adamstrange]

Without doubt your argument for stock investment has merit, and as part of a diverse portfolio I'd never argue against it on principle alone. However, the intrinsic value of corporate stock certificates only provide one kind of wealth, the kind that does virtually nothing for the heart, mind and spirit of a collector.

 

In essence, stock speculators become silent partners to a system that works tirelessly to defeat the aspirations of those employed by those companies to whom they claim partial ownership of assets. 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.

 

I'm not saying that stock investors should feel responsible ...psychologically or otherwise... for decisions they're not directly involved with, but my point is simply this: comic collecting/investment harms no one while providing profit.

 

From my POV, this really comes down to personal choices in how one spends time and capital more than how much can be made on the backend. While I yield to your expertise in the area of stock investment producing wealth and would never criticize anyone for choosing to diversify in that direction, I cannot in good conscience recommend the intrinsic coldness of stock investment over the tangible enjoyment of comics. My

 

I think this kind of thinking is absolutely toxic. By this rationale, one would not want to own *any* stocks (after all, you can't be just a little bit pregnant or just a little bit of a capitalistic labor exploiter), thus removing one of the greatest engines of wealth creation that is available to normal people. Yes, normal people (see below). Never mind that companies need stocks and the capital markets to finance their business activities, facilitate mergers & acquisitions, incentivize their employees, allow owners to monetize their holdings, glean information/feedback from the collective wisdom of the market, allow for a more diversified ownership base and facilitate management succession and business continuity, etc. - it's not like stocks don't actually provide numerous legitimate functions that companies depend on.

 

My parents came to this country with less than $100 in their pockets (all the Korean government would let them take out of the country at the time) in 1968. They never made more than an upper middle-class income (certainly not as much as some of the people crying poverty in this thread!) And yet they are now retired and have a very nice nest egg because they lived modestly and invested in stocks and real estate. They stuck with a long-term investment plan in productive assets, which overcame numerous hiccups along the way. They got hammered in the Crash of '87. They bought property near the top of the market in the late '80s in California, right before the defense industry imploded and real estate went into a multi-year flush. They got hammered in the dot-com bust and again in the stock and real estate bust in the late 2000s.

 

But, they kept at it, buying more on dips, and never abandoned their long-term plan (sure, there were bouts of panic, and they ended up selling their tech bust stocks at a huge loss, but they never abandoned the overall strategy). Don't anybody tell me that the average Joe can't make serious money through a disciplined, long-term investment program in productive assets. I'm not saying that people shouldn't invest in comics if they think they truly have an edge, but I do think it's madness for people to forsake all traditional, productive investments that either generate income or have the potential to do so, whether for ideological reasons or other damaging rationalizations.

Sure, that might succeed if you're up for boring research, discipline and work.

 

I'm looking for the "get wealthy" strategy for the inattentive reliant upon sloth and dissipation.

 

And naps. Lots of naps.

[delekkerste]

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.

 

Sure you can. As some of you know, I'm a big original art collector. Unlike many people in the hobby, I am not very sanguine on the long-term prospects of the hobby due to the long-term changes in demographics, economics and cultural/technological trends that I already see (slowly) underway. Don't get me wrong, I think the hobby still has a number of good years ahead of it, but I doubt that my collection is going to be the golden goose that funds my retirement like a lot of collectors view their collections.

 

As such, whenever I buy a new piece, I mark it down by a minimum of 20% when I calculate the value of my holdings (and sometimes I'll mark its value down by as much as 2/3rds to be conservative). Some of the fine art I've bought I've marked down to zero, because I have no idea what I could get for something that illiquid when it comes to reselling it. Incidentally, I don't include any of my comic books when calculating my net worth, because I assume that the time and effort to sell it off would be more hassle than it's worth.

 

Anyway, that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make, which is that people sometimes ask me why I collect OA even if I expect it not to do that well financially over the long term. The obvious answer is: because I love it and it's what I'm passionate about and interested in. But, most of the time I am pretty rational about it, employing a kind of mental cost/benefit equation like such:

 

Estimated value of pleasure of ownership, decoration and overall good feelings minus estimated future financial loss (cost of ownership) = Net benefit/(loss) derived from buying and owning a piece of OA

 

As such, it is definitely possible to lose buying something for enjoyment if the expected/realized future loss exceeds the value of the enjoyment you get from enjoying the piece. Likewise, it is possible to come out ahead overall even if the monetary value of the purchase declines over time.

[ComicConnoisseur]

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.

No need to sell Charizard holofoil cards to put your sons and daughters thru college because they are giving away student loans like they gave away loans to help qualify for house mortgages in 2005. As long as you have a pulse they will give you a student loan. It`s the next bubble that will pop.

[DeadpoolJr.]

This all reminds me of an old thread I read from 02 when CGC graded comics where going down in price.

[Sqeggs]

The thread that keeps on giving!

 

The "comics are good investments" folks don't want to be told to go find the next Rifleman 10 or Archie 50, they want to be told that buying a low-grade Cap 1 or a mid-grade AF 15 or a mid-grade IH 181 instead of fully funding their 401Ks or IRAs is a good idea.

 

The average collector buying into the comics are good investments line is likely to buy books whose prices have already had a huge run up. As I've asked several times -- but have never received an answer -- where is the demand going to come from to drive the prices of Cap 1 or AF 15 to the levels that would be necessary to make buying these books good long-term investments?

 

Investing money in comics with the hope of funding your kids' college tuition or your retirement is a really bad idea.

[october]

they want to be told that buying a low-grade Cap 1 or a mid-grade AF 15 or a mid-grade IH 181 instead of fully funding their 401Ks or IRAs is a good idea.

 

Investing money in comics with the hope of funding your kids' college tuition or your retirement is a really bad idea.

 

Are we reading the same thread? I haven't heard a single person in this thread advocating buying comics instead of funding their retirement or college funds.

[delekkerste]

The average collector buying into the comics are good investments line is likely to buy books whose prices have already had a huge run up. As I've asked several times -- but have never received an answer -- where is the demand going to come from to drive the prices of Cap 1 or AF 15 to the levels that would be necessary to make buying these books good long-term investments?

 

Exactly. If you asked 100 would-be comic investors what they would recommend that you buy, a hugely disproportionate amount would say AF #15 because it's gone up in the past, they're making Spidey movies, Spidey is popular and all the other stuff that everybody already knows and is presumably discounted in current market prices. Where's the edge??

[october]

The average collector buying into the comics are good investments line is likely to buy books whose prices have already had a huge run up. As I've asked several times -- but have never received an answer -- where is the demand going to come from to drive the prices of Cap 1 or AF 15 to the levels that would be necessary to make buying these books good long-term investments?

 

Exactly. If you asked 100 would-be comic investors what they would recommend that you buy, a hugely disproportionate amount would say AF #15 because it's gone up in the past, they're making Spidey movies, Spidey is popular and all the other stuff that everybody already knows and is presumably discounted in current market prices. Where's the edge??

 

Where was the edge five years ago when all of that was true? Ten years ago when all of that was true? Spidey has been popular since the late 60s and they have been making blockbusters based on him since 2002. By your logic AF 15 should have peaked in the mid 2000s with no new value drivers upping the price. That hasn't been the case.

[namisgr]

If you asked 100 would-be comic investors what they would recommend that you buy, a hugely disproportionate amount would say AF #15 because it's gone up in the past, they're making Spidey movies, Spidey is popular and all the other stuff that everybody already knows and is presumably discounted in current market prices. Where's the edge??

 

Buying it last year.

[DeadpoolJr.]

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=14218&fpart=1

[october]

http://boards.collectors-society.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=14218&fpart=1

 

[delekkerste]

Where was the edge five years ago when all of that was true? Ten years ago when all of that was true? Spidey has been popular since the late 60s and they have been making blockbusters based on him since 2002. By your logic AF 15 should have peaked in the mid 2000s with no new value drivers upping the price. That hasn't been the case.

 

There have been value drivers since the mid-2000s, though - a cheap money-fueled general asset bubble, more superhero movies (both Spidey and non-Spidey) which have whipped fanboys into a lathered frenzy, etc. That's also not to say that prices can't just go up on momentum and past performance alone (for a while, anyway), but mean reversion and market reality eventually kick in.

[october]

Where was the edge five years ago when all of that was true? Ten years ago when all of that was true? Spidey has been popular since the late 60s and they have been making blockbusters based on him since 2002. By your logic AF 15 should have peaked in the mid 2000s with no new value drivers upping the price. That hasn't been the case.

 

There have been value drivers since the mid-2000s, though - a cheap money-fueled general asset bubble, more superhero movies (both Spidey and non-Spidey) which have whipped fanboys into a lathered frenzy, etc. That's also not to say that prices can't just go up on momentum and past performance alone (for a while, anyway), but mean reversion and market reality eventually kick in.

 

Maybe. The top collectibles in any field seem to keep gaining value almost indefinitely, even when the rest of the hobby is dying. If the best stamps can continue to see record gains, I don't think a copy of one of the top books in an unarguably much healthier hobby is going to see a major correction anytime soon. Do I think $10,000 for a VG range copy is sustainable in the long (3-4 decade) term? Nope. Do I think the runup will continue for years to come? Yep.

[shadroch]

Last AF 15 I bought and sold was purchased here on the boards for $9500 and sold thru the Blazing One for about 14,000 approx. 10 months later. It was a CGC 5.0 OW pages, as I recall. Bought a CGC 4.0 for $5200, three Schomburg Timelys for about $1,000 each

and used the rest to fund my 2013 IRA. In effect, the flip left me with a AF 15 4.0, and three CGC Schomburg Timelys- including my favorite cover of the era, for $3500. I could sell the AF today for a small profit and have the three Schomburgs for free, if I choose to.

 

As far as time goes, I spent perhaps an hour chatting with Dr Carl on the purchase, dropped off the book on my way home at Bobs house and had two phone conversations with him about it. The second one being about where I wanted my check mailed.

 

Will this exact scene repeat itself? No, but neither will being able to buy Tesla at $25 or Wyndham at $5.

 

Buy at the right price and there still money to be made off Spidey and his pals.

[october]

I could sell the AF today for a small profit

 

That AF 15 is worth about double what you paid. It's a $10,000-$11,000 book now in 4.0.

[Jaydogrules]

 

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.

 

+1. This. Our resident stock fanatic should be posting in CNBC's forums not a site for comic book investors and enthusiasts.

 

-J.

[Dr. Balls]

You sold a AF15 in CGC 5.0 for $14k and then bought a 4.0 for $5200? One of the two people you were dealing with in that transaction didn't know what they were doing.

 

Congrats on getting a 4.0 for 1/3 the price of your 5.0 - that's not really investing, that's making out like a bandit.

[shadroch]

You sold a AF15 in CGC 5.0 for $14k and then bought a 4.0 for $5200? One of the two people you were dealing with in that transaction didn't know what they were doing.

 

Congrats on getting a 4.0 for 1/3 the price of your 5.0 - that's not really investing, that's making out like a bandit.

 

Blazing Bob sold it. He gets all the credit. I was hoping he'd sell it for 12 but he got 14.

It did present well, but he is a miracle worker. He also pays at the speed of light. We talked on the weekend, check arrived Monday.

I also caught the seller of the 4.0 at a tough time in his life. He was only into it for $200 and grading costs as he bought it in 1980, give or take a year. He was an old time grader and thought he had a 6.0/6.5

[shadroch]

I could sell the AF today for a small profit

 

That AF 15 is worth about double what you paid. It's a $10,000-$11,000 book now in 4.0.

 

Sure, but if i had really invested it- in Tesla, for example, it would be worth 20K now.