Do comics ever go down in price?

[adamstrange]

Tim: Congrats on your 3000th hit. From what I've seen, you had a lot of double and triples as well as grand slam or two (Adv 247 B&B 28) sprinkled in with those singles.

[tth2]

This trend for the CGC SA high-grade Marvels hasn't been very long so it's always possible the last suckers just got in.

 

Very true, very true. I always thought they should have a "last sucker's club" for people who bought shares of so-and-so stock at the historical high on March 2, 2000 (or whichever day it was that most of the tech stocks peaked). They'd have to submit their brokerage statement as evidence to get admitted to the club, but they can show they helped to make history!

 

I may be a charter member for the CGC SA DC club!

[tth2]

Tim: Congrats on your 3000th hit.

 

Thanks, do you happen to know which post was the 3000th? I never notice these things! Steve Lauterbach of all people pointed out my 1000th post, otherwise I would've been completely oblivious.

[adamstrange]

Tim: Congrats on your 3000th hit.

 

Thanks, do you happen to know which post was the 3000th? I never notice these things! Steve Lauterbach of all people pointed out my 1000th post, otherwise I would've been completely oblivious.

 

Here's what I think it is:

 

http://boards.collectors-society.com/sho...true#Post748946

 

I just looked up your handle and then Recent Posts which displays post in descending date/time sequence.

[tth2]

[awe4one]

Just out of curiosity, what declining circulation numbers do you mean? I haven't seen total comics publishing numbers in a while, but Marvel's publishing revenue continues to experience double-digit percentage increases year over year for the last several years.

 

Here are some firm numbers to ponder...

 

Total Circulation Top 200 Comics:

November 2004: 6,184,360 copies

April 1997: 8,772,400 copies

Difference: - 2,588,040 copies (30% decrease)

 

# of Titles Selling Over 100,000 Copies:

November 2004: 7

April 1997: 22

 

# of Titles Selling Over 50,000 Copies:

November 2004: 31

April 1997: 54

 

# of Titles Selling Over 35,000 Copies (This used to be Marvel's cancellation threshold):

November 2004: 56

April 1997: 83

 

And to more specifically answer your question...

 

Marvel is still posting profits due to ever increased cover prices:

The average cost of April 1997 Marvel comics in Top 200: $2.13

The average cost in Nov 2004: $2.82 (25% increase)

 

Jim

[RedSkull]

I think pre high grade 9.0 CGC and above 1965 comics still have more appreciation to come. Unlike coins, there are less pre 1965 high grade silver comics to buy and less venues, ebay, websites or dealers, to buy them from for the number of collectors looking to purchase such items. Hence prices are driven up and when some poor soul is forced to part with such comics the books are quickly sold. Lately I have noticed less high grade pre 65 CGC material on Ebay and other websites for certain titles TOS, Fantastic Four, Thor etc. as compared to this time last year or the year before. Collectors tend to buy and hoard these books in an effort to relive their childhood fantasies. Many would not dream of selling them after having found them again after all those years.The supply for these books is quite limited given the number of collectors out there. I have been looking for certian high grade CGC TOS to finish my collection without luck for quite sometime now.

[delekkerste]

Really? You think we're in a worse position now than in the 1970s...

 

And yet during that period the prices of comics kept rising and record-breaking prices were being paid for big ticket books...

 

we're not nearly in as bad a shape as we were in 1973.

 

Tim, this is the very definition of a specious argument. "Record breaking prices"? The comic hobby was in its infancy and prices were rising off of a minuscule base. There was no such thing as $2 million Mile High Action #1 back then. I don't have an early Overstreet handy, but I bet well over 99% of the comic universe was selling for 3 figures or less in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, inflation was rampant, so the price of almost EVERY real asset was soaring by the mid-1970s.

 

What your economic points fail to highlight is that the savings rate in the U.S. was well over 10% for much (if not all) of the 1970s (compared to less than 0.5% currently). Also, debt levels were not at today's staggering levels (and we had huge inflation, which was a huge boon to debtors). Furthermore, asset prices were very low in real terms - there was huge potential for wealth gains in hard assets during the inflationary period and then even more enormous potential for appreciation in financial assets in the inevitable turnaround (which would also drive further gains for non-commodity hard assets like real estate, artwork and collectibles). Japan was emerging as a rising force, yes, but there was plenty of room for U.S. businesses to improve their efficiencies - that is not the case today and the gap between the U.S. today and the emerging economies like China, India, etc. is much wider than the U.S.-Japan in 1980. To make a long story short, you had depressed asset prices and tremendous potential for both micro and macro-scale improvements during the period in question. Things may have looked incredibly bleak in 1974 or 1980, but a shrewd contrarian could and should have seen an incredible opportunity for a turnaround.

 

The situation today is has the potential to become orders of magnitude worse than the environment of the 1970s. Decades of overconsumption have left our currency in tatters, our savings depleted, our net worths buoyed only by artificially inflated asset prices and our government in debt up to its eyeballs at a time when globalization is exerting strong deflationary forces on job and income growth and demographics are about to place a huge burden on the younger generations. This is the very definition of a recipe for financial catastrophe. This is not a case of "we've heard the demise the U.S. economy before" or "we've heard the demise of comics before" - none of us has EVER experienced a case like this before. $51 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities at the federal government level alone - no amount of biotech or nanotech is going to make this go away.

 

And before you paint my view as being fringe, go ask Warren Buffett why he has a $21 billion bet against the dollar or read Blackstone chairman Pete Peterson's new book or any of Morgan Stanley's recent economic research. Is it the minority view? Yes, of course - when has the Wall Street consensus or the mainstream press or Joe and Jane Q. Public *ever* gotten it right? Most of these people, inured by the experience of the past, won't see the freight train coming until their brains are splattered all over the tracks.

[adamstrange]

Really? You think we're in a worse position now than in the 1970s...

 

And yet during that period the prices of comics kept rising and record-breaking prices were being paid for big ticket books...

 

we're not nearly in as bad a shape as we were in 1973.

 

Tim, this is the very definition of a specious argument. "Record breaking prices"? The comic hobby was in its infancy and prices were rising off of a minuscule base. There was no such thing as $2 million Mile High Action #1 back then. I don't have an early Overstreet handy, but I bet well over 99% of the comic universe was selling for 3 figures or less in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, inflation was rampant, so the price of almost EVERY real asset was soaring by the mid-1970s.

 

What your economic points fail to highlight is that the savings rate in the U.S. was well over 10% for much (if not all) of the 1970s (compared to less than 0.5% currently). Also, debt levels were not at today's staggering levels (and we had huge inflation, which was a huge boon to debtors). Furthermore, asset prices were very low in real terms - there was huge potential for wealth gains in hard assets during the inflationary period and then even more enormous potential for appreciation in financial assets in the inevitable turnaround (which would also drive further gains for non-commodity hard assets like real estate, artwork and collectibles). Japan was emerging as a rising force, yes, but there was plenty of room for U.S. businesses to improve their efficiencies - that is not the case today and the gap between the U.S. today and the emerging economies like China, India, etc. is much wider than the U.S.-Japan in 1980. To make a long story short, you had depressed asset prices and tremendous potential for both micro and macro-scale improvements during the period in question. Things may have looked incredibly bleak in 1974 or 1980, but a shrewd contrarian could and should have seen an incredible opportunity for a turnaround.

 

The situation today is has the potential to become orders of magnitude worse than the environment of the 1970s. Decades of overconsumption have left our currency in tatters, our savings depleted, our net worths buoyed only by artificially inflated asset prices and our government in debt up to its eyeballs at a time when globalization is exerting strong deflationary forces on job and income growth and demographics are about to place a huge burden on the younger generations. This is the very definition of a recipe for financial catastrophe. This is not a case of "we've heard the demise the U.S. economy before" or "we've heard the demise of comics before" - none of us has EVER experienced a case like this before. $51 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities at the federal government level alone - no amount of biotech or nanotech is going to make this go away.

 

And before you paint my view as being fringe, go ask Warren Buffett why he has a $21 billion bet against the dollar or read Blackstone chairman Pete Peterson's new book or any of Morgan Stanley's recent economic research. Is it the minority view? Yes, of course - when has the Wall Street consensus or the mainstream press or Joe and Jane Q. Public *ever* gotten it right? Most of these people, inured by the experience of the past, won't see the freight train coming until their brains are splattered all over the tracks.

 

I'll agree that Tim's reference to the 70s was not applicable to today's argument. Much of the initial rise was simply the initial phase of a collectible becoming thought of as having intrinsic value. Under those circumstances, prices can rise even in a depression.

 

"plenty of room for U.S. businesses to improve their efficiencies - that is not the case today"

 

!

 

I have considerable personal knowledge of this across a broad sprectrum of companies. I'm not amazed that GM can makes that run and then fall apart, I'm amazed that they can make cars that ROLL! I can say much the same of all the companies that I have worked with.

 

The technological and scientific revolutions at play now are easily capable of wiping out the deficits you mention. Some fairly small changes in policy/laws can significantly reduce those deficits as well -- and I think we may very well see the start of this in the next few years. It would certainly make the process much easier if we address it now rather than later. And please don't presume I'm for a particular political party's policy -- each of the parties is beholden to special interests who prevent effective solutions from being discussed, much less implemented.

 

The impact of technology gains can be inhibited through cultural and governmental practices, but humans are a pretty creative and inventive creatures if left to their own to compete against each other. As far as globalization, I'm not of the opinion that rising incomes in China and India destroy ours. If that was so, then we should never have helped Europe recover after WWII. The US position in terms of relative percentage of world GNP is certain to fall as the Chinese and Indian economies improve, but that doesn't mean that our rate of economic growth couldn't continue at the current pace or ber even higher.

[Aman619]

Tim, this is the very definition of a specious argument. "Record breaking prices"? The comic hobby was in its infancy and prices were rising off of a minuscule base. There was no such thing as $2 million Mile High Action #1 back then. I don't have an early Overstreet handy, but I bet well over 99% of the comic universe was selling for 3 figures or less in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, inflation was rampant, so the price of almost EVERY real asset was soaring by the mid-1970s.

 

Gene, isnt the current climate perfect for the return of high inflation? If so, wont that affect the nature of todays high comics prices, allowing them to also go up along with milk, butter, etc and everything else?

[jbud73]

Very good points on both accounts. I'll have to digest it a bit. I do agree that while a nation's GDP is tied and can certainly be influenced by the International System - that does not mean that the influence functions in direct correlation to anyone one mechanising force. This is especially true of the US economy which has enough diversification present to limit outside influence. So I can imagine a scenerio where the US % of Global GDP drops, yet the economy is still prosperous based on an internal measurement.

[jbud73]

Tim, this is the very definition of a specious argument. "Record breaking prices"? The comic hobby was in its infancy and prices were rising off of a minuscule base. There was no such thing as $2 million Mile High Action #1 back then. I don't have an early Overstreet handy, but I bet well over 99% of the comic universe was selling for 3 figures or less in the early 1970s. Meanwhile, inflation was rampant, so the price of almost EVERY real asset was soaring by the mid-1970s.

 

Gene, isnt the current climate perfect for the return of high inflation? If so, wont that affect the nature of todays high comics prices, allowing them to also go up along with milk, butter, etc and everything else?

 

I think that you need to use caution when comparing inflationary consumuption. Milk, bread and butter are necessities for basic survival, comics are not.

[delekkerste]

I'm not ignorant of the technological factors you are referring to; I just simply believe that it is unrealistic to think that nanotech, biotech and IT advances are going to lead us into a utopian paradise. Technology adherents have always had fanciful dreams like this and reality never seems to quite accommodate them. Despite all the great technological advances to date, aren't we still working more than ever (while real wages are falling, no less)? If I had to put a bet on technological advances vs. human nature and the law of compound interest, I'll take the latter any day of the week.

 

I don't know if you, I or anyone else can grasp the meaning numbers like $51 trillion in unfunded liabilities at the government level alone. That is a mind-boggling number caused by decades of profligacy and it's going to take more than the band-aid fixes the are proposing and the sheer and utter denial that the are standing behind to fix this problem.

 

As for globalization, your comparison is again very specious. The U.S. after World War II was the biggest creditor nation in the world and had not been ravaged by war like much of the rest of the world. I don't recall foreigners subsidizing our national overconsumption habits to the tune of $55 billion a month back then or our fellow Americans spending 99.8% of their paychecks and abusing their personal finances like a red-headed stepchild.

 

I really don't believe there is any good reason to default to these optimistic positions other than blind faith that we will never see really bad times again. Since I make my livelihood being right about these things, I have to be a little more realistic than the average participant on an Internet message board about the true probabilities of future events occurring - if I base my forecasts on what I hope will happen rather than objective reality, that costs me money. Only time will tell which of us is right...but I wouldn't advise anyone to bet against me on this.

[delekkerste]

Gene, isnt the current climate perfect for the return of high inflation? If so, wont that affect the nature of todays high comics prices, allowing them to also go up along with milk, butter, etc and everything else?

 

I don't think current climate is perfect for high inflation...yes, interest rates are artificially low, raw materials prices are rising and the system is flush with credit and liquidity. But, then again, we have outsourcing and IT improvements exerting a strong deflationary pull. Plus, high debt levels are inherently deflationary. Though, you can never rule out the government totally mucking things up in an inflationary manner. However, that almost always causes more problems than it solves.

 

I'm betting we see severe asset price deflation in the coming years, but, one of the alternate scenarios is that, yes, we get a lot of inflation and the nominal price of assets continues to rise. I do allow for that possibility, which is why I often say that I don't see much room for the "real" (i.e., inflation-adjusted) price of comics to grow from current levels (even if nominal prices continue to rise). But, I think Jason (jbud73) also makes a good point in that comics are not necessities. As a result, given that any possible upcoming inflationary period is not likely to be an exact repeat of the 1970s because of the much greater financial leverage in the system plus the influence of globalization and demographic trends, the price of various asset classes may not respond exactly as they did 30 years ago.

 

But even in a scenario such as you propose, I think there will be much better places to put your money.

[shrunkenhead]

 

I think that you need to use caution when comparing inflationary consumuption. Milk, bread and butter are necessities for basic survival, comics are not.

 

"Reason not the need, for are men to live as base as beasts?" --Lear

[FlyingDonut]

Just want to know why you can quote demographics as a reason for the coming bust in prices, yet when shown numbers showing that there is a coming huge generation of people that will begin entering their peak buying years in 2014, you dismiss it?

 

There are many many many reasons for a drop in prices in comics. Demographics aren't one of them.

[adamstrange]

$51 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities at the federal government level alone - no amount of biotech or nanotech is going to make this go away.

 

What I was countering was this prediction as fact. My point was that technology "could" wipe out that liability. You're betting it won't. But that's not a fact.

 

I predict a rosy future because of past history that says we (humans) always have done better except for wars and self-inflicted wounds. I'm betting we'll avoid those, but we're certainly capable of them. If you look at the last 25 years, we had two severe recessions and tiny growth for a few years. Yet, overall the economy has grown enormously. So my point is not that we won't suffer some setbacks, but that they will be part of broad upward trend that's been going on for hundreds of years. In my experience, people tend to get overly excited about today's problem, forgetting that far more difficult or serious problems have been solved in the past.

 

For example, a very simple change to increase the age requirements to 70 for programs like Soc Sec and Medicare, along with indexing back to inflation for Soc Sec would dramatically reduce those liabilities without even going into personal savings accounts for health/retirement. (Moving the 65- 70 back into the workforce would generally improve the economy because they are generally more productive than the young kids.) Alternatively, you could eliminate the programs on a gradual basis and thereby eliminate the problem. There is nothing "sacred" about the unfunded liabilities -- we've changed the rules before.

 

With regards to real wages falling, we'd have to have a very detailed statistical debate about this to know what's behind that assertion. There're all sorts of assumptions built into any gross level measure like that, and it's quite easy to make it say something close to what you would like it to say. Your particular statistic may even be excruciatingly correct, but because of it's assumptions, still not be useful to your point.

 

All of the large scale economic indicators are built on equally large-scale assumptions, many of which are impossible to prove. One of the things I look at is the general standard of living that you can have. Much of what we have today didn't exist 50 years making it quite difficult to compare value. For example, how important is it that our medical care includes MRIs, angioplasty, and ultrasound. What is the value of an iPOD, personal computer, and high-speed internet connection? Despite the power, wealth, and prestige, I'd rather be a middle class joe today than royalty in any pre-1900 society.

 

I'm bowing out at this point, as I have no further interest turning this board into the economic debating society, as fun as that might be.

 

Have a nice weekend, everyone!

[delekkerste]

Just want to know why you can quote demographics as a reason for the coming bust in prices, yet when shown numbers showing that there is a coming huge generation of people that will begin entering their peak buying years in 2014, you dismiss it?

 

First, it's a huge generation of people who haven't grown up with comics and second, as I did address earlier, they're not going to be nearly as well off as you were at that age if I'm even remotely correct about the direction I see the markets and the global economy going in the next 10 years.

 

Let's talk in 2014 and we'll see who's right. Loser buys dinner.

[delekkerste]

The broad course of human history does indeed slope upwards, but you are conveniently extrapolating the past 25 years of prosperity and century of American hegemony indefinitely into the future. I bet things looked pretty good in the rearview mirror for the Roman Empire too before the barbarians showed up at the gates.

 

I will bet against technological advances bailing us out of decades of profligacy, all day long. And your Band-Aid fixes for Social Security and Medicare are just not realistic - with the liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars, we are well beyond the point for such weak remedies. Yes, we can and will change the rules - but that's my point, it's going to pose a larger and larger burden on Gen X and Gen Y. Pay more into the system, take less out, work more, retire later...anyone who thinks this, in addition to all the other problems I have highlighted, is going to be conducive to ever-rising comic book prices, I have a very nice property that spans from Manhattan to Brooklyn to sell you:

 

 

I'll make you the same offer as Donut - let's talk in 10 years and loser buys dinner. I like steak, by the way.

[FFB]

Just out of curiosity, what declining circulation numbers do you mean? I haven't seen total comics publishing numbers in a while, but Marvel's publishing revenue continues to experience double-digit percentage increases year over year for the last several years.

 

Here are some firm numbers to ponder...

 

Total Circulation Top 200 Comics:

November 2004: 6,184,360 copies

April 1997: 8,772,400 copies

Difference: - 2,588,040 copies (30% decrease)

 

# of Titles Selling Over 100,000 Copies:

November 2004: 7

April 1997: 22

 

# of Titles Selling Over 50,000 Copies:

November 2004: 31

April 1997: 54

 

# of Titles Selling Over 35,000 Copies (This used to be Marvel's cancellation threshold):

November 2004: 56

April 1997: 83

 

And to more specifically answer your question...

 

Marvel is still posting profits due to ever increased cover prices:

The average cost of April 1997 Marvel comics in Top 200: $2.13

The average cost in Nov 2004: $2.82 (25% increase)

 

Jim

 

I'd rather see the year-over-year numbers, rather than an eight-year spread. If the market has been growing for the last few years, then it's not fair to claim that it is declining simply because it's not where it was eight years ago.

 

As for your point about cover prices, cover prices have increased 25% in eight years. Marvel's publishing sales revenues rose 16.4% last year alone. This clearly isn't just about jacking up cover prices. Besides, don't you think that at least part of that 25% increase has been offset by increased costs of production in the last eight years?