Collusion in the OA Market - Right or Wrong?

[vodou]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.

Because wherever you put that money is a market that somehow behaves differently? It's all a game, and the insiders are always playing it to your disadvantage. Skipping out on comic art just cost you enjoying the reaming

[Unca Ben]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.

 

Yeah.

 

I understand the integrity of stepping aside for a friend that's after a grail piece, but it may happen more frequently than that.

If it only happens for a grail piece that should make it a one-off event, more often is something else.

 

If I sat down at a poker game where three or four players commonly bet against the remaining players and not against each other, I'd be tempted to find another table.

[delekkerste]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.

 

Yeah.

 

I understand the integrity of stepping aside for a friend that's after a grail piece, but it may happen more frequently than that.

If it only happens for a grail piece that should make it a one-off event, more often is something else.

 

If I sat down at a poker game where three or four players commonly bet against the remaining players and not against each other, I'd be tempted to find another table.

 

I'm sorry you guys feel that way, because I think it's wholly unwarranted. The reality is that the prices you see in the marketplace already reflect the occasional person doing a favor for a friend. It's nothing like 3 or 4 guys colluding in a 6-man game of poker, because the # of players in the OA market is much higher. 3 or 4 guys can affect market perception through shilling, but, 3 or 4 guys can't just decide that they'll only pay $10K for $20K Kirby pages and set a new market price, because the market is liquid and efficient enough that others will bid the pages higher than that. Their coordination would have NO effect. And, if we're talking about a more niche part of the market where 3 or 4 guys are the main players and coordinate bidding, well, then guess what - these guys ARE the market. Just as in my Stupid-Man example, just because two guys are willing to pay $25K each for covers in a free-for-all, but decide to coordinate and the market settles at $10K, that's not manipulation - the FMV of Stupid-Man covers is actually the $10K you see in the marketplace.

 

I can understand if people are spooked by the allegations of shilling, but this thread should have NO effect whatsoever on buyer confidence. Doing so is like an ancient person being scared of a solar eclipse or some other benign phenomenon that they just didn't understand back then. I mean, it's one thing if people elect not to ever give or receive information about bidding intentions - fine, we've established that that is certainly one's prerogative. But, there's no need to think that those who do are doing anything untoward or that it's unduly affecting the market. I mean, look at the market - does it look like prices are being suppressed in any meaningful way by anyone, intentionally or not?

 

Even with the shilling allegations, though certainly odious and distasteful, it seemed to me like those electing to step away from the auction scene were largely going down that route anyway because of high prices or other interests or whatever else. I mean, if you love comic art like I do, I don't think the shilling controversy alone is going to get you to quit the hobby. And, the revelation that friends sometimes do favors for each other is a total non-factor - I mean, seriously, the alternative, that people shouldn't signal their bidding intentions and should somehow feel morally obligated to run prices up as if you didn't know your best friend wanted it more and was bidding is just totally absurd. If that revelation gets anyone to stop buying, it seems to me like there are more issues going on with that person and that this is just a convenient excuse to rationalize pulling back.

[buttock]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.

 

Yeah.

 

I understand the integrity of stepping aside for a friend that's after a grail piece, but it may happen more frequently than that.

If it only happens for a grail piece that should make it a one-off event, more often is something else.

 

If I sat down at a poker game where three or four players commonly bet against the remaining players and not against each other, I'd be tempted to find another table.

 

I'm sorry you guys feel that way, because I think it's wholly unwarranted. The reality is that the prices you see in the marketplace already reflect the occasional person doing a favor for a friend. It's nothing like 3 or 4 guys colluding in a 6-man game of poker, because the # of players in the OA market is much higher. 3 or 4 guys can affect market perception through shilling, but, 3 or 4 guys can't just decide that they'll only pay $10K for $20K Kirby pages, because the market is liquid and efficient enough whereby others will bid the pages higher than that. Their coordination would have NO effect. And, if we're talking about a more niche part of the market where 3 or 4 guys are the main players and coordinate bidding, well, then guess what - these guys ARE the market. Just as in my Stupid-Man example, just because two guys are willing to pay $25K each for covers in a free-for-all, but decide to coordinate and the market settles at $10K, that's not manipulation - the FMV of Stupid-Man covers is actually the $10K you see in the marketplace.

 

So if I'm reading this rationale correctly, basically it's ok because everyone does it.

 

Let's make another hypothetical. Say there's a dealer, we'll call him... Mack Brakey... completely hypothetical mind you. He corners the market on an artist, let's call him Romano. He and only a few guys who play at that level set up a shilling ring to keep prices artificially high on Romano and other stock from his inventory that he has consigned. By your rationale, this is actually what the market sets as value for those pieces. Because, in your own words, "these guys ARE the market".

[jimjum12]

After reading this and a few other threads I'm really glad I refrained from putting any real money into this hobby.

 

Yeah.

 

I understand the integrity of stepping aside for a friend that's after a grail piece, but it may happen more frequently than that.

If it only happens for a grail piece that should make it a one-off event, more often is something else.

 

If I sat down at a poker game where three or four players commonly bet against the remaining players and not against each other, I'd be tempted to find another table.

 

.... I will refrain from bidding against a friend if I'm already aware of his interest..... but never to the point of asking or being asked to do so. To me, collusion and shilling, when of an organized nature, are two sides of the same coin GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[wombat]

So what do you guys think if two dealers discuss what items they are going to put up for auction and decide to hold some similar pieces back as they are not sure having multiple similar pieces will get them the highest values? Do you consider that collusion or market manipulation?

[delekkerste]

So if I'm reading this rationale correctly, basically it's ok because everyone does it.

 

Well, then you're not reading this rationale correctly, because not everyone does it and we are talking about a minuscule # of lots where this both comes into play and has a say in the final outcome. And, even in those cases, how would you even know that it's having any discernible effect on the market when this behavior has been part of the market since day 1 and such activity is already reflected in market prices? Again - isn't that just the market price?

 

Sorry to Jimbo as well, but this and shilling are categorically NOT two sides of the same coin, as has been demonstrably shown multiple times above. That is simply an incorrect statement that some have chosen to believe nonetheless. The real rationale is that there is absolutely nothing inherently wrong with it, and that it is a perfectly normal part of our free and flexible OA market that seems to be working pretty well for buyers, sellers and middlemen alike. Much better, anyway, than the alternative scenario whereby people, who come into possession of information that their friends are bidding hard for something they really want, should feel morally obligated to ignore that information and run prices up on them if you were planning to do so in the absence of that information, which I hope every single person here recognizes is some completely wacked-out Taliban-like mess.

 

 

Let's make another hypothetical. Say there's a dealer, we'll call him... Mack Brakey... completely hypothetical mind you. He corners the market on an artist, let's call him Romano. He and only a few guys who play at that level set up a shilling ring to keep prices artificially high on Romano and other stock from his inventory that he has consigned. By your rationale, this is actually what the market sets as value for those pieces. Because, in your own words, "these guys ARE the market".

 

Everybody knows that Mack Brakey has had a stranglehold on the Romano market for years, having more or less cornered the Romano market back in the day, though perhaps it's loosened a bit given that he's let more and more pages into the wild over the years and other supply has been coming to market. Most of that material has moved privately, and there is no indication that Brakey has been consigning and shilling Romano art at auction. Perhaps protecting his market by bidding on other Romanos consigned? Sure.

 

Personally, I don't find any of this to be objectionable. It's not like he cornered the market in water, vaccines or some kind of strategic/essential commodity or resource. And, if he wants to set a high price to let his Romano art go, and to protect his holdings by bidding on other Romanos at auction, let him do so. And, yes, that IS the market. No different than the market for Calvin & Hobbes strips - supply is artificially constrained and prices are inflated as a result by the fact that not many strips escaped into the wild, but, there's no use crying over the fact that you can't buy one for $10K - the market is what it is.

 

All likenesses to actual dealers and artists in the above example is purely coincidental.

[Nexus]

So what do you guys think if two dealers discuss what items they are going to put up for auction and decide to hold some similar pieces back as they are not sure having multiple similar pieces will get them the highest values? Do you consider that collusion or market manipulation?

 

I just presented this same scenario and have gotten no response:

 

I don't get the comparison to shill bidding at all. To me, it's more akin to two sellers deciding before an auction not to consign like items. If seller A and seller B both have STUPID-MAN covers, they may decide to take turns consigning so they don't cannibalize each other's sales. Wrong? Not to me. Has the market been subverted? No.

 

I'm curious what the collusion folks think about this, too.

[Changer]

Let me propose a scenario - we are all friends and we all take turns bidding on items. we all win Except the seller. Realistic ? no but to prove a point, the more widespread the more it affects the marketplace. So once in awhile for a friend not much effect, many times with wide group of buyers big effect. Point is it is theoretically unfair to the seller, but just not effective unless bidder friends are the two highest bidders in that market. which can happen once in awhile, so seller beware too. Which now convinces me to use a reserve if I have an high ticket item to sell with a small market for.

[mister_not_so_nice]

Let me propose a scenario - we are all friends and we all take turns bidding on items. we all win Except the seller. Realistic ? no but to prove a point, the more widespread the more it affects the marketplace. So once in awhile for a friend not much effect, many times with wide group of buyers big effect. Point is it is theoretically unfair to the seller, but just not effective unless bidder friends are the two highest bidders in that market. which can happen once in awhile, so seller beware too. Which now convinces me to use a reserve if I have an high ticket item to sell with a small market for.

 

Good plan.

In fact, in order to make it fair to all sellers we should both vow to bid FMV on ALL OA in the next CLink auction. You with me? Let's make sure those sellers get the FMV they deserve.

[drdroom]

So what do you guys think if two dealers discuss what items they are going to put up for auction and decide to hold some similar pieces back as they are not sure having multiple similar pieces will get them the highest values? Do you consider that collusion or market manipulation?

 

I just presented this same scenario and have gotten no response:

 

I don't get the comparison to shill bidding at all. To me, it's more akin to two sellers deciding before an auction not to consign like items. If seller A and seller B both have STUPID-MAN covers, they may decide to take turns consigning so they don't cannibalize each other's sales. Wrong? Not to me. Has the market been subverted? No.

 

I'm curious what the collusion folks think about this, too.

 

This seems uncontroversial to me. No one is forced to bid, no one is forced to sell.

[Changer]

Yes, mister_not_so_nice, lets hope when you sell one day, we are all "friends" too. And when a seller is unfair to you, you certainly will have my sympathy.

[delekkerste]

So what do you guys think if two dealers discuss what items they are going to put up for auction and decide to hold some similar pieces back as they are not sure having multiple similar pieces will get them the highest values? Do you consider that collusion or market manipulation?

 

I just presented this same scenario and have gotten no response:

 

I don't get the comparison to shill bidding at all. To me, it's more akin to two sellers deciding before an auction not to consign like items. If seller A and seller B both have STUPID-MAN covers, they may decide to take turns consigning so they don't cannibalize each other's sales. Wrong? Not to me. Has the market been subverted? No.

 

I'm curious what the collusion folks think about this, too.

 

I have no problem with this, do not think this is wrong and do not think it subverts the market. What would subvert the market is if buyers and sellers were not able to react to new information about what others are doing and were forced to proceed with their plans to buy or sell as if they did not have that information. Bidder A can't deviate from his plan to bid a large amount, even though he just found out that it's his friend Bidder B's Grail piece. Seller X can't deviate from his plans to consign his Stupid-Man cover even though he just found out Seller Y is consigning 3 Stupid-Man covers to the same auction. Because doing either would not be "fair" to the counterparty. That way lies madness...

[tth2]

Let's make another hypothetical. Say there's a dealer, we'll call him... Mack Brakey... completely hypothetical mind you. He corners the market on an artist, let's call him Romano. He and only a few guys who play at that level set up a shilling ring to keep prices artificially high on Romano and other stock from his inventory that he has consigned. By your rationale, this is actually what the market sets as value for those pieces. Because, in your own words, "these guys ARE the market".

Amazing that this Mack Brakey fellow and another dealer named Luke Markey have such amazingly similar business models.

[Terry Doyle]

So what do you guys think if two dealers discuss what items they are going to put up for auction and decide to hold some similar pieces back as they are not sure having multiple similar pieces will get them the highest values? Do you consider that collusion or market manipulation?

 

I just presented this same scenario and have gotten no response:

 

I don't get the comparison to shill bidding at all. To me, it's more akin to two sellers deciding before an auction not to consign like items. If seller A and seller B both have STUPID-MAN covers, they may decide to take turns consigning so they don't cannibalize each other's sales. Wrong? Not to me. Has the market been subverted? No.

 

I'm curious what the collusion folks think about this, too.

 

Is Stoopid-man supposed to be hot?

 

[buttock]

Let's make another hypothetical. Say there's a dealer, we'll call him... Mack Brakey... completely hypothetical mind you. He corners the market on an artist, let's call him Romano. He and only a few guys who play at that level set up a shilling ring to keep prices artificially high on Romano and other stock from his inventory that he has consigned. By your rationale, this is actually what the market sets as value for those pieces. Because, in your own words, "these guys ARE the market".

Amazing that this Mack Brakey fellow and another dealer named Luke Markey have such amazingly similar business models.

 

I wonder if they're related

[zhamlau]

Wow, still ongoing? Why the Russian novel? It boils down to one question.

 

1. Are bidders obligated to bid on items? If they are and they don't bid, than yes its wrong. If you are NOT obligated to bid on an item, than what we are calling "Collusion" here is not wrong.

 

To the people who feel this is wrong, you are saying the bidders owe the seller to bid as much as they possibly can so the seller sees top dollar. That make sense to you?

[revat]

i feel like the most wrong thing being done in this thread is the way people are defining 'collusion'

[JadeGiant]

i feel like the most wrong thing being done in this thread is the way people are defining 'collusion'

 

Exactly!

 

Collusion = Bad

 

Asking a friend to consider stepping aside = NOT Bad

 

Collusion does not equal Asking a friend to consider stepping aside

 

I think Gene was just stirring his own pot by the thread title

 

[drdroom]

Let's make another hypothetical. Say there's a dealer, we'll call him... Mack Brakey... completely hypothetical mind you. He corners the market on an artist, let's call him Romano. He and only a few guys who play at that level set up a shilling ring to keep prices artificially high on Romano and other stock from his inventory that he has consigned. By your rationale, this is actually what the market sets as value for those pieces. Because, in your own words, "these guys ARE the market".

Amazing that this Mack Brakey fellow and another dealer named Luke Markey have such amazingly similar business models.

 

Mack Brakey is a prince, probably the nicest guy in the hobby. Luke Markey is a low-down shilling snake. Other than that, they could be the same person.