Are we at a peak of back issue worth/sales? 6 6

[ADAMANTIUM]

28 minutes ago, the blob said:

So you get points by liking and reacting to other peoples' posts? sounds silly.

 

for instance since @porcupine48 has actually been back to regular posting

he is up like a gazillion points from peep's liking his posts.... @Get Marwood & I

https://www.cgccomics.com/boards/leaderboard/

[delekkerste]

1 hour ago, the blob said:

Yeah, I never understood the Madoff mess. His fake returns were not that great. The S&P 500, with dividend reinvestment, has done better than that over the last 35 years, I believe (not accounting for taxes), even with a few crashes thrown in, assuming you are putting in a certain amount each month. Not so much if you started putting in right before the 2000 crash. Timing is important. Luck is too. If you had plopped all your money down on it in May 2000 you would have not done that well the last nearly 20 years. (Dividend reinvestment is crucial though.)

Sharpe ratio, bro.  

8-10% consistent returns where you just set it and forget it?  If you can make 8-10% consistent per annual returns with barely any volatility or drawdowns, you will make hundreds of millions of dollars for yourself, if not billions. That's like the Holy Grail of investments for pension funds, endowments and other institutions. I'm not surprised at all that so many people were beating down Madoff's door. 

BTW, over the past 20 years (8/20/99 to 8/23/19), the S&P 500 has only earned 5.86% compounded annual returns including reinvested dividends (only 4.84% if you just took the cash).  And you probably developed multiple ulcers and lost all your hair and gained 40 lbs eating midnight ice cream in 2000-02 and 2008-9, not to mention during the numerous 10-20% swoons along the way (and smaller scares as well). 

Edited August 28, 2019 by delekkerste

[lou_fine]

Back to the original question as per the title of this thread here.

Looks like we aren't quite at the peak just yet, since we still have another day for all of you lucky boardies to bid here:

After all, who wouldn't bid since it's still sitting here at the bargain basement price of only $74,000 with just one more day to go.    

[Ken Aldred]

For a 9.9, I don't like the slightly bent look of the white at the top of the spine.

Should do better at that grade.

 

[justafan]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

For a 9.9, I don't like the slightly bent look of the white at the top of the spine.

Should do better at that grade.

 

Yikes! for a structural 9.9 I hate the wrap.  I'd rather have a 9.8 White with a perfect wrap and centering.  The only reason it's probably not a 10 is because of the wrap.  I'll take the additional defect of a single non-color break spine tick/bump in a 9.8 over that wrap any day and easily for far less than $74k. 

[THE_BEYONDER]

2 hours ago, Ken Aldred said:

For a 9.9, I don't like the slightly bent look of the white at the top of the spine.

Should do better at that grade.

 

I hope the buyer opts to pick the book up in person. I’d be terrified to have that book put through the postal system.  The slightest shift and that razor sharp LRC is toast .

[NoMan]

10 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Back to the original question as per the title of this thread here.

Looks like we aren't quite at the peak just yet, since we still have another day for all of you lucky boardies to bid here:

After all, who wouldn't bid since it's still sitting here at the bargain basement price of only $74,000 with just one more day to go.    

is that a BIN, or that's what the bidding has gotten up to?

[delekkerste]

56 minutes ago, NoMan said:

is that a BIN, or that's what the bidding has gotten up to?

It's what the bidding has gotten up to.

Wasn't it listed on the Exchange at some point at a much higher price than the current $74K bid?  Or am I misremembering that...

Anyway, as the owner of the Tomb of Dracula #10 original cover art, I'm hoping this 9.9 sells for as much as possible so I can tell prospective buyers, "Well, the CGC 9.9 sold for $X, and that's despite people ragging on it for the miswrap, so, of course, my cover should be worth _________ multiples of that amount!"  

[lou_fine]

2 hours ago, NoMan said:

is that a BIN, or that's what the bidding has gotten up to?

Yes indeed, it's your lucky day here.  

You still have a few more hours left to place some more bids on this once in a lifetime book here.  

[lou_fine]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Anyway, as the owner of the Tomb of Dracula #10 original cover art, I'm hoping this 9.9 sells for as much as possible so I can tell prospective buyers, "Well, the CGC 9.9 sold for $X, and that's despite people ragging on it for the miswrap, so, of course, my cover should be worth _________ multiples of that amount!"  

Well, since you've been here long enough to know the price trajectory of these movie related hype books, does that mean you are going to put your Wall Street hat back on and sell the sucker before it comes crashing back down to Earth by the time the movie hits the theatres?    

[delekkerste]

43 minutes ago, lou_fine said:

Well, since you've been here long enough to know the price trajectory of these movie related hype books, does that mean you are going to put your Wall Street hat back on and sell the sucker before it comes crashing back down to Earth by the time the movie hits the theatres?    

Happy to entertain the unfathomably huge offers that this cover clearly merits.  

Edited August 28, 2019 by delekkerste

[the blob]

17 hours ago, delekkerste said:

Sharpe ratio, bro.  

8-10% consistent returns where you just set it and forget it?  If you can make 8-10% consistent per annual returns with barely any volatility or drawdowns, you will make hundreds of millions of dollars for yourself, if not billions. That's like the Holy Grail of investments for pension funds, endowments and other institutions. I'm not surprised at all that so many people were beating down Madoff's door. 

BTW, over the past 20 years (8/20/99 to 8/23/19), the S&P 500 has only earned 5.86% compounded annual returns including reinvested dividends (only 4.84% if you just took the cash).  And you probably developed multiple ulcers and lost all your hair and gained 40 lbs eating midnight ice cream in 2000-02 and 2008-9, not to mention during the numerous 10-20% swoons along the way (and smaller scares as well). 

Are you calculating plopping down $1000 on 8/20/99 and stepping away or putting in $1000 a month during that 20 year period?

OK, I checked, you just plugged in a single investment in August 1999, near the peak of the bubble. Not a continuous flow of money each month, which would have gotten you much more like 9-10% a year. Plopping all your money in in 1999 or 2000 would not have been great, agreed.]

So, basically, other than 1999-2001, the average schmo just buying an S&P 500 index would have gotten better returns, for the most part, than Madoff's fictional steady 8%.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by the blob

[vheflin]

16 hours ago, lou_fine said:

Back to the original question as per the title of this thread here.

Looks like we aren't quite at the peak just yet, since we still have another day for all of you lucky boardies to bid here:

After all, who wouldn't bid since it's still sitting here at the bargain basement price of only $74,000 with just one more day to go.    

When the global toilet paper shortage hits in 2053, it will return to its intrinsic value.

[the blob]

19 hours ago, vheflin said:

When the global toilet paper shortage hits in 2053, it will return to its intrinsic value.

I always liked blade and punisher as a kid in the 70s. Never occurred to me to hunt down boxes of 1st apps. I liked wolverine as soon as I was familiar with him, but 181 was already expensive.

[delekkerste]

On 8/28/2019 at 2:21 PM, the blob said:

Are you calculating plopping down $1000 on 8/20/99 and stepping away or putting in $1000 a month during that 20 year period?

OK, I checked, you just plugged in a single investment in August 1999, near the peak of the bubble. Not a continuous flow of money each month, which would have gotten you much more like 9-10% a year. Plopping all your money in in 1999 or 2000 would not have been great, agreed.]

So, basically, other than 1999-2001, the average schmo just buying an S&P 500 index would have gotten better returns, for the most part, than Madoff's fictional steady 8%.

Equivalent, not better, returns, and with stock market-like volatility whereas Madoff's returns had T-bill like volatility.  If you can produce stock-like returns with T-bill like volatility (without resorting to fraud), the world is your oyster.  It's really no wonder why people were beating down Madoff's door.  You earned your 8-10% S&P returns over the past 20 years living through two crashes, investing every month without fail, and having cojones the size of Van de Graaf generators not to puke out at any time.  In reality, you would have been hating life, losing your hair, putting on weight and puking in your toilet being that exposed to stock market volatility during this time, whereas someone who was earning a steady 8-10% a year would have been free from all of this distraction and just enjoying watching their money grow.    

Not to mention, remember, in your calculations, by investing $1K/month in your example, as opposed to investing it everything in August 1999 in one shot, you actually only earned that higher return on 10 years' worth of exposure, not the full 20 years (investing $X in August 1999 = full exposure to the market for 20 years; investing 1/240th $X every month starting in August 1999 = $X only being exposed to the market on about 10 years' weighted average of exposure).  

Also, you only got to Madoff's 8-10% returns in the S&P because your end point is the top of the current cycle, which just happens to be #1, #2 or #3 of all-time overvalued markets depending on which valuation metric you look at.  What if we ran the numbers from August 1989 to August 2009 instead?  If you ran your dollar-cost averaging numbers with an end point of 2009 or 2002 or 1982 after the market went essentially nowhere for 14 years and inflation ate up a huge amount of your purchasing power, you'd get a very different result.  Just like I bet you'll get a significantly worse result when you re-run the numbers in 2029.  You roundtripped back to 1996 levels in 2009; you roundtripped back to 1968 levels in 1982; you roundtripped back to 1934 levels in 1942, you roundtripped all the way back to 1903 levels in 1933...history shows that stock market returns are mean reverting; long periods of great performance are often followed by long periods of poor performance.  It also shows that you only get those juiced up returns when you're starting from low valuations (like 1982 or 2009); starting at present levels, not many serious market thinkers would suggest that 8-10% returns are possible over the long run unless valuations reset first.  Same with bonds, real estate, art, collectibles and all other asset classes with inflated valuations these days.  

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

35 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Equivalent, not better, returns, and with stock market-like volatility whereas Madoff's returns had T-bill like volatility.  If you can produce stock-like returns with T-bill like volatility (without resorting to fraud), the world is your oyster.  It's really no wonder why people were beating down Madoff's door.  You earned your 8-10% S&P returns over the past 20 years living through two crashes, investing every month without fail, and having cojones the size of Van de Graaf generators not to puke out at any time.  In reality, you would have been hating life, losing your hair, putting on weight and puking in your toilet being that exposed to stock market volatility during this time, whereas someone who was earning a steady 8-10% a year would have been free from all of this distraction and just enjoying watching their money grow.    

Not to mention, remember, in your calculations, by investing $1K/month in your example, as opposed to investing it everything in August 1999 in one shot, you actually only earned that higher return on 10 years' worth of exposure, not the full 20 years (investing $X in August 1999 = full exposure to the market for 20 years; investing 1/240th $X every month starting in August 1999 = $X only being exposed to the market on about 10 years' weighted average of exposure).  

Also, you only got to Madoff's 8-10% returns in the S&P because your end point is the top of the current cycle, which just happens to be #1, #2 or #3 of all-time overvalued markets depending on which valuation metric you look at.  What if we ran the numbers from August 1989 to August 2009 instead?  If you ran your dollar-cost averaging numbers with an end point of 2009 or 2002 or 1982 after the market went essentially nowhere for 14 years and inflation ate up a huge amount of your purchasing power, you'd get a very different result.  Just like I bet you'll get a significantly worse result when you re-run the numbers in 2029.  You roundtripped back to 1996 levels in 2009; you roundtripped back to 1968 levels in 1982; you roundtripped back to 1934 levels in 1942, you roundtripped all the way back to 1903 levels in 1933...history shows that stock market returns are mean reverting; long periods of great performance are often followed by long periods of poor performance.  It also shows that you only get those juiced up returns when you're starting from low valuations (like 1982 or 2009); starting at present levels, not many serious market thinkers would suggest that 8-10% returns are possible over the long run unless valuations reset first.  Same with bonds, real estate, art, collectibles and all other asset classes with inflated valuations these days.  

You had me at "Madoff's returns had T-bill like volatility"  

[Hamlet]

14 minutes ago, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

You had me at "Madoff's returns had T-bill like volatility"  

I wonder how many of Madoff’s customers took advantage of that low volatility by employing leverage when buying his fund?

That is the real scary thing -  when people think they’ve got a lock investment, there is a strong temptation to lever up to really take advantage of it.  No matter how many times it blows up, the next time there is always someone willing to risk other people’s money on a “sure thing”.

 

[the blob]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

Equivalent, not better, returns, and with stock market-like volatility whereas Madoff's returns had T-bill like volatility.  If you can produce stock-like returns with T-bill like volatility (without resorting to fraud), the world is your oyster.  It's really no wonder why people were beating down Madoff's door.  You earned your 8-10% S&P returns over the past 20 years living through two crashes, investing every month without fail, and having cojones the size of Van de Graaf generators not to puke out at any time.  In reality, you would have been hating life, losing your hair, putting on weight and puking in your toilet being that exposed to stock market volatility during this time, whereas someone who was earning a steady 8-10% a year would have been free from all of this distraction and just enjoying watching their money grow.    

Not to mention, remember, in your calculations, by investing $1K/month in your example, as opposed to investing it everything in August 1999 in one shot, you actually only earned that higher return on 10 years' worth of exposure, not the full 20 years (investing $X in August 1999 = full exposure to the market for 20 years; investing 1/240th $X every month starting in August 1999 = $X only being exposed to the market on about 10 years' weighted average of exposure).  

Also, you only got to Madoff's 8-10% returns in the S&P because your end point is the top of the current cycle, which just happens to be #1, #2 or #3 of all-time overvalued markets depending on which valuation metric you look at.  What if we ran the numbers from August 1989 to August 2009 instead?  If you ran your dollar-cost averaging numbers with an end point of 2009 or 2002 or 1982 after the market went essentially nowhere for 14 years and inflation ate up a huge amount of your purchasing power, you'd get a very different result.  Just like I bet you'll get a significantly worse result when you re-run the numbers in 2029.  You roundtripped back to 1996 levels in 2009; you roundtripped back to 1968 levels in 1982; you roundtripped back to 1934 levels in 1942, you roundtripped all the way back to 1903 levels in 1933...history shows that stock market returns are mean reverting; long periods of great performance are often followed by long periods of poor performance.  It also shows that you only get those juiced up returns when you're starting from low valuations (like 1982 or 2009); starting at present levels, not many serious market thinkers would suggest that 8-10% returns are possible over the long run unless valuations reset first.  Same with bonds, real estate, art, collectibles and all other asset classes with inflated valuations these days.  

I suppose this is a good time and we can have a stinky stretch, but I looked at returns investing a lump sum from 1990 forward and only found a few years under 8%. I put into my 401k from late 1998-early 2004 and it sat after that. I have more than 3x what I put in. (I have been 85% out of the market since September though, which hasn't done much for me). 

[Beige]

Anyway - down in OZ we had a Marvel display pop up in one of the CBD train stations.

Took ages to get pics as it was free and most people were under 30.

Thought it was kinda cool, and a nice wander for 10 minutes.

 

 

Edited August 30, 2019 by Beige

[kav]

On 8/27/2019 at 3:13 PM, NoMan said:

The collection in my mind, you see. And not just comics. You can be boss, Kav. Honestly who would want to?

Look its not that I want to it's just that the board deserves it.

I'm thinking of the board.