RallyRd - that old idea about partial ownership of comics is a reality (updated July 21, 2021) 6 6

[Hollywood1892]

9 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Except, we know the factual situation that 1,000 shares in CGC 5.0 Captain America #3 sold out in three minutes at $37 each.

Instead of thinking about the max that a high value comic has sold for, why not consider the ONLY price that a CGC 5.0 Captain America #3 has reached when open to anyone with $37 to invest?

The price of high value comic books is currently LIMITED by the cost of entry.  If you lower the cost of entry, the price is no longer limited.

In other words, certain books will skyrocket when digital shares are introduced... held back all this time by the number of people able to play the game.

When everyone can play the game, the prices will rise on anything worth owning.  1st Stan Lee is one of those things.

So what if they tried to sell the book for 50k? Then they give all the shareholders money or the shares go up ( I think I answered my own question)

[valiantman]

6 minutes ago, bronze_rules said:

The whole, you get to buy a piece of the mona lisa, but never get to touch or have it in your hands, is comical for anyone to be persuaded by it. The only incentive would be to flip for a calculated profit.

Comical?  For some.  But so is bitcoin, currently sitting at $200,000,000,000.  Ownership in the idea of a digital currency backed by proof of who owns the digital currency (yes, a circular logic circling around nothing in the middle)... is worth $200 Billion.

People literally laugh and say, "What is a bitcoin?  What do you own?  Nothing!" and despite the laughter, it's sitting at $200B.

The Mona Lisa is currently worth whatever value some extremely wealthy investors might be able to generate.  If the value was up to the world (as it is in bitcoin), it has no limit.  It's history, art, fame, fun, and investment in one 500-year old painting. 

What's the true value of all that?  Much higher than any one investor could pay.

Every valuable "thing" is currently limited by the "second highest bidder plus one increment" concept.  Stocks, however, aren't limited, and trillion dollar companies exist, even though trillion dollar earnings don't.

 

 

[valiantman]

Just now, Hollywood1892 said:

So what if they tried to sell the book for 50k? Then they give all the shareholders money or the shares go up ( I think I answered my own question)

RallyRd bought a Michael Jordan rookie card, offered 1,000 shares for $40 each.  Got an offer for $71,640 for the card, took a vote among shareholders, and sold the card, giving $71.64 in cash for every (originally) $40 share.

Another system (not RallyRd) might do something similar or maybe they would never sell the item, only allowing it to be traded as shares.  No one knows yet.

[Hollywood1892]

2 hours ago, valiantman said:

Correct - I believe that once the system exists, there will be books which are never liquidated, remaining in the system forever... much like stocks which are over 100 years old for the same company, never liquidated, never acquired, always partial ownership.

As far as your 9.8 ASM #300 scenario goes, I think there are three possibilities: 1) People DO want to pay $10 or $100 to own a part of 9.8 ASM #300, so it doesn't have any problem selling.  2) Specific books like 9.8 ASM #300 are traded as MULTIPLE copies, that is, buying into 9.8 ASM #300 would be buying a share of a collection of ten (roughly) identical CGC 9.8 ASM #300 copies - worth $25,000, not just one copy worth $2,500.  3)  Smaller books like 9.8 ASM #300 would be part of a "Venom Collection" which is traded as shares of one asset... the collection.

 

Why wouldn't they make the price on all the books the same, but have more shares available like first instance the amount of shares available on ASM 300 would only be say 10 at $37 and the other book you mentioned would have 1000 available shares?

[Hollywood1892]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

RallyRd bought a Michael Jordan rookie card, offered 1,000 shares for $40 each.  Got an offer for $71,640 for the card, took a vote among shareholders, and sold the card, giving $71.64 in cash for every (originally) $40 share.

Another system (not RallyRd) might do something similar or maybe they would never sell the item, only allowing it to be traded as shares.  No one knows yet.

I'm starting to see the vision...are they hiring you in accounting?

[valiantman]

Just now, Hollywood1892 said:

Why wouldn't they make the price on all the books the same, but have more shares available like first instance the amount of shares available on ASM 300 would only be say 10 at $37 and the other book you mentioned would have 1000 available shares?

They could - but the prices wouldn't stay the same.  Then you'd have some odd dollar amounts and odd numbers of shares.  That's how it works in the stock market, but it would be somewhat confusing for a new market like this.  You'd be safer to have 1,000 shares of everything, and the share price would be whatever the market decides.  It would be much easier to know what you're paying for a share if the number of shares was 1,000.

[valiantman]

2 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

3 minutes ago, valiantman said:

RallyRd bought a Michael Jordan rookie card, offered 1,000 shares for $40 each.  Got an offer for $71,640 for the card, took a vote among shareholders, and sold the card, giving $71.64 in cash for every (originally) $40 share.

Another system (not RallyRd) might do something similar or maybe they would never sell the item, only allowing it to be traded as shares.  No one knows yet.

I'm starting to see the vision...are they hiring you in accounting?

I make more than accountants, so that would be the 20% - 40% premium that @Gatsby77 objects so much about... so no, I'd say they probably won't be hiring me for any of it. 

[bronze_rules]

18 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Comical?  For some.  But so is bitcoin, currently sitting at $200,000,000,000.  Ownership in the idea of a digital currency backed by proof of who owns the digital currency (yes, a circular logic circling around nothing in the middle)... is worth $200 Billion.

People literally laugh and say, "What is a bitcoin?  What do you own?  Nothing!" and despite the laughter, it's sitting at $200B.

The Mona Lisa is currently worth whatever value some extremely wealthy investors might be able to generate.  If the value was up to the world (as it is in bitcoin), it has no limit.  It's history, art, fame, fun, and investment in one 500-year old painting. 

What's the true value of all that?  Much higher than any one investor could pay.

Every valuable "thing" is currently limited by the "second highest bidder plus one increment" concept.  Stocks, however, aren't limited, and trillion dollar companies exist, even though trillion dollar earnings don't.

 

 

I don't disagree with you on Bitcoin. It is indeed absurdly comical and a ponzi scheme like dutch tulips. On the other hand if it somehow gets adopted by the Government, I would change my mind some, after it deflated to reality.

Not a great comparison, because bitcoin does have some liquidity as far as I know, there are exchanges, but that comparison doesn't make this concept any more desirable. Both are based on the greater fool theory.

I'll also add that bitcoin does not use the illusion that you actually get a piece of something tangible, what have you got to lose?  People know they are buying in hopes that someone else will buy it higher.  No pretension there.  Here, you are buying at a loss, right at the beginning.

[valiantman]

2 minutes ago, bronze_rules said:

I don't disagree with you on Bitcoin. It is indeed absurdly comical and a ponzi scheme like dutch tulips. On the other hand if it somehow gets adopted by the Government, I would change my mind some, after it deflated to reality.

Not a great comparison, because bitcoin does have some liquidity as far as I know, there are exchanges, but that comparison doesn't make this concept any more desirable. Both are based on the greater fool theory.

I'll also add that bitcoin does not use the illusion that you actually get a piece of something tangible, what have you got to lose?  People know they are buying in hopes that someone else will buy it higher.  No pretension there.  Here, you are buying at a loss, right at the beginning.

There's no way that the concept of asset-backed ownership is worse than no-asset ownership, so the creation of a digital exchange for asset-backed ownership in comics (or any item asset) would immediately be superior to cryptocurrency, in theory.  In practice, it would be nice if there was 0% premium for comic books in such a system, but the existence of such a system, lower cost of entry, immediate buying/selling platform, lack of shipping times/costs, would all amount to some premium over buying the comic outright.

[valiantman]

Someone suggested just buying shares in Disney instead of shares of Amazing Fantasy #15.  Not at all the same thing.  I didn't spend 30 years collecting comics wanting to own Amazing Fantasy #15 for both pride and investment to say it's "the same thing" to buy shares in a company that owns Spider-Man.  You might as well just buy a random issue of Amazing Spider-Man and call that the same thing.  At least it would be 100% Spider-Man and a comic book.  No, the only way to own Amazing Fantasy #15, currently, is to pay for a whole one... far beyond my current spending money.  In the future, when I want to put $1,000 into Amazing Fantasy #15, there will be an option for me.  Not shares of Disney, not some other Spider-Man comic... a real world Amazing Fantasy #15.  That's a system that will exist someday.  Whether people here want to complain about it or not, it will be out there for those who want to join in.  I also predict it will be very successful, even without the Karens in this topic.

[bronze_rules]

1 minute ago, valiantman said:

Someone suggested just buying shares in Disney instead of shares of Amazing Fantasy #15.  Not at all the same thing.  I didn't spend 30 years collecting comics wanting to own Amazing Fantasy #15 for both pride and investment to say it's "the same thing" to buy shares in a company that owns Spider-Man.  You might as well just buy a random issue of Amazing Spider-Man and call that the same thing.  At least it would be 100% Spider-Man and a comic book.  No, the only way to own Amazing Fantasy #15, currently, is to pay for a whole one... far beyond my current spending money.  In the future, when I want to put $1,000 into Amazing Fantasy #15, there will be an option for me.  Not shares of Disney, not some other Spider-Man comic... a real world Amazing Fantasy #15.  That's a system that will exist someday.  Whether people here want to complain about it or not, it will be out there for those who want to join in.  I also predict it will be very successful, even without the Karens in this topic.

years ago (around 2000), I saw AF 15 in a Comic Shop display, it was around a VG for 1000. My girlfriend asked, do you want me to buy for your birthday? I could have easily afforded it at the time on my own. I declined. Man was that a terrible decision.

[Hollywood1892]

54 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I make more than accountants, so that would be the 20% - 40% premium that @Gatsby77 objects so much about... so no, I'd say they probably won't be hiring me for any of it. 

How come you just don't do the same thing with your collection?

[Hollywood1892]

2 minutes ago, bronze_rules said:

years ago (around 2000), I saw AF 15 in a Comic Shop display, it was around a VG for 1000. My girlfriend asked, do you want me to buy for your birthday? I could have easily afforded it at the time on my own. I declined. Man was that a terrible decision.

Yes it was (sadly)

So you think it would have graded 7.0?

Edited July 27, 2020 by Hollywood1892

[valiantman]

Just now, Hollywood1892 said:

55 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I make more than accountants, so that would be the 20% - 40% premium that @Gatsby77 objects so much about... so no, I'd say they probably won't be hiring me for any of it. 

How come you just don't do the same thing with your collection?

How come I don't spend $1,000,000 building a digital trading system approved by the SEC, FINRA, SIPC, and covered in all legal aspects of the business in order to offer shares in my comic collection worth significantly less than $1,000,000?

[Hollywood1892]

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

How come I don't spend $1,000,000 building a digital trading system approved by the SEC, FINRA, SIPC, and covered in all legal aspects of the business in order to offer shares in my comic collection worth significantly less than $1,000,000?

Good point!

They invested 1,000,000 in this already...that is a far cry from a scheme tbh...if I was gonna rip people off the last thing I would do was put a cool million of my own money to do it

I don't know if you are intentionally trying to convince me...

Edited July 27, 2020 by Hollywood1892

[bronze_rules]

11 minutes ago, Hollywood1892 said:

Yes it was (sadly)

So you think it would have graded 7.0?

VG is 4.0, but with a good pressing, who knows.

Edited July 27, 2020 by bronze_rules

[valiantman]

Just now, Hollywood1892 said:

2 minutes ago, valiantman said:

How come I don't spend $1,000,000 building a digital trading system approved by the SEC, FINRA, SIPC, and covered in all legal aspects of the business in order to offer shares in my comic collection worth significantly less than $1,000,000?

Good point!

They invested 1,000,000 in this already...that is a far cry from a scheme tbh...if I was gonna rip people off the last thing I would do was put a cool million of my own money to do it

I don't know what they have invested, but custom websites, transactions, and lawyers aren't super cheap if you want to do them right.  There are million dollar software systems that definitely do less than the RallyRd website, even without all the LLC filings.  RallyRd assets are probably close to $10M.  Only about half a million is comic books.  They haven't built the digital trading system (24/7 exchange), so maybe they haven't spent much.

[blazingbob]

31 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I don't know what they have invested, but custom websites, transactions, and lawyers aren't super cheap if you want to do them right.  There are million dollar software systems that definitely do less than the RallyRd website, even without all the LLC filings.  RallyRd assets are probably close to $10M.  Only about half a million is comic books.  They haven't built the digital trading system (24/7 exchange), so maybe they haven't spent much.

They are spending much for a NY Address,  insurance,  their salaries,  electric,  phone,  receptionist since when you deal in this high end stuff you have to have the fancy showroom with attractive staff.  In addition that monthly "nut" has to come out of somewhere so If those assets are worth 10 million they better be throwing off some really good cash flow to cover all of these expenses or you are just creating that slow spin down the financial toilet bowl.  

Again,  concepts are great and yeah they might work but when it comes to being profitable it is all black and white.  If the numbers work the business succeeds,  if it doesn't the business fails.

[Sweet Lou 14]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

RallyRd bought a Michael Jordan rookie card, offered 1,000 shares for $40 each.  Got an offer for $71,640 for the card, took a vote among shareholders, and sold the card, giving $71.64 in cash for every (originally) $40 share.

Another system (not RallyRd) might do something similar or maybe they would never sell the item, only allowing it to be traded as shares.  No one knows yet.

This sounds great but that can't possibly be the whole story.  There had to have been costs and fees that needed to be deducted from that $71,640.  If you can point to a more detailed accounting of this transaction, I would be curious to see it.

[sfcityduck]

6 hours ago, valiantman said:

.In stocks, if I have $1,000, I can invest in ANY individual company, big or small, up to $1,000 worth of whatever fraction of a company I can afford. 

In collectibles, if I have $1,000, I can ONLY invest in collectibles worth $1,000 or less. 

A LOT of financial folks will tell you that buying collectibles is materially different than investing in a company because a company generates revenue and a comic book has no intrinsic atributes upon which "value" can be derived.  It's value is due to irrational attachment (just like art and many other collectibles).  This doesn't mean that folks can't make money buying and selling comics, as they obviously do (so too with art and other collectables).  It does mean, however, that assessing the value of the investment and its upside is far far far more an art form than assessing the value of a stock.  The value of a collectible is a product of nostalgia, coolness, the joy that ownership brings the possessor.  A stock's value doesn't derive from any of those things.  So when you make a comic book into something that is intangible and cannot be possessed, you have, I think, divorced that collectible from its only true appeal.  Doing that seems like a recipe for disaster.  Because if you think of a comic an "investment," you will start to analyze its value with your head, not your heart, and your head is going to be telling buyers a far different message than their hearts.