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

[ygogolak]

2 hours ago, KPR Comics said:

That is pretty much what the stock market is, to a degree.  Market Cap does not equal liquidation value.

Yes, I was thinking that as well. The difference is in the case that is not a valid comparison.
There can be multiple of the same comic and grade that sell all the time. Their prices are relative to the ones bought / sold around them. There are no two companies that are the exact same or hold the same potential.

Rally themselves state it is similar to / like the stock market. When, in this case, we can see it is not.

[ygogolak]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

Correct, there would be no outside offer to the RallyRd team which would be higher than the last sale price for the shares, if that collectible/car/asset is available in the real market for cheaper.

You could still sell your shares in the RallyRd system, but it would be a sale to other RallyRd users who would need a reason to buy (beyond the comparative real-world value)... such as always wanting that particular grail, or wanting to increase their holdings while the price is low.

At that point, the asset is stuck in the RallyRd system, much like a (whole) CGC copy of Marvel Super-Heroes #13 is stuck in my real-world collection at about 75% of where I bought it.  If only I had $50 stuck in a fraction of the book instead of $500 in the whole thing.  (I could sell either at a loss, but I'd rather lose part of $50 - through partial ownership - than losing that same percentage of $500 through whole ownership.) 

The remedy would be to only purchase RallyRd shares in something you'd be happy to be stuck with... such as grails you won't afford in "the real world".

And, as always, be aware that RallyRd could close up and leave you with nothing but a class-action lawsuit.  Yep, it's risky to be poor and ambitious.

OK, but by Rallys terms their board (insvestors & advisors) can buy the book, correct?

Scenario if they have an item that doesn't come up for sale often, say Star Wars #1 35 cent, and I own a well known auction house. I have buyers coming to me and asking for hard to find items. They offer to buy at $50k. I know I can buy that book from Rally for $25k b/c I'm on the inside track. I buy, appease investors and then sell to the person for $50k. The new realized market value is $50k, but there was an insider trading if you will and the "nvestors" lost $25k.

Edited January 28, 2021 by ygogolak

[valiantman]

9 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

OK, but by Rallys terms their board (insvestors & advisors) can buy the book, correct?

Scenario if they have an item that doesn't come up for sale often, say Star Wars #1 35 cent, and I own a well known auction house. I have buyers coming to me and asking for hard to find items. They offer to buy at $50k. I know I can buy that book from Rally for $25k b/c I'm on the inside track. I buy, appease investors and then sell to the person for $50k. The new realized market value is $50k, but there was an insider trading if you will and the "nvestors" lost $25k.

I'm not sure how that is different from knowing another dealer who has the book available for $25K.  You're also causing him to "lose" $25K when you know you can sell it for $50K.

[ygogolak]

34 minutes ago, valiantman said:

I'm not sure how that is different from knowing another dealer who has the book available for $25K.  You're also causing him to "lose" $25K when you know you can sell it for $50K.

Because the other book that a dealer might have a book is not backed by random investors on the the internet who are thinking this is an honest business venture.

[valiantman]

2 hours ago, ygogolak said:

3 hours ago, valiantman said:

I'm not sure how that is different from knowing another dealer who has the book available for $25K.  You're also causing him to "lose" $25K when you know you can sell it for $50K.

Because the other book that a dealer might have a book is not backed by random investors on the the internet who are thinking this is an honest business venture.

I don't see the scenario as dishonest in any way.  Random investors on the internet are not going to be approached to sell a $25K book by someone who knows they can get $50K for it.  If the random investors decide to sell for $25K, it doesn't make any difference who does what with the book afterwards.  If I sell you a book today for $100 and you have a buyer for $1,000... good for you.  I'm not cheated.

[valiantman]

CGC 9.0 Star Wars #1 35-cent variant

Initial offering - July 3, 2020 for $1 per share, limit of 20 shares, total shares = 12,000 ($12,000)

First trading day - November 3, 2020 - bidders and sellers settled at $1.70/share ($20,400 equivalent)

Second trading day - January 28, 2021 - bidders and sellers settled at $2.55/share ($30,600 equivalent) - 535 shares traded hands with 47 users making purchases at $2.55/share (average buy-in was 11.4 shares, or $29).

Edited January 28, 2021 by valiantman

[Gatsby77]

3 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Because the other book that a dealer might have a book is not backed by random investors on the the internet who are thinking this is an honest business venture.

This is precisely what was described earlier in the thread, where Metropolis Comics "sold" a book to Rally Road, allowing them to put only 20% down, while guaranteeing that the rest of the "sale price" would be through the IPO 45 days or such hence.

And given that Rally Rd. definitionally owns 50% of the shares themselves (so nobody else can gain a controlling interest and force a sale), they're effectively using other people's money to subsidize the purchase of their assets, even before the insider discount arrangement with Metro.

[ygogolak]

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

I don't see the scenario as dishonest in any way.  Random investors on the internet are not going to be approached to sell a $25K book by someone who knows they can get $50K for it.  If the random investors decide to sell for $25K, it doesn't make any difference who does what with the book afterwards.  If I sell you a book today for $100 and you have a buyer for $1,000... good for you.  I'm not cheated.

Somehow you're missing part of this equation. And I feel it's intentional.

Have you ever heard of the term Insider Trading?

[valiantman]

4 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Somehow you're missing part of this equation. And I feel it's intentional.

Have you ever heard of the term Insider Trading?

No, I'm well aware of the fact that a fractional owner (whose fraction is under 50%) doesn't get to say when a book is sold, or to who, or for how much.  The moment RallyRd sells a book for LESS than the last trading price, they will have a problem with users who do not believe they will do that.  However, if someone at RallyRd owns 51% of an asset, they can decide to sell it.  They can decide who to sell it to.  That buyer can do whatever they want. 

The only difference between this scenario in RallyRd and the same scenario if someone knows I have a book and wants to buy it from me to sell it for double to someone else (without telling me) is that RallyRd users don't own 51% or more.

RallyRd users already know that.

You seem to want to "uncover" something that isn't covered.

[valiantman]

56 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This is precisely what was described earlier in the thread, where Metropolis Comics "sold" a book to Rally Road, allowing them to put only 20% down, while guaranteeing that the rest of the "sale price" would be through the IPO 45 days or such hence.

And given that Rally Rd. definitionally owns 50% of the shares themselves (so nobody else can gain a controlling interest and force a sale), they're effectively using other people's money to subsidize the purchase of their assets, even before the insider discount arrangement with Metro.

Yes!  That is what is happening.  There's no secret there.

It's even filed with the SEC and publicly available, that is how you and I have all the details you described.

Fractional owners are not "demanding" controlling interest, and are not expecting it when they buy.

Again, this seems like some kind of attempt at a "gotcha" that doesn't reveal anything.

Shareholders in a company don't get to move the headquarters to Miami when they own 0.1%, nor do they get to keep majority shareholders who may also own stock in another company from allowing a takeover by that other company.

They know this. It's no secret.

Edited January 28, 2021 by valiantman

[ygogolak]

8 minutes ago, valiantman said:

No, I'm well aware of the fact that a fractional owner (whose fraction is under 50%) doesn't get to say when a book is sold, or to who, or for how much.  The moment RallyRd sells a book for LESS than the last trading price, they will have a problem with users who do not believe they will do that.  However, if someone at RallyRd owns 51% of an asset, they can decide to sell it.  They can decide who to sell it to.  That buyer can do whatever they want. 

The only difference between this scenario in RallyRd and the same scenario if someone knows I have a book and wants to buy it from me to sell it for double to someone else (without telling me) is that RallyRd users don't own 51% or more.

RallyRd users already know that.

You seem to want to "uncover" something that isn't covered.

 

Who is allowed to purchase the item outright? Not a user / general public.

Who is allowed to sell the item? Not a user / general public.

 

[valiantman]

22 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Who is allowed to purchase the item outright? Not a user / general public.

Who is allowed to sell the item? Not a user / general public.

Anyone can offer to purchase the item outright.

The owners of the item can vote on whether or not to sell if there is an offer.  51% yes, and it sells.

Edited January 28, 2021 by valiantman

[THE_BEYONDER]

7 hours ago, valiantman said:

CGC 9.0 Star Wars #1 35-cent variant

Initial offering - July 3, 2020 for $1 per share, limit of 20 shares, total shares = 12,000 ($12,000)

First trading day - November 3, 2020 - bidders and sellers settled at $1.70/share ($20,400 equivalent)

Second trading day - January 28, 2021 - bidders and sellers settled at $2.55/share ($30,600 equivalent) - 535 shares traded hands with 47 users making purchases at $2.55/share (average buy-in was 11.4 shares, or $29).

So the value of this fractionalized asset jumped $10,200( 50% increase) in 90 days? 
 

Edited January 29, 2021 by THE_BEYONDER

[spidermanbeyond]

4 hours ago, THE_BEYONDER said:

So the value of this fractionalized asset jumped $10,200( 50% increase) in 90 days? 
 

Star Wars books have gone nuclear and this jump is reflecting that.  

[ygogolak]

12 hours ago, spidermanbeyond said:

Star Wars books have gone nuclear and this jump is reflecting that.  

Modern Star Wars books have gone nuclear due to the speculation on new Disney+ shows with new characters never before on screen.

Star Wars #1 has gone from $2k beginning of Sept. 2020 to $2,800 Jan. 2021. Very nice increase. No where near the increase for the books I just mentioned.

[Gatsby77]

2 minutes ago, ygogolak said:

Modern Star Wars books have gone nuclear due to the speculation on new Disney+ shows with new characters never before on screen.

Star Wars #1 has gone from $2k beginning of Sept. 2020 to $2,800 Jan. 2021. Very nice increase. No where near the increase for the books I just mentioned.

This.

Star Wars # 1 / $.35 # 1 are not part of the Disney+ speculation bubble - unless you count a cover-only appearance of Obi-Wan Kenobi ahead of a supposed Ewen MacGregor show. His true first appearance was # 2, and that one (as the first Han Solo) didn't do bupkis in the run-up to the Solo film.

In any case, we'll know more in 8 hours about probable comps, as C-link has 7.5-8.5 $.35 variants of # 1, 3 & 4 ending tonight.

[shadroch]

23 hours ago, ygogolak said:

Somehow you're missing part of this equation. And I feel it's intentional.

Have you ever heard of the term Insider Trading?

Perhaps I'm missing something here so explain to me what you think would be illegal in this? Insider Trading is a crime, I'm not seeing any crime here. I own 200 shares. I agree to sell them for $3 and make a profit I'm happy with. The book sells and the shares would have been worth $500.

Where is the crime? Where is the victim?

I'm not seeing it, but you are so help me see this from a different perspective.

[Gatsby77]

1 minute ago, shadroch said:

Perhaps I'm missing something here so explain to me what you think would be illegal in this? Insider Trading is a crime, I'm not seeing any crime here. I own 200 shares. I agree to sell them for $3 and make a profit I'm happy with. The book sells and the shares would have been worth $500.

Where is the crime? Where is the victim?

I'm not seeing it, but you are so help me see this from a different perspective.

How about this:

Rally Road owns at least 51% of the shares.

Rally Road sets the price, which is only open for trading one day per month.

In at least one case (the Jordan Rookie card) Rally Road was also the ultimate buyer.

When one party is the (majority) seller, sets the price (in an opaque way) and is the buyer? That pretty much qualifies as insider trading. They are privy to (and acting upon) asymmetric information.

Maybe not technically (I'm not a lawyer), but it's neither transparent nor ethical.

[Gatsby77]

Comiclink’s 7.5 copy of Star Wars # 1 ($.35) sold last night for $6,300.

Pretty sure that doesn’t equate to a 9.0 being worth $30,000+.

[Pickie]

Fractional Ownership offered for

British Guiana 1c magenta

"Stanley Gibbons are looking to democratise access to the most elite club in collecting history and offer fractional ownership of the rarest and most valuable stamp in the world."

https://www.1c-magenta.com/?gclid=CjwKCAjwrPCGBhALEiwAUl9X04CgHnEiOmpZo88eDEvoMuV5TycY5BczRh9MOwR5YGWKgJv1iD1xNxoC7lUQAvD_BwE