Combined investment will cause Golden Age (Collectors) to explode 3 3

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

Which I am arguing is (1) irrelevant to Action 1 collecting and (2) is bad as a matter of public policy.  

We are way off on a tangent.  The fact you are equating fractional ownership of comics with buying cryptocurrency is not an argument that persuades me that fractional ownership of comics is a good thing.  I think we need to get off this digression and bring the topic back to comics.  Taken together, your argument that "businesses are traded fractionally through stocks" and "crypto currency is traded electronically" come across to me as just a bit of jealousy that has nothing to do with comic collecting.  You are right that comics are now presently traded like stocks or crypto currency.  So what?  I don't get the fear of missing out (FOMO) aspect of your argument.  

My paltry $100 can buy part of company I believe in.  My paltry $100 can buy part of a cryptocurrency I believe in.  My paltry $100 can't buy a part of Action Comics #1, which I believe in more than companies and cryptocurrencies.

You're saying "that's just the way it is, tough luck" and I'm saying that this generation will stand up and say, "Wrong!  Here's my $100, and I'm riding the book to the sky with you."

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:00 PM, eschnit said:

There’s an issue though.  The value of a corporation is supposed to be based off of what it can generate in dividends and/or cash flow as a potential buyout from another corporation.  Currency, crypto, or otherwise, is a crested holder of value, it’s worth whatever the market says it is relative to other currencies.  But your Action 1 example is different.  I’m sure you can Devil’s Advocate away how it’s not, but that doesn’t make it so.  Action 1 is a book, comparable to a rare rookie card of say Mantle, or a Monet, or of some other collectible in high demand that is rare, but not singular.  Those collectibles are not worth what the community at large is willing to pay for them if they could just buy 1% or 1% of 1%.  They’re worth what 1 buyer is willing to pay for it relative to all other buyers, for the whole thing.   It’s not a business that generates cash flow.  And it’s not a currency.  It’s a book.

I disagree.  These items are worth what the available money is willing pay for them.  The total dollars in the market for Action #1 is $X.  If the market could handle my paltry $100, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 would be $X + $100.

If the market could handle ANY dollar amount from any number of people, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 could easily be ten times $X.  The number of Action #1 wouldn't increase, so the price would.

[eschnit]

On 7/25/2020 at 10:32 AM, valiantman said:

Now you're talking.

 

One-third of U.S. museums are in danger of closing permanently due to covid.  What if all the items in there had shares on a digital exchange?  See a painting you like? Invest!  Buy a litho in the gift shop on your way out.  Museums as investment shopping.  That's a trillion dollars of assets, instead, since $200M is too low. Donors/foundations still retain majority ownership, free up capital, and the items stay right where they are.

But they have no real value.  The volatility could be wild.  An Action 1 today,  if the economy went into a Depression might drop from say $1,000,000 to $500k.  What is the value amongst those that can afford the book.  In your digital partial ownership scenario, $10,000,000 could drop to $250k. Because what do you own?  You own nothing.  It’s why NFTs are for the most part a bridge too far.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:58 AM, valiantman said:

I'm not arguing that cryptocurrency is the better hedge against inflation.  I'm arguing that I should be able to drop $100 into Action Comics #1 as a hedge against inflation also.  You're arguing I shouldn't have that option.

You are arguing fractional ownership of comic books, in form of a $100 share of a $2M Action 1, is good for your personal satisfaction because you will (1) be able to state you own an Action 1 and (2) will be able to partake in the upward appreciation.  I am arguing that such fractional ownership is going to have adverse consequences for the comic collecting market you don't intend, which I think are bad for the comic collecting hobby and community. 

I think this has nothing to do with crypto currency at all because it is an entirely different beast.  You seem to be lumping "investing" in an Action 1 in with a bunch of things that are not remotely similar.  Like investing in stocks, buying crypto currency, investing in and running a comic book dealership, etc.  None of those are similar to fractional ownership of comics.  They involve distinct financial factors.  

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:06 PM, eschnit said:

But they have no real value.  The volatility could be wild.  An Action 1 today,  if the economy went into a Depression might drop from say $1,000,000 to $500k.  What is the value amongst those that can afford the book.  In your digital partial ownership scenario, $10,000,000 could drop to $250k. Because what do you own?  You own nothing.  It’s why NFTs are for the most part a bridge too far.

If a system existed which was a trustworthy as buying stock in companies or buying cryptocurrency on a major exchange (I see those as extreme opposites and fractional ownership of assets in between), then the price in a depression would fall to the level of support.  Currently, that level of support requires some one person with $500,000 in your scenario.  In my scenario, anyone could provide a level of support at any price along the way down, and others could take advantage of the price the moment it reached their "buy" price, not just the buy price of one person with $500,000 to spend.  The market would have to exist to show which of us is right about depression pricing, but the greater the market size and accessibility, the more likely (I believe) the market finds its true center.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

You are arguing fractional ownership of comic books, in form of a $100 share of a $2M Action 1, is good for your personal satisfaction because you will (1) be able to state you own an Action 1 and (2) will be able to partake in the upward appreciation.  I am arguing that such fractional ownership is going to have adverse consequences for the comic collecting market you don't intend, which I think are bad for the comic collecting hobby and community. 

I think this has nothing to do with crypto currency at all because it is an entirely different beast.  You seem to be lumping "investing" in an Action 1 in with a bunch of things that are not remotely similar.  Like investing in stocks, buying crypto currency, investing in and running a comic book dealership, etc.  None of those are similar to fractional ownership of comics.  They involve distinct financial factors.  

No, I'm saying that buying stock in companies is a traditional investment that includes intrinsic values and profit generation by an underlying organization, while cryptocurrency is a 24/7 instant option in investing which relies on very, very shaky foundations of ownership in nothing.  Fractional ownership in actual assets is in between, and because both extremes already exist as digital markets, so should fractional ownership in assets.  If the best and worst cases are allowed, then anything in between should be, too.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:01 AM, valiantman said:

My paltry $100 can buy part of company I believe it.  My paltry $100 can buy part of a cryptocurrency I believe in.  My paltry $100 can't buy a part of Action Comics #1, which I believe in more than companies and cryptocurrencies.

You're saying "that's just the way it is, tough luck" and I'm saying that this generation will stand up and say, "Wrong!  Here's my $100, and I'm riding the book to the sky with you."

If this is just about money, which is what this comment suggests, I'd recommend you buy stock options instead of a share of an asset.

You are acting as if this is a principle.  It's not.  You can't own a lot of things because they are unaffordable to you (and most everyone else).  While it is true one way around that impediment is to form an investment group, you don't seem willing to put in that effort.  So instead, you want to reduce ownership of an Action 1 to the lowest common denominator.  I don't see that as desirable from the perspective of caring about comic collecting as a hobby, as opposed to one individual's personal satisfaction.  If you want to argue that, then let's stop the FOMO comparisons to stock and crypto currency which don't really work and move on to talking about comic collecting.

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:04 PM, valiantman said:

I disagree.  These items are worth what the available money is willing pay for them.  The total dollars in the market for Action #1 is $X.  If the market could handle my paltry $100, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 would be $X + $100.

If the market could handle ANY dollar amount from any number of people, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 could easily be ten times $X.  The number of Action #1 wouldn't increase, so the price would.

I get where you’re coming from.  And I’m not saying this market couldn’t exist, just that I don’t think it should.  Everything is becoming digital.  NFTs was the rage about a year ago, that has slowed considerably.  Similar to crypto or NFTs, it doesn’t necessarily matter how many naysayers there are, just how many embrace it.  But I don’t like the idea of commoditizing rare books to such a degree that they’re bought and sold on an exchange more than tangibly.  

i mean, it loses everything that makes it appealing.  You might as well ignore the existing books altogether, just have an exchange created where  you divvy up 100 digital DC 27s and 100 digital Action 1s, take it from there.  Do it crypto style, where you know there’s a finite number, but leave the actual books alone.

 

...I mean literally leave the actual books alone.  Like the real books have nothing to do with the digital exchanged books.  Totally separate them.  A digital DC 27 can be worth $100,000,000, but the actual book is worth what it’s worth, $1MM or $2MM, whatever.  No fractional ownership of the actual books, just digital pretend ones.

Edited August 25, 2021 by eschnit

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:14 AM, valiantman said:

No, I'm saying that buying stock in companies is a traditional investment that includes intrinsic values and profit generation by an underlying organization, while cryptocurrency is a 24/7 instant option in investing which relies on very, very shaky foundations of ownership in nothing.  Fractional ownership in actual assets is in between, and because both extremes already exist as digital markets, so should fractional ownership in assets.  If the best and worst cases are allowed, then anything in between should be, too.

There is no logic to this comment.  Crypto currency should not be allowed.  So that blows up your argument.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:14 PM, eschnit said:

On 8/25/2021 at 1:04 PM, valiantman said:

I disagree.  These items are worth what the available money is willing pay for them.  The total dollars in the market for Action #1 is $X.  If the market could handle my paltry $100, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 would be $X + $100.

If the market could handle ANY dollar amount from any number of people, the total dollars in the market for Action #1 could easily be ten times $X.  The number of Action #1 wouldn't increase, so the price would.

I get where you’re coming from.  And I’m not saying this market couldn’t exist, just that I don’t think it should.  Everything is becoming digital.  NFTs was the rage about a year ago, that has slowed considerably.  Similar to crypto or NFTs, it doesn’t necessarily matter how many naysayers there are, just how many embrace it.  But I don’t like the idea of commoditizing rare books to such a degree that they’re bought and sold on an exchange more than tangibly.  

i mean, it loses everything that makes it appealing.  You might as well ignore the existing books altogether, just have an exchange created where  you divvy up 100 digital DC 27s and 100 digital Action 1s, take it from there.  Do it crypto style, where you know there’s a finite number, but leave the actual books alone.

Your suggestion for 100 digital DC 27s and 100 digital Action 1s is basically what the sports card industry has done since 2000 (Tom Brady limited rookies), and it has made those recent creations worth $100,000 each.

I'd much rather own 1% of an actual historical artifact from the dawn of the superhero era than 1% of the "best printing" of Tom Brady (or Mike Trout, etc.) rookie cards from this century.

It should at least be an option.

[Bandelier]

Collectable offers fractional ownership with the Sports Immortals collection. There are many companies that have capitalized on this in the sports collectibles world. Dibbs offers a pretty streamlined platform for graded cards.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:16 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/25/2021 at 1:14 PM, valiantman said:

No, I'm saying that buying stock in companies is a traditional investment that includes intrinsic values and profit generation by an underlying organization, while cryptocurrency is a 24/7 instant option in investing which relies on very, very shaky foundations of ownership in nothing.  Fractional ownership in actual assets is in between, and because both extremes already exist as digital markets, so should fractional ownership in assets.  If the best and worst cases are allowed, then anything in between should be, too.

There is no logic to this comment.  Crypto currency should not be allowed.  So that blows up your argument.

Two trillion dollars of actual cryptocurrency markets literally destroys your opinion on the subject.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:14 AM, eschnit said:

But I don’t like the idea of commoditizing rare books to such a degree that they’re bought and sold on an exchange more than tangibly.  i mean, it loses everything that makes it appealing.  You might as well ignore the existing books altogether

That is why his idea is bad for comic collecting.  It eliminates the entire reason for collecting.  He seems to think that comics will retain their value if everything that is cool about collecting a comic is stripped away.  The reality is that the entry of pure investors into golden age collecting has often led to unfounded inflation and subsequent devaluation of the books they bought.  IMHO, fractional ownership would risk that on steroids.

[MrBedrock]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:16 AM, valiantman said:

No, the point is that you had the OPTION to choose Enron or solid companies. 

You only compared Enron to Comics. If you are now expanding the number of choices then you would have also had the option to choose countless other stocks that have out-performed comics by a large percentage.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:19 AM, valiantman said:

Two trillion dollars of actual cryptocurrency markets literally destroys your opinion on the subject.

No. It ensures that the criminal and terrorist damage from crypto currency will continue to happen - as I've already and can continue to document.  Proving my argument.  It's also irrelevant to this debate.  That you want to lump Action 1 in with cryptocurrency makes me think that you don't really care about the impact of your proposal on the comic collecting hobby - which is all that I care about.  

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:14 PM, sfcityduck said:

If this is just about money, which is what this comment suggests, I'd recommend you buy stock options instead of a share of an asset.

You are acting as if this is a principle.  It's not.  You can't own a lot of things because they are unaffordable to you (and most everyone else).  While it is true one way around that impediment is to form an investment group, you don't seem willing to put in that effort.  So instead, you want to reduce ownership of an Action 1 to the lowest common denominator.  I don't see that as desirable from the perspective of caring about comic collecting as a hobby, as opposed to one individual's personal satisfaction.  If you want to argue that, then let's stop the FOMO comparisons to stock and crypto currency which don't really work and move on to talking about comic collecting.

I can create my own company to sell books and household goods online, or I can put in the effort to form an investment group to create such a company, or I can buy stock in Amazon.

There's no sane person who wouldn't just buy the stock.

I want stock in Action #1.  Not the whole thing, not form an investment group to buy an Action #1, just stock.

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:18 PM, valiantman said:

Your suggestion for 100 digital DC 27s and 100 digital Action 1s is basically what the sports card industry has done since 2000 (Tom Brady limited rookies), and it has made those recent creations worth $100,000 each.

I'd much rather own 1% of an actual historical artifact from the dawn of the superhero era than 1% of the "best printing" of Tom Brady (or Mike Trout, etc.) rookie cards from this century.

It should at least be an option.

I respect you man, from back to the Valiant boards and what you continue to bring to this hobby with the CGC census data and all.  My opinion here has a lot to do with personal preference.  I feel like we lose something as a society the more we go down these roads. I wanted a Bloodshot 0 Platinum error or Suspense 3 for many reasons, but part of it is rarity, and chase, and that it’s tangible.  We gain something by being able to own part of a super rare collectible, we otherwise couldn’t afford, but I feel like we lose more.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:24 PM, MrBedrock said:

You only compared Enron to Comics. If you are now expanding the number of choices then you would have also had the option to choose countless other stocks that have out-performed comics by a large percentage.

None of those options would have been as attractive as buying a % of Action #1 at the current market price of the day.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:25 AM, valiantman said:

 

I want stock in Action #1.  Not the whole thing, not form an investment group to buy an Action #1, just stock.

To paraphrase Spock and Kirk, sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the one.