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

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 8:38 AM, valiantman said:

EXACTLY!  If you want to get into a company that you PERSONALLY value at $10B when it is undervalued at $5B, you can buy as many shares as you like... all the way down to a fractional share for $10.  You can sell at $20B and take your $40 out, because the company is overvalued.

Action Comics #1 is an asset that --- at any point in history --- it was theoretically possible to put $10 in, and then at any other point, take that $10 out, or $20, or $200, whatever the value.  Theoretically.  It could have happened, but it didn't.

It didn't happen because the mechanism wasn't there.  The concept was valid, the investment would have shown returns, but the mechanism wasn't there.

Add the mechanism, and it's a new market.  In when the book is undervalued, out when it's overvalued, hold on forever... whatever you want.  The fundamentals are the collector's perspective and the current share price.  Someone dumps their shares?  The price falls.  Someone decides to increase their holdings?  The price rises.

It's a valid concept... it's not traditional, but it's absolutely valid.

I think you are missing an important point:  Stock price can fluctuate based on market information and investor misperception of actual value, but the stock price corrects when more accurate information comes out to its actual fundamental value.  In contrast, an Action 1 has no actual fundamental value independent of buyer perceptions.  So an Action 1 is uniquely vulnerable to years and years of movement based on "coolness" which could collapse if a major aspect of the books disappears (such as being part of a small ownership group).  

Let me be clear:

* I am not denying you can create fractional ownership of anything.  You clearly can.

* I am saying owning one of 100,000 shares in an Action 1 is not "collecting" in any real sense of the word.

* I am saying that such fractional ownership could have an adverse impact on the comic market and erode the "coolness" of owning an Action 1.

* I am saying that such fractional ownership is not analogous to owning stocks because stocks do have a fundamental value independent of investor perceptions and market corrections are frequent.

* I am saying that I find fractional ownership a bad idea for "investors" and "collectors" and the hobby.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 8:40 AM, valiantman said:

You're arguing against traditional stock ownership.  The employees work their butts off.  The CEOs make big salaries. The traders keep the trading fees.  If I am allowed to buy a share in that company, I could make money doing absolutely nothing.

True. But, the guys selling you the stock are making that market, not the investors.  

My own view is that folks who make money by working their butts off should be taxed at an equal or lower rate than folks who make money through passive investing.  Our tax system is the opposite.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:23 AM, sfcityduck said:

Let me ask you this: What value does cryptocurrency have other than its suitability for "dark web" activities and engaging in criminal tax avoidance?  What do you think is driving its "value"? 

There are 21,000,000 bitcoins. Total.  Ever.

It is absolutely a hedge against inflation.  How many dollars exist?  How many exist next week?

How much does it cost to "legitimately" send $100,000 to Japan through a bank with foreign exchange rates?

It's about $50 to legitimately send $100,000 in bitcoin.  It's $5 to legitimately send $100,000 in litecoin.  There are 84,000,000 litecoin.  Total.  Ever.

Litecoin is another hedge against inflation, another way to conduct legitimate global business.

Does the planet send money across foreign exchanges very often?  How many transactions?  What are the fees? 

What if it cost a fraction of the current transaction fees and no loss in currency exchange rates?

What if that was true for a million transactions?  A billion?  A million a day?

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

I think a better approach that gives greater access to the iconic books is page collecting. There’s only one owner, which cuts down on the noise. And the owner gets something to have and to hold. Win win 

action 1

first appearance of Joker in Bat 1

first appearance of Catwoman in Bat 1

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:48 AM, sfcityduck said:

Let me be clear:

* I am not denying you can create fractional ownership of anything.  You clearly can.

* I am saying owning one of 100,000 shares in an Action 1 is not "collecting" in any real sense of the word.

* I am saying that such fractional ownership could have an adverse impact on the comic market and erode the "coolness" of owning an Action 1.

* I am saying that such fractional ownership is not analogous to owning stocks because stocks do have a fundamental value independent of investor perceptions and market corrections are frequent.

* I am saying that I find fractional ownership a bad idea for "investors" and "collectors" and the hobby.

* Thank you.

* No one who owns Action #1 is a 100% "collector" and a 0% "investor", if you give 0% to the "collecting" aspects of shares, you must accede that shares would be 100% for the "investor" aspects.

* This is a multi-hundred million dollar industry, prevention the erosion of "coolness" is not in the Top 10 of important factors.

* Agreed - stocks in companies have fundamental value independent of investor perceptions.  Action Comics #1 is 10 cents, anything more is superficial and could implode at any time.

* Fractional ownership might be a bad idea for "collectors", but it can't also be a bad idea for "investors", because the comic values will move.  The fractions are different, but the percentages of movement are identical.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 8:53 AM, valiantman said:

There are 21,000,000 bitcoins. Total.  Ever.

It is absolutely a hedge against inflation.  How many dollars exist?  How many exist next week?

....

It's about $50 to legitimately send $100,000 in bitcoin.  It's $5 to legitimately send $100,000 in litecoin.  There are 84,000,000 litecoin.  Total.  Ever.

Litecoin is another hedge against inflation, another way to conduct legitimate global business.

 

Do you see the disconnect in your above comments?  Bitcoin and Litecoin (and all the other crypto currencies) are the EXACT SAME THING.  Bitcoin is nothing special, it was just first. All the other cryptos do the exact same thing. It has no inherent value.  It is just a tool.  Thus the various crypto currencies are and increasingly will impact each other's price.  You have just documented litecoin underpricing Bitcoin.  That's called "minting money."  The difference between crypto and real currency, is that real currency is controlled by central banks who have a strong incentive to not "mint money" at an excessive rate to cause unhelpful inflation, whereas all the new crypto companies have a strong incentive to mint/mine as much crypto as they can.  

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:04 AM, GreatCaesarsGhost said:

I think a better approach that gives greater access to the iconic books is page collecting. There’s only one owner, which cuts down on the noise. And the owner gets something to have and to hold. Win win 

action 1

first appearance of Joker in Bat 1

first appearance of Catwoman in Bat 1

Disagree.  Page collecting encourages destruction and scattering of parts of an original rarity. 

You'd be arguing that we might as well take Venus de Milo's head from her torso, since her arms are already missing.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 9:04 AM, valiantman said:

 

* This is a multi-hundred million dollar industry, prevention the erosion of "coolness" is not in the Top 10 of important factors.

* Agreed - stocks in companies have fundamental value independent of investor perceptions.  Action Comics #1 is 10 cents, anything more is superficial and could implode at any time.

 

Your top bullet above is wrong because of what you state in the second bullet.  "Coolness" is everything in the comic market.  There is nothing else driving prices.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:05 AM, sfcityduck said:

Do you see the disconnect in your above comments?  Bitcoin and Litecoin (and all the other crypto currencies) are the EXACT SAME THING.  Bitcoin is nothing special, it was just first. All the other cryptos do the exact same thing. It has no inherent value.  It is just a tool.  Thus the various crypto currencies are and increasingly will impact each other's price.  You have just documented litecoin underpricing Bitcoin.  That's called "minting money."  The difference between crypto and real currency, is that real currency is controlled by central banks who have a strong incentive to not "mint money" at an excessive rate to cause unhelpful inflation, whereas all the new crypto companies have a strong incentive to mint/mine as much crypto as they can.  

New cryptocurrencies are minted all the time... and they are worthless.  It's identical to comic books, in that sense.  You're arguing that reprints of Action Comics #1 may supplant and replace, while devaluing, the originals.

"Minting comics" (reprints of Action Comics #1) might satisfy a collector's interest in holding a copy, but they only increase the value of "the real thing" based on its actual scarcity.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 9:04 AM, valiantman said:

 

* Fractional ownership might be a bad idea for "collectors", but it can't also be a bad idea for "investors", because the comic values will move.  The fractions are different, but the percentages of movement are identical.

My view is that is a bad idea for both because it could adversely impact prices by dilluting the "coolness" of owning an Action 1.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:08 AM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/25/2021 at 11:04 AM, valiantman said:

 

* This is a multi-hundred million dollar industry, prevention the erosion of "coolness" is not in the Top 10 of important factors.

* Agreed - stocks in companies have fundamental value independent of investor perceptions.  Action Comics #1 is 10 cents, anything more is superficial and could implode at any time.

 

Your top bullet above is wrong because of what you state in the second bullet.  "Coolness" is everything in the comic market.  There is nothing else driving prices.

I believe that Action Comics #1 will remain "cooler" (and worth investment) longer than whatever legitimate companies have stock available working their employees to the bone to make the trendy "cool" fashions of the day.

But I'm only allowed to "invest" in the latter "coolness".

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:09 AM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/25/2021 at 11:04 AM, valiantman said:

 

* Fractional ownership might be a bad idea for "collectors", but it can't also be a bad idea for "investors", because the comic values will move.  The fractions are different, but the percentages of movement are identical.

My view is that is a bad idea for both because it could adversely impact prices by dilluting the "coolness" of owning an Action 1.

But I say that the market for Action Comics #1 is a few dozen people and the market for shares in Action Comics #1 is a few million people.  What we dollars lose in $X coolness, we could get back in $X^2 demand.

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 9:08 AM, valiantman said:

New cryptocurrencies are minted all the time... and they are worthless.  It's identical to comic books, in that sense.  You're arguing that reprints of Action Comics #1 may supplant and replace, while devaluing, the originals.

"Minting comics" (reprints of Action Comics #1) might satisfy a collector's interest in holding a copy, but they only increase the value of "the real thing" based on its actual scarcity.

New cryptocurrencies are like a new vacuum.  It's a tool.  Some of the new tools (a Dyson) might actually work better than the old Hoover. You are acting as if crypto currency is a collectible.  Crypto is not a "collectible."  That is not its value.  It's value is the ability to move money in a "dark" way.  Bitcoin is the present choice for high value money movement because its price is already inflated.  It's not good for small value movement.  In time that will change as other currencies compete with Bitcoin on that basis and Bitcoin price will be impacted. It is as vulnerable to inflation (e.g. minting of money) as any currency - more vulnerable actually, because Bitcoin's value comes from its format not the country whose assets and stability support it.  The U.S. dollar is only impacted by the minting of U.S. dollars.  Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies can be impacted by every other crypto currency.

Edited August 25, 2021 by sfcityduck

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

New cryptocurrencies are like a new vacuum.  It's a tool.  Some of the new tools (a Dyson) might actually work better than the old Hoover. You are acting as if crypto currency is a collectible.  Crypto is not a "collectible."  That is not its value.  It's value is the ability to move money in a "dark" way.  Bitcoin is the present choice for high value money movement because its price is already inflated.  It's not good for small value movement.  In time that will change as other currencies compete with Bitcoin on that basis and Bitcoin price will be impacted. It is as vulnerable to inflation (e.g. minting of money) as any currency - more vulnerable actually, because Bitcoin's value comes from its format not the country whose assets and stability support it.  The U.S. dollar is only impacted by the minting of U.S. dollars.  Bitcoin and other crypto-currencies can be impacted by every other crypto currency.

There are two trillion dollars in cryptocurrencies.  The major cryptocurrency exchanges all report to the IRS, but you're hanging onto that "dark" money argument like it's 2014.  Not sure what I can do but offer you a flower and a smile. 

[valiantman]

The value of Action Comics #1 above 10 cents is completely based on "coolness" or whatever unsupportable framing you want to put it on.  Dogecoin was created to be a joke.  A worthless joke.  Not even the 10 cents that Action Comics #1 says on the cover.  Dogecoin was created to be worthless. 80+ after it was printed, all the Action Comics #1 surviving in the world could be purchased with just 1% of Dogecoin's $38 billion value.  Which one is winning the "coolness" game?

Could it all go to zero?  Absolutely.

But I can't put $100 into Action Comics #1 right now.  I can buy $100 in Dogecoin in 3 seconds.

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:40 AM, valiantman said:

There are two trillion dollars in cryptocurrencies.  The major cryptocurrency exchanges all report to the IRS, but you're hanging onto that "dark" money argument like it's 2014.  Not sure what I can do but offer you a flower and a smile. 

We just have to agree to disagree.  Right now, the only defense of crypto you've offered is that it is a "hedge against inflation."  So are comics.  But crypto currency is not a collectible.  It is something far more helpful to criminals and terrorists.  It really should not exist as the public policy ramifications are all bad. And, no, not all crypto currency transfers are reported to the IRS, so it is also an avenue for criminal tax evasion.

[eschnit]

On 7/25/2020 at 9:27 AM, Hollywood1892 said:

First two sentences were pretty astute third sentence made me laugh my head off

I guess we all just assume it's there, does Marvel have an IPO? Just saying that Marvel could do something like this or DC or even CGC, but then again alot of creators own shares in their company AKA Steve Jobs R.I.P 

The market cap of Marvel in 1999 was about $500 million.  They sold out to Disney in 2012 or so for $40 billion.  

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 10:44 AM, valiantman said:

I can buy $100 in Dogecoin in 3 seconds.

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.  

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

We just have to agree to disagree.  Right now, the only defense of crypto you've offered is that it is a "hedge against inflation."  So are comics.  

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.

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 12:44 PM, valiantman said:

The value of Action Comics #1 above 10 cents is completely based on "coolness" or whatever unsupportable framing you want to put it on.  Dogecoin was created to be a joke.  A worthless joke.  Not even the 10 cents that Action Comics #1 says on the cover.  Dogecoin was created to be worthless. 80+ after it was printed, all the Action Comics #1 surviving in the world could be purchased with just 1% of Dogecoin's $38 billion value.  Which one is winning the "coolness" game?

Could it all go to zero?  Absolutely.

But I can't put $100 into Action Comics #1 right now.  I can buy $100 in Dogecoin in 3 seconds.

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.