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

[comicparadox]

I have some thing of a fractional ownership in a copy of Batman 1. A long-time comics savant and good friend  had a complete nice pages Batman 1 interior.

I had a fairly nice front cover (even though it was off register), the colors are very nice.

I told him many years ago that I didn’t care who had possession of it as long as it was one of the two of us. He subsequently has placed it in a CGC slab as a non-graded book because it has no back cover.

 

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/25/2021 at 1:44 PM, valiantman said:

Less than if I could hold it, more than if I didn't own any part of it.  

But what aspect of the fractional ownership gives you satisfaction?  All I can think of is boasting rights. After all, you can't hold it, read it, etc.  Sort of like a tree falling in the woods, would you have the same satisfaction if no one knew you had it.  After all, you could buy a fractional ownership in Time-Warner and DC and own a tiny fraction of every comic DC and Marvel ever published.  But, that doesn't seem good enough for you.  So what's the difference?  The money?  The boasting?  What?

I think it's the same as staying one night in a fancy hotel.  It costs me money, I get satisfaction from the novelty of the idea, there's a view that's "mine" without really being "mine", and I don't get to keep anything the next day.

The difference, of course, is that I can get my money back, if I'd like, on the fraction of the book.

[Aman619]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:51 PM, eschnit said:

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

I remember the number as 5B which was still considered risky..

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:53 PM, Aman619 said:

I remember the number as 5B which was still considered risky..

Nope, it was $500 million.

[valiantman]

I really don't see the argument against a collection that contains:

Issues #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title

-OR-

Issues #2, #,3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title, plus 1% digital ownership of a real #1

How is anyone arguing against the second collection?

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[Spyder!]

Lots of interesting discussion going on here.

I expect fractional ownership of rare collectibles to continue to grow.  There is a fixed supply and ever-increasing demand, and for many people, a fraction is all they can ever hope to own.  This will become more and more true over time as new consumers enter the market, but the supply of GA comics remains fixed.

Although I expect this market to grow, I have no intention of participating in it.  While it may have appeal for some, it would do nothing for me as a collector.  I want to have the book in hand.  Anything other than that is not collecting IMO.

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:55 PM, Spyder! said:

Although I expect this market to grow, I have no intention of participating in it.  While it may have appeal for some, it would do nothing for me as a collector.  I want to have the book in hand.  Anything other than that is not collecting IMO.

Fair enough, but collecting has limits and investing doesn't.  Given the choice of these two collections, even though you can only hold the same number of books, you really wouldn't want the second one?

Issues #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title

-OR-

Issues #2, #,3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title, plus 1% digital ownership of a real #1

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

On 8/25/2021 at 1:49 PM, sfcityduck said:

But what aspect of the fractional ownership gives you satisfaction?

[sfcityduck]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:54 AM, valiantman said:

I really don't see the argument against a collection that contains:

Issues #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title

-OR-

Issues #2, #,3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title, plus 1% digital ownership of a real #1

How is anyone arguing against the second collection?

I am not arguing against the collection, I am arguing against the impact fractional ownership will have on the comic collecting hobby, including:

* It elevates speculation over collecting

* Dilutes the specialness of owning rare items

* Risks artificially inflating the fractionally owned shares vis a vis the actual market value of an Action 1, with losses to the suckers fractional share owners

* Risks dampening the value of Action 1 by stripping ownership of some of its special attributes that support the price (which will increase risk of prior bullet)

I could go on and on.

[onlyweaknesskryptonite]

Or.... 

[eschnit]

Someone paid $69 million for this.  And someone else bid like $68 million, but didn’t quite get it.  This doesn’t even actually exist.  It’s just digital code.  But the owner is selling it off in pieces.  Not a joke.  So who knows? What would we do, register our books on an exchange with title and insurance, then sell off pieces?

[Aman619]

On 8/25/2021 at 2:54 PM, eschnit said:

Nope, it was $500 million.

No.  I meant Disney paid 5B to buy marvel. In Disney stock to Ike P mostly 

[Mmehdy]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:54 AM, eschnit said:

Nope, it was $500 million.

Disney bought marvel for over 4 billion in 2009....just goggle it

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 2:06 PM, Aman619 said:

No.  I meant Disney paid 5B to buy marvel. In Disney stock to Ike P mostly 

May have been after Disney bought LucasFilms, it was an 80x return.  You may be right.  Disney bought Marvel a few years before LucasFilm.  I know $1 in Marvel in 2000 was $80 in Disney 12 years later.  But I think you may be right on how it got there.

[Aman619]

Why is satisfaction even in this discussion?  This is about the viability to invest in comics to make money.  Period. Wake up, comics collecting has outgrown the geeky satisfaction for the big grail books.  Trust me, the joys of buying the grails lost its pure joy aspect once they were worth 100K each.  They are just investments now.  All the moderns and silver age Marvels will retain the satisfaction of collecting full ownership. So comics collecting for 99% of all the comics ever created will not be affected.

but as I wrote yesterday, if someone believes that Action 1 will be worth twice what it is today in less than 7 years (Wall Street average) he should be able to buy shares and profit in the appreciation of one jointly owned copy…. Just on a larger scale than say 3 collectors pooling their funds to buy on e on Heritage. And provided the vehicle for doing so is a solid company not built to fleece and run.

Edited August 25, 2021 by Aman619

[Aman619]

On 8/25/2021 at 3:12 PM, eschnit said:

May have been after Disney bought LucasFilms, it was an 80x return.  You may be right.  Disney bought Marvel a few years before LucasFilm.  I know $1 in Marvel in 2000 was $80 in Disney 12 years later.  But I think you may be right on how it got there.

Memory is hard with big numbers!

[eschnit]

On 8/25/2021 at 2:13 PM, Aman619 said:

Why is satisfaction even in this discussion?  This is about the viability to invest in omits to make money.  Period. Wake up, comics collecting has outgrown the geeky satisfaction for the big grail books.  Trust me, the joys of buying the grails lost its pure joy aspect once they were worth 100K each.  They are just investments now.  All the moderns and silver age Marvels will retain the satisfaction of collecting full ownership. So comics collecting for 99% of all the comics ever created will not be affected.

but as I wrote yesterday, if someone believes that Action 1 will be worth twice what it is today in less than 7 years (Wall Street average) he should be able to buy shares and profit in the appreciation of one jointly owned copy…. Just on a larger scale than say 3 collectors pooling their funds to buy on e on Heritage. And provided the vehicle for doing so is a solid company not built to fleece and run.

Perhaps, the irony for me is I’m in investments, that’s been my career.  Comics is anything but that to me.  But the only books I’m interested in for the most part, are the ones that you would deem as collectible investments.  If it’s not a grail, or perhaps something I appreciate for the art, or something special unique and rare, then what’s the point.  I don’t need to own something that’s easy to get.

[vheflin]

On 8/25/2021 at 3:01 PM, onlyweaknesskryptonite said:

it doesn't even come with a label? I want my money back!

[jimjum12]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:22 AM, N e r V said:

From what I understood Warner never owned it either. George Barris the creator bought the original Ford Futura himself, did the custom work afterwards and had owned it up until it was sold in 2013 two years prior to his death. Probably had some arrangements for loan purposes only to the studio while the show was on.

Theres been a number of replicas done by others since but only one original and the 3 “authorized “ replicas by him that were used by the studio for promo purposes with one of the replicas actually getting some tv time on the show. I’m pretty sure today all 4 are still in private hands.

For those who find the Batmobile to be "the cat's pajamas", Eaglemoss Figurines produced a series of Lead diecast miniatures, 1:42 or something ? Must have for a "real" fan. GOD BLESS ....

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) 

EAGLEMOSS BATMOBILE (TV SHOW VERSION)

[valiantman]

On 8/25/2021 at 2:02 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/25/2021 at 1:54 PM, valiantman said:

I really don't see the argument against a collection that contains:

Issues #2, #3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title

-OR-

Issues #2, #,3, #4, #5, and #6 of a title, plus 1% digital ownership of a real #1

How is anyone arguing against the second collection?

I am not arguing against the collection, I am arguing against the impact fractional ownership will have on the comic collecting hobby, including:

* It elevates speculation over collecting

* Dilutes the specialness of owning rare items

* Risks artificially inflating the fractionally owned shares vis a vis the actual market value of an Action 1, with losses to the suckers fractional share owners

* Risks dampening the value of Action 1 by stripping ownership of some of its special attributes that support the price (which will increase risk of prior bullet)

I could go on and on.

Quote

"* It elevates speculation over collecting" 

--- Someone already did that when they charged over 10 cents for Action #1.

Obviously, there would be copies of Action #1 "locked up" in vaults and only traded digitally and there would be copies of Action #1 "locked up' in vaults and owned by one person.

Dividing the existing copies of Action #1 into two camps will either make no difference, or it will significantly impact the "exclusivity" of owning a whole copy.

Quote

"*Dilutes the specialness of owning rare items

Locking books into a digital fractional exchange can't "* dilute the specialness of owning rare items", since even fewer people will be able do so outright.

Quote

"* Risks artificially inflating the fractionally owned shares vis a vis the actual market value of an Action 1, with losses to the suckers fractional share owners"

---- uh, you think that an open market accessible to everyone would be a bigger danger than letting a few rich guys sell exclusively to each other for higher and higher prices?  Artificial inflation is easy if it's two or three guys in control.

Quote

"* Risks dampening the value of Action 1 by stripping ownership of some of its special attributes that support the price (which will increase risk of prior bullet)"

--- again, the value would likely increase, if the supply of money in the market increased, because the supply won't change. 

--- "Specialness" increases if fewer books are possible to be owned outright.

All your arguments have valid rebuttals.  People can choose which they agree with, but the system should exist before it's dismissed.  If I'm right, all the points above IMPROVE the things you're afraid of losing.

Edited August 25, 2021 by valiantman