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

[Aman619]

 You do, but that’s semantics.  You know I don’t look at it as owning the book anyway, just a share of the value increase.  You can say I own a piece of the profits of a particular copy that is an avatar for all copies of that issue.   Meaning if a different copy sells for 12K, Rally could also… provided the usual. Disclaimers are equal, page quality, upgrade potential causing a higher sale price etc. 

[Aman619]

Gee, I wish Valiantman would come back!  I’m kinda holding the bag here and I’m not a likely user of this thing anyway!

[Gatsby77]

On 8/26/2021 at 2:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

Here's a real world example:

Rally is offering a Star Wars 1 (35 cent) in CGC 9.0 (white).  That book last sold in 2020 for $9,750 (and that same year for $9,600) and that might be the issue Rally bought.  They claim that the "market cap" for the book is $12,000 (which just means they are selling 12,000 shares for $1 each).  For an investor to make a profit on the book it will need to sell for more than $12K. Seems like a real good deal for Rally.  P.S. The legal disclosures say that investors are not really investing in a piece of the book: "The Interests represent an investment in a particular Series and thus indirectly the Underlying Asset." It appears they are selling some sort of derivative.  So you don't even get the satisfaction of being able to say you own an interest in the comic book.

Sheesh - the first two 20+ page Rally Rd. threads get locked so now we've got a third one?

And good call, sfcityduck, on the above example.

I actually used precisely that $.35 Star Wars # 1 example months ago in one of the other threads - in part because, at the time, the last comp. sale was on C-link, and not reflected on GPA. In fact, I'm not certain Rally Rd. itself wasn't the C-link buyer, setting it up for fractional resale (I could check the securities paperwork to verify that either way but I'm too lazy.

 

[eschnit]

On 8/26/2021 at 1:20 PM, Aman619 said:

As currently run, the objects are bought, shares issued, with a hold out period. You can’t sell until say 90 days etc. The object is sold and share values are paid out of the proceeds of the sale.  So for now, the entity maintains a lot more control in order to try to guarantee a profit for themselves.  They also value the shares at a price higher than price they paid.  Therefore if they paid 80k and sell 100 shares at 1000 each, that’s 20k profit for fees/expenses, and an investor needs it to sell for 101K to see any profit on their investment.  This too is a limitation as an investment vehicle because it’s not a wide enough open market like Wall Street where you can buy at 9:30am. and sell ten minutes later.  Basically you have to decide if the object will increase more than 20% not just if it will increase at all..  but this just means it’s an investment like real estate more than an equity. If you flip a house you pay broker fees so a sale at price you bought is a loss.so you hold on til you’re in the black.  Again, there’s the concept, and there’s the available vehicles… if RallyRd et al get too greedy they kill the concept. 

Creative capitalists make stuff up if they think it will work.  And right now, there’s so much liquidity, if people feel like they can make money on it, they’ll try to push it.  In my opinion video games should not be a collectible in the way that it has become.  

The power of the sellers pushing it down people’s throats worked.   They knew they could make a fortune from them if they could get it to work, because any new market that builds a base over a few years is a huge boon for the early adopters.  There’s a want to do it with pulps, but it’s not as easy to do for a lot of reasons.  Pulps would be more of a legit thing thing to slab than a video game, but it’s less profitable, so it may not happen, or at least is slower coming.  And this partial onwreship thing, if certain power brokers were made to see a way that they could make a fortune on it, they’d cram that down our throats too.  I hope it never happens.  For me, it would potentially ruin the hobby.  I have no interest in watching the value of a comic go up 500% artificially because someone can buy 1% of it, when they really don’t own it at all.

...sneakers/tennis shoes/basketball shoes is fine.  That’s legit in my opinion.  And obviously it has worked out well.

Edited August 26, 2021 by eschnit

[Cat-Man_America]

On 8/25/2021 at 11:09 PM, Aman619 said:

Sigh. I was just too lazy to go back edit my first post so I typed a new one. Then had another thought after that. I DID edit the third one cause maybe I knew someone would be counting! 

Not a problem, and I was responding in real time as you posted.  I went ahead and posted my reaction after your third installment thinking if there was a fourth I'd probably recommend an intervention.  (teasing)

I haven't posted today because there've been distractions that superseded discussing shared ownership of comics.  (Sorry, it's been a rather tough day) 

 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Cat-Man_America

[vaillant]

On 8/26/2021 at 3:24 AM, valiantman said:

Are you saying you wouldn't buy stocks either?  Because ownership in stocks is "digital ownership".  There are no more paper certificates.

I am 51 and I have always let my bank consultant advise me, in the modest investments I made. So I understand the question if we are looking at comics chiefly as "means of investment".
But comics, books, objects, even rare objects are not "stock holdings", meaning you own something related to a commercial activity. You decide how much you want comics to be something to "invest on" as opposed as something of value you just enjoy having and buying/selling. For me, the thing is I can’t get much involved, even in monetary terms, in something I do not enjoy. And given the prices reached by "key comics", especially GA, in USA, I would be discouraged to buy them. So, if "investment" has been the cause, I don’t know… is it good in the long term for the content? For what comics represent, artistically and in terms of meaning?

[valiantman]

My posts may appear to be cheerleading for RallyRd or trying to convince some of you that you SHOULD be into fractional investing, but neither is the case.

As @Aman619 stated, the fractional ownership CONCEPT is what I am promoting, whether that's RallyRd or some other company after RallyRd rips off all its investors (as some have suggested).

The CONCEPT will remain.  My posts are in opposition to those who have posted that NO ONE should be able to do fractional ownership... ever.   Yes, some have said so.

If you, personally, don't like it.  No problem.  I don't like purple onions, but I'm not about to suggest they shouldn't exist. 

Aman even agrees that although he has no desire to take part in it, the concept of fractional ownership in unobtainable assets should exist, and those who want to do it should have the option.

Sadly, he's also correct when he says this is yet another example of "what I collect is great, what you collect is dumb".

No, it's not "collecting" in the traditional sense, because I can't hold the comic, I don't have complete ownership, I don't say when the comic sells, etc.

But...

A traditional comic collector like me could have 20,000 comics books, 1,000 slabs, a NEARLY complete collection of a favorite title, and a reprint of the missing issues.

Those who say that I somehow forfeit my status as a collector if I also purchase 1% in fractional ownership for the key issues missing from my collection, because I could never afford them outright, either aren't thinking or their thinker is broken.

As for why anyone would ever want to even consider fractional ownership as a "collecting" option, the choices are literally:
Collection A) A collection with all but a few missing issues

Collection B) The exact same collection as Collection A plus fractional ownership in those missing issues

Because C) Complete collection with all of the issues, including those that cost six figures --- is not possible.

When Collection C) isn't possible, every collector should at least have the choice for Collection A) or Collection B).

Those who say otherwise are correctly saying they don't want Collection B, but then incorrectly saying NO ONE should have the option.  Many collectors will love having the option someday.

Those who say that investing isn't "pure collecting" are also correct, and I'll personally, happily, buy all their Golden Age comics for ten cents. 

Anything more than ten cents is also investing, if we're talking collector purity and removing all possible investor labels.

If you want 100,000% of cover price for your comics (that is, you want $100 for a ten cent comic), but I just want to buy 1% of a key issue at current market value and fees... you could be more of an investor than I am. 

Edited August 30, 2021 by valiantman

[eschnit]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:26 AM, valiantman said:

My posts may appear to be cheerleading for RallyRd or trying to convince some of you that you SHOULD be into fractional investing, but neither is the case.

As @Aman619 stated, the fractional ownership CONCEPT is what I am promoting, whether that's RallyRd or some other company after RallyRd rips off all its investors (as some have suggested).

The CONCEPT will remain.  My posts are in opposition to those who have posted that NO ONE should be able to do fractional ownership... ever.   Yes, some have said so.

If you, personally, don't like it.  No problem.  I don't like purple onions, but I'm not about to suggest they shouldn't exist. 

Aman even agrees that although he has no desire to take part in it, the concept of fractional ownership in unobtainable assets should exist, and those who want to do it should have the option.

Sadly, he's also correct when he says this is yet another example of "what I collect is great, what you collect is dumb".

No, it's not "collecting" in the traditional sense, because I can't hold the comic, I don't have complete ownership, I don't say when the comic sells, etc.

But...

A traditional comic collector like me could have 20,000 comics books, 1,000 slabs, a NEARLY complete collection of a favorite title, and a reprint of the missing issues.

Those who say that I somehow forfeit my status as a collector if I also purchase 1% in fractional ownership for the key issues missing from my collection, because I could never afford them outright, either aren't thinking or their thinker is broken.

As for why anyone would ever want to even consider fractional ownership as a "collecting" option, the choices are literally:
A) A collection with all but a few missing issues

B) The exact same collection plus fractional ownership in those missing issues

Because C) A collection with all of the issues, including those that cost six figures --- is not possible.

When Collection C) isn't possible, every collector should at least have the choice for Collection A) or Collection B).

Those who say otherwise are correctly saying they don't want Collection B, but then incorrectly saying NO ONE should have the option.  Many collectors will love having the option someday.

Those who say that investing isn't "pure collecting" are also correct, and I'll personally, happily, buy all their Golden Age comics for ten cents. 

Anything more than ten cents is also investing, if we're talking collector purity and removing all possible investor labels.

Purple onions are objectively fantastic!!!  We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 
 

Honestly, the primary part of this that I don’t like is summed up in the title of the thread.  It’s not that what I like is good and what you like is “dumb”.  I’m socially liberal in every way.  You do you.  If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad.  For me, it’s simply a case of not wanting the aspects of the hobby I enjoy most disappearing for the sake of your idea.  Like, it’s basically this simple.  I don’t want Golden Age comic books to become commoditized.  For me, it’s no more complicated than that.

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:48 AM, eschnit said:

Purple onions are objectively fantastic!!!  We’ll just have to agree to disagree. 
 

Honestly, the primary part of this that I don’t like is summed up in the title of the thread.  It’s not that what I like is good and what you like is “dumb”.  I’m socially liberal in every way.  You do you.  If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad.  For me, it’s simply a case of not wanting the aspects of the hobby I enjoy most disappearing for the sake of your idea.  Like, it’s basically this simple.  I don’t want Golden Age comic books to become commoditized.  For me, it’s no more complicated than that.

Agreed on the purple onions. 

I understand your stated objection to "commoditized" Golden Age comic books, but it has already happened.  The moment we paid more than ten cents for them, they became a commodity with a price separated from their intended cover price.  Collectors created these commodities, decades before they considered themselves investors.  Some collectors still don't consider themselves investors, but they won't sell their Golden Age books for ten cents.  Why not?  They recognize the commoditized aspects of their assets and still boldly label themselves "collectors, not investors".  Fine, then any Golden Age books which "collectors, not investors" have two or more, I'll buy the extras for ten cents.  A collector only needs one copy, and a collector won't treat a ten cent book as something profitable.

Collectors are all hypocrites, and we know it.  We just don't admit it. "Collector, not investor" is the same as "inhaling, no exhaling". 

Edited August 30, 2021 by valiantman

[eschnit]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:20 AM, valiantman said:

Agreed on the purple onions. 

I understand your stated objection to "commoditized" Golden Age comic books, but it has already happened.  The moment we paid more than ten cents for them, they became a commodity with a price separated from their intended market price.  Collectors created these commodities, decades before they considered themselves investors.  Some collectors still don't consider themselves investors, but they won't sell their Golden Age books for ten cents.  Why not?  They recognize the commoditized aspects of their assets and still boldly label themselves "collectors, not investors".  Fine, then any Golden Age books which "collectors, not investors" have two or more, I'll buy the extras for ten cents.  A collector only needs one copy, and a collector won't treat a ten cent book as something profitable.

Collectors are all hypocrites, and we know it.  We just don't admit it. "Collector, not investor" is the same as "inhaling, no exhaling". 

In the end, could go back and forth on this in perpetuity.  I don’t own two copies of any Golden Age book fwiw, and if I did, they’re relatively rare enough in most cases to where I consider each one unique.  ie not a commodity.  My sentiment is I’d want the books values to continue to be determined by how much someone is willing to pay for the whole book, not part of it.   We just weigh different aspects of what we value in the hobby a little differently. 
 

Golden Age forum, and I don’t collect Valiant at this point, but it’s the better example for me than Action 1, for the purity of the argument’s sake.  Though maybe an Amazing Man 22 or Suspense 3 would be better referenced here.  
 

I couldn’t find a Bloodshot Platinum Zero error available, at any point.  I owned everything else I wanted to, aside from some original art Valiant related at one point.  Similar to your take on Action 1.  The value of the Bloodshot may have been $5k at the time, give or take.  And maybe it wouldn’t escalate much if it were made available in partial equity, I don’t know.  But it would defeat the entire purpose.  I want to own the book, to hunt for it, to consummate the deal, to possess it.  I want it in hand, and to appreciate it.  But if someone gave me 1% of the book or 99% of the book, but I couldn’t actually possess it, then I don’t really own anything except whatever I could sell it for.  It means nothing except that.  I can’t think of any argument that contradicts that truth.  So if the only reason to own a partial book is betting on the horse, fine, there could be a market for that.  Just be preferable to me to not have it muck up the actual collecting part of the hobby.

To some degree, with any book not Golden Age, I can see it more.  If there were a market on Dr. Doom, Punisher, Gwen Stacy,  Daredevil, and Ghost Rider, we’d have Dr. Doom, Ghost Rider, and Gwen Stacy scorching hot, Punisher and Daredevil plummeting. It may be nice to have a market for that, or even a digital market for books associated, FF5, MS 5, Edge 2, DD1, ASM 129.  Bet on whether they’ll go up or down, market changes daily.  Without the hassle of having to actually buy and sell multiple copies of each book.  In so many ways that’s different than Golden Age.  And if the argument is that somehow that’s contradictory, one could bet Matt Baker or Pre-Code Horror, or Sci-Fi would go up or down just the same, what makes it different to me, is scarcity.  The assignment of a digital value to an actual physical book.  You could separate the two much more easily with books post Golden Age. 

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 10:56 AM, eschnit said:

I want to own the book, to hunt for it, to consummate the deal, to possess it.  I want it in hand, and to appreciate it.  But if someone gave me 1% of the book or 99% of the book, but I couldn’t actually possess it, then I don’t really own anything except whatever I could sell it for.  It means nothing except that.  I can’t think of any argument that contradicts that truth.  

I'll just address this statement (bolded).

Simple argument - you are a collector who has:

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

 

You are saying you can't think of any argument that would make B) more attractive than A), and I'm saying that MOST collectors would see some tiny increase in satisfaction having B) instead of A).

After all, B) is exactly the same as A), with something extra.  Neither gets to hold the expensive issue, but one gets a fraction of satisfaction.

Let's call it "satisfraction", and it's greater than zero.

[sfcityduck]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:41 AM, valiantman said:

I'm saying that MOST collectors would see some tiny increase in satisfaction having B) instead of A).

After all, B) is exactly the same as A), with something extra.  Neither gets to hold the expensive issue, but one gets a fraction of satisfaction.

Let's call it "satisfraction", and it's greater than zero.

For me, I disagree.  I don't believe that fractional ownership will give me more satisfaction as a collector because I don't view it as collecting.  I view it as a form of investing, and that form of investing will, I think, hurt collecting.  So the mere thought of it causes me dissatisfaction.  I have not polled collectors, but I would be surprised if most viewed Rally Road style fractional ownership as collecting.

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 12:26 PM, sfcityduck said:

For me, I disagree.  I don't believe that fractional ownership will give me more satisfaction as a collector because I don't view it as collecting.  I view it as a form of investing, and that form of investing will, I think, hurt collecting.  So the mere thought of it causes me dissatisfaction.  I have not polled collectors, but I would be surprised if most viewed Rally Road style fractional ownership as collecting.

The collecting occurs for every other book.

Simple argument - you are a collector who has either:

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

You don't cease to be a collector if you choose B), because you still have everything (and all of the satisfaction) in collection A).

Edited August 30, 2021 by valiantman

[sfcityduck]

On 8/30/2021 at 11:37 AM, valiantman said:

.

You don't cease to be a collector if you choose B), because you still have everything (and all of the satisfaction) in collection A).

I am not disagreeing that with or without a fractional share in some comic you might still be a collector.  I am disagreeing that the fractional ownership somehow enhances my satisfaction as a collector.  For me, the answer is it does not. 

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:53 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/30/2021 at 1:37 PM, valiantman said:

.

You don't cease to be a collector if you choose B), because you still have everything (and all of the satisfaction) in collection A).

I am not disagreeing that with or without a fractional share in some comic you might still be a collector.  I am disagreeing that the fractional ownership somehow enhances my satisfaction as a collector.  For me, the answer is it does not. 

I understand your point of view on that.  I still feel that most collectors who do not have to give up any part of their existing collection to add fractional ownership in a book they could never afford would still feel the same as every other collector, but potentially add a satisfraction bonus feeling for dipping a toe into the ownership of the big one(s), versus when they had to completely "do without".

[MrBedrock]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:37 PM, valiantman said:

The collecting occurs for every other book.

Simple argument - you are a collector who has either:

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

You don't cease to be a collector if you choose B), because you still have everything (and all of the satisfaction) in collection A).

I understand that you are simply trying to illuminate the positives of fractional buying. And if folks wish to spend their money that way, more power to them. But each time you restart the conversation you base your argument on the fallacy that fractional buying should somehow appeal to collectors. It may very well appeal to some fans of comics in general, and I could certainly see the possible appeal to some arm-chair speculative investors in our hobby. But the examples you state above, where a hands-on, experienced, and knowledgeable collector will see this as an opportunity to complete the high-dollar books in their runs, simply doesn't hold any weight or appeal to me. I doubt that many collectors, if any other than yourself, will think "Cool, I now have that fraction of a Spider-Man 1 to complete my run!" And imagine if someone came on here talking up and posting images of their complete run of Detective Comics, only to qualify that to say that they actually only have fractions of 27, 31, 33, 38 etc., etc.

I have Captain America 2 -10, but had to sell my #1 a few years back. It was an 8.0 and those have gone up quite a bit. I will probably never be willing to part with the loot it would take to purchase one. I would also never, ever, ever consider buying a fraction of one. It has absolutely zero appeal to the collector in me, and the investor in me would much rather invest elsewhere. And I absolutely would not consider my run somehow complete because I have a fraction.

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 4:02 PM, MrBedrock said:

On 8/30/2021 at 1:37 PM, valiantman said:

The collecting occurs for every other book.

Simple argument - you are a collector who has either:

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

You don't cease to be a collector if you choose B), because you still have everything (and all of the satisfaction) in collection A).

I understand that you are simply trying to illuminate the positives of fractional buying. And if folks wish to spend their money that way, more power to them. But each time you restart the conversation you base your argument on the fallacy that fractional buying should somehow appeal to collectors. It may very well appeal to some fans of comics in general, and I could certainly see the possible appeal to some arm-chair speculative investors in our hobby. But the examples you state above, where a hands-on, experienced, and knowledgeable collector will see this as an opportunity to complete the high-dollar books in their runs, simply doesn't hold any weight or appeal to me. I doubt that many collectors, if any other than yourself, will think "Cool, I now have that fraction of a Spider-Man 1 to complete my run!" And imagine if someone came on here talking up and posting images of their complete run of Detective Comics, only to qualify that to say that they actually only have fractions of 27, 31, 33, 38 etc., etc.

I have Captain America 2 -10, but had to sell my #1 a few years back. It was an 8.0 and those have gone up quite a bit. I will probably never be willing to part with the loot it would take to purchase one. I would also never, ever, ever consider buying a fraction of one. It has absolutely zero appeal to the collector in me, and the investor in me would much rather invest elsewhere. And I absolutely would not consider my run somehow complete because I have a fraction.

At no point in all my posts did I say that obtaining a fraction of a comic makes a collection "complete".

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

-OR-

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

Neither collection is complete, but Collection B is equal to Collection A and also has something extra, which can be more satisfying than Collection A.

Edited August 30, 2021 by valiantman

[MrBedrock]

On 8/30/2021 at 4:05 PM, valiantman said:

At no point in all my posts did I say that obtaining a fraction of a comic makes a collection "complete".

A) all issues of your favorite title, except the expensive issue

-OR-

B) all issues of your favorite title, and a digital fractional ownership in the expensive issue

Neither collection is complete, but Collection B is equal to Collection A and also has something extra, which can be more satisfying than Collection A.

How is that a selling point? How does that appeal to collectors?

Try this ...

A)Spending money on a small percentage of ownership of an item that you can never touch,

-OR-

B)Spending the same amount of money on another item that you own 100% and actually possess.

No collection is ever complete, but B is infinitely more desirable A.

Edited August 30, 2021 by MrBedrock

[Mmehdy]

With the under market on AF #15 8.0 exploding up like 300K in price, when and if the AF 15 cracks the 3.0 or 4.0 million, look for fractional ownership to become a reality on Mega Key, high grade books, its comiing like it or not.

Edited August 30, 2021 by Mmehdy

[valiantman]

On 8/30/2021 at 4:08 PM, MrBedrock said:

How is that a selling point? How does that appeal to collectors?

Try this ...

A)Spending money on a small percentage of ownership of an item that you can never touch,

-OR-

B)Spending the same amount of money on another item that you own 100% and actually possess.

With B), you've described every transaction that anyone has ever made in the history of the world.  

B) does nothing for a collector who would like to enhance their collection but can't afford 100% of the item they need.

 

A) provides an alternative to a world where only B) can occur.