What percentage of your total net worth are you comfortable with OA being? 2 2

[newshane]

On 1/17/2024 at 3:13 PM, batman_fan said:

Just curious, why do I have to part with 5% of my net worth?  Are you suggesting that portion of my net worth could go to zero?  Isn’t that a potential risk regardless of where you have your money?  Liquidity is an issue with lots of investments.

Yes, you should always be prepared to lose 100% of any investment. 

5% isn't a lot. At least you're purchasing some sort of asset. 

[gumbydarnit]

On 1/17/2024 at 5:34 PM, ShallowDan said:

he asked how much I'd spent on everything when it was all totaled up and immediately responded "sell that mess"   But he admittedly has no appreciation of the finer things in life!

Dan, your friend is the shallow one! Keep it all as along as you can as you are now the EnlightenedDan

[thethedew]

On 1/17/2024 at 5:34 PM, thethedew said:

All else being equal, if the value of my OA collection dropped by 50% overnight, and I could still afford to keep my collection, I would not care about the paper loss one jot.

...and I don't think that this stance is even particularly unusual.

Should such a valuation disaster happen, I would presume I wouldn't be alone in the loss, and further interpret it as a harbinger of opportunities to be welcomed.  I would presume that there are many in the Hobby that, given the choice between: 1) losing half the value of their collection while gaining otherwise unforeseen opportunities to make new purchases, or  2) retaining their current high values, yet enduring limited opportunities to expand collections, I'd guess a solid majority would cheerfully take the loss and go hog-wild.

(Not to hijack the OP's thread too much, sorry)

[Bronty]

On 1/17/2024 at 10:07 PM, thethedew said:

...and I don't think that this stance is even particularly unusual.

Should such a valuation disaster happen, I would presume I wouldn't be alone in the loss, and further interpret it as a harbinger of opportunities to be welcomed.  I would presume that there are many in the Hobby that, given the choice between: 1) losing half the value of their collection while gaining otherwise unforeseen opportunities to make new purchases, or  2) retaining their current high values, yet enduring limited opportunities to expand collections, I'd guess a solid majority would cheerfully take the loss and go hog-wild.

(Not to hijack the OP's thread too much, sorry)

in practice things aren't that smooth.    People watch their stuff decline month after month after month, they start to get scared.    There's no longer any urgency to buy anything because it will be cheaper next month.   Everybody closes their wallets.    Since everybody closes their wallets, everyone puts their good art away.     Things stagnate.     Some people leave the hobby.    Some that are forced to sell do so at extreme losses.    As fun as it is to imagine a decline in prices leading to buying opportunities, I think in general the reality of it kinda sucks.

[cloud cloddie]

On 1/17/2024 at 2:20 PM, Bronty said:

I have a different approach as well in that I really don't care what the percentage is.    I'm more concerned with having enough value outside of collectibles that retirement will be comfortable.    After that, the remainder can be in collectibles if I choose.    So I look at it more like... there's a minimum amount of 'real world' assets I want to have.    After that, it’s a free for all.   

That’s where I’m at. Regardless of what my art is worth, I have a number where I want my other investments at. As long as that threshold is met, it’s all fun and games. 

On 1/17/2024 at 3:34 PM, thethedew said:

All else being equal, if the value of my OA collection dropped by 50% overnight, and I could still afford to keep my collection, I would not care about the paper loss one jot.

Yup. My art either appreciates while I appreciate it, or the market crashes and I can buy more art to enjoy. I’m good either way. 

[mtlevy1]

I remember being at a prominent collector's home, decades ago, and gently asking him if he had other significant wealth given he had ~$1M of art lying around - it seemed a little irresponsible/risky to have so much art without other wealth - but he had a lot of art and not much else - believe it worked out fine given price trends on his focus.

As others said, if you are fortunate enough to have your first $XM, I guess the rest can be art. In any case, I I am working to reduce my % art but it is tough as I love this stuff so much - but I have been selling at CAL to reduce my percentage. 

When interest rates are low on cash equivalents having a lot of art doesn't have such an obvious opportunity cost - but when you can get cash on your cash, it is a bit tougher to forego those earnings.

Still looking for 1971 Smith/Everett Astonishing Tales 6 page 6 - 1977 Rogers/Austin Detective - and 1977 Nova 11 pages!

Mark

[Aahz]

Sigh.  I think one of the elements you have to take into account is when you actually started collecting.  Given that prices have gone up considerably (and depending on what type of art that you collect), you may have no choice to consider them an "investment."  For those of us fortunate enough to have started in the Dark Ages, the buy in to the hobby was not what it is today.  So I have never looked at my collection as part of my net worth (other than insuring it).  I think I am honestly happier in the hobby that way too.  I think the same thing applies to whether you hang a piece or hide it in a vault.

Now, if I start buying bigger ticket items in today's market, that assessment would probably have to change.

[tth2]

On 1/18/2024 at 7:34 AM, ShallowDan said:

he asked how much I'd spent on everything when it was all totaled up and immediately responded "sell that $#iT"  

Sounds like your friend has been talking to my wife.

[shadroch]

On 1/17/2024 at 4:50 PM, newshane said:

Yes, you should always be prepared to lose 100% of any investment. 

5% isn't a lot. At least you're purchasing some sort of asset. 

Say what?  If you are risking 100% of your buy in, you are speculating. Not investing. 

[adamstrange]

I keep my art to a max of 10% of my net worth.  It's just too risky to allocate more when it might endanger the 75% I have in comics.

[zhamlau]

Accidentally, a lot. It is what it is I tend not to worry about it.

[Yorick]

On 1/18/2024 at 5:02 AM, Aahz said:

the Dark Ages

Ahhh, the good days.  I got a Preacher page at an old Hayward Wondercon for $10.  Was the second piece of published art I ever bought.  No main characters or anything.

[alxjhnsn]

On 1/17/2024 at 12:28 AM, malvin said:

I've been there. Heck I am there.

I just ignored it

I love the OA, just selling it when I didn't need the money (and therefore nothing to put it in) didn't make sense to me. I try to trim/optimize/refine my collection, but each year I think it's still a net spend for me.

Malvin

+1 to Malvin's response.

The money I spend is the money that would go to some other hobby with no return so I don't care.

[alxjhnsn]

I've kept track of my buying since I first bought a piece. The spreadsheet has grown in complexity and analytical capability.

It tells me the

• Basics
  • name & link to CAF
  • type (commission, published page, ...)
  • costs (price, BP, S/H),
  • source (dealer name, auction house name, individual, etc.)
  • date of purchase)
• Statistics
  • # of pieces,
  • total count
  • total $
  • average price,
  • median price,
  • max price,
  • number and amount by year,
  • number and amount by artist,
  • number and amount by dealer
  • popularity using the views, likes, and comments from the CAF
    • This is a little weird. I wanted to explore which pieces generated the most attention per $ spent. The results were somewhat surprising. Too much trouble to keep up to date since I can't just download the CAF data and have to type it in. Still, it's a view of the collection and of what others find interesting.

I learned a lot about Excel doing this, too. XLOOKUP and UNIQUE are very useful.

[John E.]

On 1/20/2024 at 11:04 AM, alxjhnsn said:

 

• • popularity using the views, likes, and comments from the CAF
    • This is a little weird. I wanted to explore which pieces generated the most attention per $ spent. The results were somewhat surprising. Too much trouble to keep up to date since I can't just download the CAF data and have to type it in. Still, it's a view of the collection and of what others find interesting.

Yup. For all the veneration of Marvel, covers, and published, most of my top 10 most viewed fall under the categories of non-Marvel, sketches, or unpublished. And forget about price.

[143ksk]

I'm not sure I would care about an isolated percent without looking at total net worth. My goal is to have enough assets in non collectibles to have the standard of living I want to have. After that, I'm happy with whatever percent the collectibles end up at...In fact, the higher the better  

[Rick2you2]

On 1/20/2024 at 4:21 PM, John E. said:

Yup. For all the veneration of Marvel, covers, and published, most of my top 10 most viewed fall under the categories of non-Marvel, sketches, or unpublished. And forget about price.

Ed Benes drawings and Chris McJunkin sketch cards?

[John E.]

On 1/20/2024 at 7:15 PM, Rick2you2 said:

Ed Benes drawings and Chris McJunkin sketch cards?

The heart wants what it wants. 

Mute me if you don’t like me.

[Rick2you2]

On 1/20/2024 at 8:15 PM, Rick2you2 said:

most of my top 10 most viewed fall under the categories of non-Marvel, sketches, or unpublished.

Nah, just curious what caught people's eyes.

I actually like Benes' work.

Edited January 21 by Rick2you2

[ThothAmon]

I am comfortable valuing my art at $0 when considering it as a percentage of my net worth. Exactly the same value I give my comic collection for net worth consideration. That way I can make up for any losses with volume.