Is "market pushing" ethical or not?
 

My understanding is that there are some well-to-do individuals who wish to increase the value of their portfolios of high end cards (one could use the euphemism "protect their investment" but it's more than that), and more generally to foster an environment where at least at the high end cards are perceived as investment-quality goods. One of the ways they are trying to accomplish this is to try to “push” the prices of big ticket items both on ebay and in catalog auctions such as Heritage, etc. On ebay, at least, where one has some visibility into bidding histories, one can see that their M.O. is to very aggressively bid up ongoing auctions, trying to find the top and hoping to push others to bid higher. Thus, one sees many of these high ticket auctions where the bidding history reveals that the same underbidder has placed a very high number of bids, most of them consecutive, but stops short of taking the lead. Other times, of course, the "pusher" will take the lead and even win the item.

I have communicated with PWCC about this. Brent informs me that he has three rules in place to address what clearly is happening in today's market. One, a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. Two, a bidder cannot retract if he does cross the threshold and become the high bidder. Three, a winning bidder must pay.

So my question for the group is whether this activity by the "pushers" in the context of Brent's rules (I don't know what rules others may have) is an unethical variant of shill bidding, or just aggressive but ethical conduct. The argument for it being unethical of course is that the "pushers" are not bidding (at least in many cases) in an effort to win items but rather with the goal of increasing the price someone else pays, in order to protect their investments/drive the market higher. And almost certainly, people are paying higher prices than they would in the absence of these bids, which is the quintessential concern about shill bidding. Not to mention overall market and trickle down effects. (Yeah, I am not neutral here.) On the other hand, assuming Brent's rules are followed, people are not retracting to discover high bids, are paying if they win, and are not running up their own cards which of course is the more traditional shill bidding situation.

An interesting issue and one on which I suspect there will be a variety of opinions.

Here is an example from a still-active auction to illustrate my point. It is anything but isolated, by the way.

Member Id: u***s( 513Feedback score is 500 to 999) US $45,000.00
Jun-23-16 20:05:44 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $44,905.00
Jun-23-16 20:11:01 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $44,550.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:52 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $44,250.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:49 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $43,950.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:46 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $43,550.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:40 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $43,250.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:35 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $42,950.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:31 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $42,550.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:26 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $42,250.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:23 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $41,950.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:20 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $41,550.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:10 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $41,250.00
Jun-23-16 20:10:03 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $40,950.00
Jun-23-16 20:09:58 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $40,550.00
Jun-23-16 20:09:52 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $39,950.00
Jun-23-16 20:07:28 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $39,000.00
Jun-23-16 20:07:23 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $38,000.00
Jun-23-16 20:07:18 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $37,000.00
Jun-23-16 20:07:14 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $36,000.00
Jun-23-16 20:07:09 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $35,100.00
Jun-23-16 18:27:46 PDT

Member Id: u***s( 513Feedback score is 500 to 999) US $35,000.00
Jun-17-16 16:09:12 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $34,950.00
Jun-17-16 16:11:46 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $34,000.00
Jun-17-16 16:11:41 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $33,000.00
Jun-17-16 16:11:36 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $32,000.00
Jun-17-16 16:11:31 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $31,000.00
Jun-17-16 16:11:23 PDT

Member Id: a***t( 1309Feedback score is 1000 to 4,999) US $29,900.00
Jun-17-16 14:52:54 PDT

As long as whoever bids is prepared to pay for the item with their bid and pay and the seller will have to pay the fee...i dont care...the issue of unethical to me is when the seller doesnt have to pay the fee for the 'win'.

people will stop bidding or have people stop bidding on their items real fast when they have to pay a $500 fee for example on winning their own card for $5000......so now they would need $5500 just to break even on it

As long as there is no shilling is going on, and the prices are "real," then I have no problem with market pushing. By "real," I am saying that the winning bidder did pay for the item (including BP, if there was one), and it wasn't some sort of fake scenario where one friend "bought" a card from another friend and "paid" him that winning bid, and then that card was "bought" back (e.g., shenanigans like that). If the market prices are genuine, then I have no problems with this market pushing. Sooner or later, those people who are trying to "protect" their investment will find out there are too many cards to buy, and then when they try to unload their investment, find out there are no buyers at the prices they want.

Define a "genuine" market price. In Mastro the government defined it as the price that would have prevailed in the absence of bids made for a purpose other than winning. Not the price one guy was willing to pay. At least that's my understanding.

This seems like a great point. Its still shilling if your intention is to just drive up a price, even if it is not your specific card.

I'm assuming in the example provided, that the bid increment was $100 at that level so the underbidder knew he had pushed it to a max.

I'm also curious as to how PWCC can disallow bid retractions. Isn't that governed by ebay? Can a seller set up a listing that doesn't allow bid retractions?

I don't speak for Brent, but my understanding is that he will suspend bidders who retract without a good explanation.

Brent needs to define what he means by a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. How is he able to discourage that or even stop it? What about a bidder's BFF? So I have my doubts id rule one is adhered to. As to rule 2 only he would know if the massive volume of retractions are being done by the consignor (see question as to rule #1). As to rule 3, only Brent would know if items are all actually being paid for.

With that said, the government made their whole case against Mastro Auctions based on the sheer volume of shill bids permitted to be placed by consignors or consignors friends and families. It was not so much that the house was doing it but that they permitted "artificial" bids to be placed. Bill is in prison for this. Doug is going shortly and possibly Mark and countless others dropped considerable amount of cash having to lawyer up so they did not end up in the same place.

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.

Peter, for my definition, a "genuine" market price was obtain in the absence of any shill bids. So as in the government's definition, even if the high bidder's max bid was legitimate, that is not a genuine market price if he were shilled up.

So why is it legitimate here, where bids are placed with the intent only of driving up the price? I am missing your point. In both situations the price seems manipulated to me, in one case by the consignor, in the other case by someone trying to protect their investments/push prices higher but not with the goal of winning the auction at the lowest possible price. which is of course what legitimate bidders do.

Peter, to me this is like a country trying to prop up its currency against hedge funds. You can keep buying and buying, but sooner or later, someone is going to blink. Usually the country. As long as the market is legitimate, it's all good to me.

When they read or when they act on what they read. Good post Peter.


QUOTE=botn;1554461]Brent needs to define what he means by a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. How is he able to discourage that or even stop it? What about a bidder's BFF? So I have my doubts id rule one is adhered to. As to rule 2 only he would know if the massive volume of retractions are being done by the consignor (see question as to rule #1). As to rule 3, only Brent would know if items are all actually being paid for.

With that said, the government made their whole case against Mastro Auctions based on the sheer volume of shill bids permitted to be placed by consignors or consignors friends and families. It was not so much that the house was doing it but that they permitted "artificial" bids to be placed. Bill is in prison for this. Doug is going shortly and possibly Mark and countless others dropped considerable amount of cash having to lawyer up so they did not end up in the same place.

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.[/QUOTE]

Respectfully, that is a circular argument, assuming its conclusion that the market is legitimate. I say that if this is how prices are determined, it's not.

Brent
 

I had to point out a bidder bidding on their own item to Brent. He has so many items on at a time I am sure he does not review bid history on every item. When I did point out to him that the item was bought by bidder A, then Brent put it up for sale for bidder A and bidder A was now high bid on his own item he retracted his bids. It was blatant but he did take it down.

Ok different analogy. Say I have a LOT of money in my brokerage account. I am in no way affiliated with Microsoft. I place a limit order in my brokerage account where I will buy any and all Microsoft stock if the price is $50 or lower. Until all of the vast sums of money in my account run out. I am trying to protect my investment in Microsoft by trying to make sure it doesn't go below $50. Why is this not ethical? It however can be very stupid if everyone else thinks MSFT is worth less than $50 and would be happy to dump those shares on me.

If the 300 odd folks who hold Rose rookies in PSA 8 don't think that card is worth 5 figures, they should just dump those cards on whoever is willing to buy those cards at those prices. That's the free market.

well that's the real trick right? Figuring out what is a legit buyer and what isn't? I mean, even if a shill pushes the price if the end buyer isn't an associate and buys the card with no malice than the price is legit. (and obviously the price is not legit if the buyer is a shill)

The hard part is knowing who is who, and aside from what you are doing with your research is difficult to ascertain.

A solution? IDK man, ebay isn't going to patrol it worth a darn, I guess it's up to the individuals self policing and pointing out stuff like you did in this thread,

Pete...I totally with your argument so far.

And this is very similar to what Brent told me via email when I questioned one of his auctions building activity. He said while the one bidders activity was quite suspicious he knew for sure that the higher bid was legitimate. So my argument is that in the absence of the suspicious bitter the winning bid would not be nearly as high.

It is very difficult to deal with a bitter, better bidder.

thats what happens Frank when I talk into the phone at the pool!!!!

Once again
 

The Bruces were ahead of the curve would love for Mr. Dorskind to be around to hear his perspective on this current situation. He loved his cards but also viewed them as investment commodities. As for Peter's question seems immoral but if they are willing to pay should they win I am not sure it can be considered illegal. I mean there have been times billionaires have proped up their stocks and millionaire artists bought tons of their albums or tickets to their movies to prop up numbers. IF the transactions go thru I see that it is immoral but I would have real problem legally punishing people for this type of behavior. After all it seems like they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

I deliberately framed the question as one of ethics not legality because, with due respect, there are few things less productive than a lot of non-lawyers giving opinions about what the law should be. See Kevin Quinn pontificating on class actions for example.

I think my feelings about it would be the same whether or not it's illegal. To me, it's artificially and intentionally driving up prices. And it's happening every day, which means it can have an enormous impact.

Mine was
 

an attempt to state what i feel the law should be and hell I'm in court enough i might as well be a lawyer. unfortunate nature of my business. Lol

I don't see it as unethical if the bidder is willing and able to buy the card for his bid. I would have a problem with someone bidding it up over another bidder's max and then retracting, or with two more more people colluding to artificially inflate prices.

LOL. That came out harsher than I intended, my point more broadly is that I don't see whether or not this practice is illegal as being the issue. Let's assume for the sake of argument it is legal, although I am not saying it is -- that doesn't make it ethical.

I agree
 

I agree i think it is unethical or immoral behavior.

I think it's unethical but marginally so in any one instance. Frequency and volume can exacerbate it into more.

There should be no comparison to the Mastro shill bidding. While the intent there was also to raise the price, bidding was done with knowledge of the high bid amount. So let's toss that thought aside.

As far as bidding some amount to raise the price, with no knowledge of the high bid, without intending to win, but paying if you do win, no retractions allowed........ I don't even think it is immoral or unethical.

But, if your intention is to "protect your investment", then it also won't work. If prices of "your card" that you are trying to protect have gone up, you won't have bid enough and it doesn't matter since it is up. If it has gone down, all you will do it buy another card at a price higher than anyone else which means that if you were to sell it immediately you will lose money.

On a similar note, I was in a situation several years ago where I was bidding strong on cards from 4-5 different 1880's non-sports sets. I was consistently losing to the same collector - someone with loads of cash. It got to the point where I knew that if I bid $50, he would win it for $51. But if I didn't bid he would win it for $20. I wouldn't bid for a week, see how low they went for, think they went low and try again to win a few but then lose anyway. Frustrating. Wrote about it on the Net54 Non-Sports Card Forum. Someone finally responded that I controlled the market for these sets. Interesting thought.

I believe it is very unethical and immoral when done to card(s) I am looking to buy. Now if I am selling it is perfectly fine.

Much of what the government considered shill bidding in Mastro was NOT done with any knowledge of the high bids. Read the court papers. It was people bidding on their own lots trying to push up prices but willing to buy them back if they won.

It just feels wrong .when something feels wrong the chances are you shouldn't be involed with it .

The other hand : if it just happened to a card you listed , no doubt you would be happy. I don't think anyone would say no sorry you should have payed this much and give money back to someone .

The only real problem I have is that when whatever is going on stops . I don't think after that there is anywhere to go but down. Looks like a vintage baseball card bubble .......

That is not accurate. You should read my earlier post on this. In the Mastro case the government would consider your example as shill bidding. Having knowledge of the high bid is not a requirement for being a shill bidder.

To this laymans view, if it's illegal it's got a good chance of being unethical as well especially as a business plan.

(Sorry Peter, can't think of any other way to frame the argument well without resorting to laws :) )

If the card was a stock...........the manipulator might be in some trouble.

From Wikipedia as iffy a source as it may be,

" During the dot-com era, when stock-market fever was at its height and many people spent significant amounts of time on stock Internet message boards, a 15-year-old named Jonathan Lebed showed how easy it was to use the Internet to run a successful pump and dump. Lebed bought penny stocks and then promoted them on message boards, pointing at the price increase. When other investors bought the stock, Lebed sold his for a profit, leaving the other investors holding the bag. He came to the attention of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which filed a civil suit against him alleging security manipulation. Lebed settled the charges by paying a fraction of his total gains. He neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing, but promised not to manipulate securities in the future."

And

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation


That being said, I can't recall ever hearing of anyone in any hobby field getting in trouble for that sort of thing. Collusive bidding to keep prices down ? Yes. Shilling items to benefit themselves directly? Yep. Jacking up prices of other people's stuff to eventually benefit them selves? Nope.

So, maybe indifference, or the authorities don't consider collectibles as investment commodities, or it hasn't been done on a large enough scale to require a law or to have an existing one applied. And who would be in charge anyway? I can't see the SEC claiming they have authority in collectibles markets.

Steve B

How can this thread get 4 pages deep without Bob chiming in?

You need to adjust your settings to 80 posts per page. :D

I think you are confused which is OK.

In every instance with the Mastro case there was a relationship with the bidder and the seller or Mastro (company). It has nothing to do with a random bidder seeing an auction of a card they own and thinking they will throw out a bid or two to "protect" their investment or grab a dupe.

You might want to check your facts before you post...you are absolutely wrong. Happy to have a discussion with you once you get your facts straight.

You have completely changed the topic. Greg's point to you (and mine) was that your original claim that Mastro only involved cases where the bidding was done with knowledge of the high bids was wrong. He never said it involved random bidders that is a straw man.

Peter, your point is very solid and in fact I would not be surprised if that is what is actually happening. The bidding dozens of times at the minimum amount screams to me someone who A) doesn't really want to win the auction and B) wants to drive up the price. Initially, I just thought that type of bidding was due to cheap buyers, but considering everything that's going on in the high-end market, your argument has validity.

Ethics are irrelevant. This is arms length commerce between strangers. There is legal and illegal. The rest is meaningless.

As long as you have the risk of paying if you win you aren't doing anything wrong.

I sometimes will bid into a card I have up to a point where I wouldn't mind owning a dupe. I suspect that is a lot of what people do when they bid into cards then stop short of the top.

To be clear, this IS actually happening, I am not speculating and if you read my post you can see at least one place where I am getting my information.

Ethics are irrelevant, interesting perspective.

I feel it is unethical and should not be done. Even if they are willing to pay for the inflated bids that does not make it ok. Just because they have deep pockets and can afford to over pay for these card/s does not make it ok and it hurts the rest of us collectors who do not have $$$$.
These crazy prices have not only and affect on high end cards but i think we can see that even mid grade cards are influenced by these practices.
I hope this insanity will come to an end soon so the real collectors can continue to enjoy this great "Hobby". :)

Collecting
 

Been collecting since 1957. With a couple of minor exceptions involving dupes, I do not sell. I have and still enjoy the hobby in all of it's evolutions The "hobby" is certainly different today then the 50s-70s, but I don't pine for the old days, and find it fascinating to watch it all unfold in the present, both the good and the bad. That's just me. I understand everyone has their own perspective

Interesting thread
 

I've read this whole thread, wow.
The problem you got is many of you look at card collecting as a hobby.
Sadly, we got to start looking at this for what it really is and that's a billion dollar a year business.
If someone is willing to spend higher than what our little VCP says, who are we to judge? You can't have it both ways, I'm sure when you want to sell a card you want as much as you can get.
Same scenario, just with a larger budget.

This post is a sure sign that you are positively clicking to turn too many pages. Every member should go to their User Control Panel and change the thread count on each page from 10 to 80. Then you will now be on page 1, instead of 4. It makes life on the board a wee bit easier.

As for the shilling, I am watching the debate.

ps...also, see post 34 :)

I don't see a problem. I still look at card collecting as a hobby. It is something that I enjoy. If the time ever comes when collecting cards is no longer enjoyable, I will walk away from the hobby just as easily as I walked into it.

As far as a card selling for more or less than VCP, maybe no one has the right to judge that, but myself and others do have the right to judge the means at which the price was reached.

So back to topic. Whether or not the buyer is willing to pay for the card or not, "pushing" the price is just another form of manipulating/controlling the final sale price. A new word for another word that already exists.

Baseball cards as a hobby and or investments is getting more like the penny stock market with the market makers and manipulation of the up and down prices

my humble take...
 

If someone is willing and able to pay high prices - and does so - ok. However, it would be prudent for the buyer to realize they are paying ultra top dollar and may not get the price when they sell.

A small company stock may go for 30 cents today - and $3. tomorrow - because someone is willing to pay $3. A house listed at $265,000 may go for what seems over market $305,000 because people are willing to pay $305,000. It is a risk on the buyers part. If the economy crashes again and the $305,000. house they bought drops to $225,000. - well, ouch. Or if the now $3. stock goes bankrupt, well, thats the risk taken. There is risk of rookie cards falling - risk taken by the buyer. How much continued upside with high priced rookie cards? Nobody knows. But I remember a little saying, "buy low, sell high."

As for other potential buyers at a more reasonable price, oh well, suck it up, you may not check off much on your want list. But keep tabs on the market over the next year or two and prices may drop back down to reasonable prices again.

I totally empathize over the "missed the boat" current mentality. I didn't buy them 1-10 years ago, and I sure not buying them now. I have always opted to put my money into quality pre-war. Hopefully there will be a trickle down to the cards I like - 1920's Exhibit HOFers, Colgan's Chips, Domino Discs, Silks, Type cards of major HOFers, the occasional Playball's, and of course T206's.

"As long as you have the risk of paying if you win you aren't doing anything wrong."

I agree with Adam W.

I think if a "market protector" is bidding what he is honestly willing to pay if that is the winning bid (as opposed to a shiller who would retract a bid once he gets in the lead), that is okay. Though, if he is the regular winner, it is a bad investment strategy, akin to throwing good money after bad.

Let's suppose that a "market pusher" (not my term by the way) is successful 70 percent of the time in getting someone else to pay more than he would have, and 30 percent of the time ends up winning and paying. Those are probably conservative numbers based on looking at some bidding histories. I don't see why it's perfectly OK to drive up someone else's price deliberately on numerous transactions just because you're willing to pay if you guess the top wrong. And whether it's your own card you are bidding on or someone else's, if the result is the same -- another bidder pays more -- I don't see why that matters either. People who were bidding their own cards up in Mastro also were willing to, and did, pay if they won. But that was deemed irrelevant. Whatever.

If someone (collector, investor, someone buying a birthday present for his grandson) is not shilling, is not bidding on something he owns or for someone (shilling) and places a bid at an amount he's honestly willing to pay and knowing he may well end up being the winner-- it's hard to convince me that he did something wrong. In fact, that's what auctions are about.

Based on the volume of sales and the detail of the records kept by eBay, it has certainly got to be a concern.

It matters because the "pushers" have the risk associated with winning. Take away the risk (BP, fees etc...) and then I have a problem. I am with Adam on this too, as long as the sale is arm's length I am good with it.

To differentiate "market pushing" from normal auction activity, one would have to discern the intent of the bidder, which is not generally something that can be known with any certainty. To wit, that makes this a nearly pointless discussion.

Doubt it from what I know. A crazy plan to corner the market on Rose rookies (or whatever card) probably isn't going to get Feds involved. That being said, my guess is that if someone brought something to them that was specifically a Federal Crime, and had their ducks in a row, I am confident they would look at it. Just my 1/2 cent.

ps...and I agree with your last post/statement too!!

The reference was to PWCC, not Pete Rose rookie cards, per se.

Brent knows very well what his bidders are up to. "Market pushing" is his term.

What's the difference then with Mastro, where the shill bidders in many cases had the risk of paying the BP, and did pay the BP if their shilling was unsuccessful, yet the government deemed it illegal?

Sorry, I guess I got off track. My reference was to the bidders.

Juries every day are called upon to discern intent from the evidence. It's an issue in every criminal case and every fraud case, to start with. Of course you can make judgments about intent much of the time. More concretely, in this instance, I am confident that what Brent has told me about certain people's intent is accurate.

Actually in your post the buyer did nothing wrong. They wanted the card and were willing to pay the ending price for the card.

This isn't about buying, winning, being outbid or even owning a card. Its about holding or increasing market value so that there is no loss on an investment.

So does Heritage:

"No Reserve: This lot is being sold without a consignor reserve. (Note: By law, consignors may still bid under certain conditions, but they are responsible for paying the full Buyer's Premium and Seller's Commission if they do.)"


http://www.ha.com/c/ref/web-tips.zx?...sources-111815

Peter

Why the need for rule #2?

Take it as a rhetorical question or you can post your opinion. I'm just curious. If you wish to indulge me that's fine, if not, we're good either way.


Jantz

My understanding is they have that clause solely for in-person Live Auctions. They have to have it for that. Their auction software will not allow a consignor to bid on their own lots. I am not in favor of some other things which we politely agree to disagree on, as Chris and team know, but as for that clause, I believe that is the reason.

That is good to know, when I read that I thought "wtf ... well I guess at least it is spelled out in the rules." My next question is whether that language would allow someone to register for a second account and then bid without being rejected by the software.

I can't speak for Brent, but I would surmise he thinks that retractions, especially after becoming the high bidder and learning what the previous high was, look blatantly fraudulent. So -- assuming he is enforcing the rule -- people instead have to take the risk of winning if they are going to "push." I think it's a good rule, but I have not seen anything yet that convinces me that bidding hoping to run up the price someone else pays is ethical. In any event, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and several have been enlightening to say the least.

And once again, which is falling on many deaf ears, the first hand information I have is that the government really made their case against Mastro Auctions for the artificial bidding which took place by those bidders who did not even know what the high bids were and who even paid the BP when their bids did not get topped. The house had a policy, like Brent does, to not allow it, but did nothing to stop it, just like Brent is doing.

Now some of the same people on this thread who were furious that the shill bidding in Mastro distorted actual market value and posted about it constantly are now ok with the "pushing". What a difference a day makes, eh? What took place at Mastro pales in comparison to what is going on with the "pushing".

There is no comparison at all between market pushing and what happened with the shillers at Mastro. The consignors and bidders in the Mastro lots knew each other. Nothing arms length about that at all. Do not try to justify what those named on the Mastro list did with market pushing. It makes what happened at Mastro worse.

Goes to the most fundamental of economic principles, the law of supply and demand. Why think too much about it. A free market will eventually balance the two regardless of synthetic forces. In the end a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card. They will get what they deserve.

Really? No comparison? Now that is pretty funny.

Of course there is a comparison, although there are differences too and it's a matter of opinion for each person to judge whether you think the similarities outweigh the differences. But don't pretend there is no comparison: In both cases, people are placing bids with the intent and hope of not winning the item but causing someone else to pay more, in order to realize a personal benefit. And in both cases, people take the risk of having to pay if they are unsuccessful. And in both cases, the price realized is higher than it would have been if only people trying to win at the lowest price were bidding.

Greg, seriously? You were on the Mastro list, and you've already apologized for it. Even if your reasoning may be relevant and knowledgeable, because of your history, it's better you recuse yourself from this discussion.

More likely the shiller's buyer, or a buyer several levels removed, I would think. These guys are extremely savvy, they aren't going to be left holding the bag if they see a decline coming.

Exactly Gary, I apologized because I recognized that what was done was wrong. And who do you think you are? I will do not such thing and will continue to participate in this conversation. I could not care less what you think of my opinion.

Greg, I am someone who has never shilled. You did not apologize until after you were outed when the Mastro list was published.

One of them will. A non-shiller is not in most cases looking to purchase and resell, accordingly a shiller will at one point be left holding the last priciest card. Now he may have made money prior to that but eventually if the entire mkt is being shilled a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card for resale regardless of how savvy they are.

First I should recuse myself from this discussion because my name was on the list and now you are admonishing me for not apologizing sooner? Are you for real, Gary? Find another cause Gary.

Greg, you were caught shilling at Mastro. Now you are arguing that what folks are doing in market pushing is much worse ("pales" is your word) than what folks did at Mastro, which coincidentally you were one of them. If that's not something where in a legal setting, someone would recuse themselves from, I don't know what is. Obviously we're not in a court of law, so you're free to continue to say whatever you want, no matter how bad it makes you look.

I took Greg's point to be about the extent and/or impact of the conduct, not the relative culpability.

Was never caught shilling. Never questioned by the Feds. It is not coincidental that I am posting on this topic. In what world would the fact that we bought stuff back mean I should recuse myself from a discussion which I have first hand perspective of? That is ludicrous.

The artificial bidding that took place at Mastro did not have much of an impact on market values overall where as the pushing that is going on has had a very material impact on all grades. Just look at VCP.