Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[glynparson]

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glynparson

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

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.

[glynparson]

I agree i think it is unethical or immoral behavior.

[Shoebox]

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

[bnorth]

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.

[egbeachley]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

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.

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.

[Rookiemonster]

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 .......

[Beastmode]

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

[begsu1013]

haven't read the entire thread, but considering the op's questions/concerns...

it all depends on which side of the fence you happen to be on for each individual card. each circumstance or auction is it's own monster.

1. there are people that intentionally bid up in very small increments and/or retract early in on a card for the sole purpose of giving the appearance of it getting shilled. i know of an individual, not personally, that has an ebay account solely for pwcc purchases and it purposely registers as 100% bidding activity w/ them. it's an out of the box bidding tactic, but it does indeed happen and is a lot more widespread than what most people think. they are intentionally running off other bidders on the sole basis that they wont participate in a card that is " so obviously being shilled". in the end, it is a game. i do not practice this tatic but cant hold it against someone that uses it. of course, their thought process is the exact opposite of "shilling". they are doing it in an attempt to keep the final price lower, not higher. does it work? no clue. i bid my figure and if i win, great. i never really look at who else is and how they are bidding once my eyes were opened to this strategy. it simply doesn't matter to me now that i know this strategy is definitely used and in play.

2. as for "protecting ones investment", this is where it becomes which side of the fence you graze upon. ive always bought duplicates. several times over in fact. i play the bump game and have my strategy of doing it w/ multiple examples. and even when they do bump, my sub wasnt for profit driven motives. i haven't sold a card that has yet. but when i get locked in on a card i will purchase a number of them at said price points. could this seem phishy (playing at wrigley right now, btw) to someone else looking at the activity from their vantage point? of course, but i don't care. could someone view it as someone "protecting their investment"? sure. but again, i don't care. not a flipper. but i always pay for the item once won or committed to purchase. now, if one bids it up and doesn't pay solely to inflate the price...then i would say it's definitely unethical.

3. as for bidding on ones own items, again as long as they pay i don't see a problem w/ it. i do get the other side of the fence's argument though as well. as jake mentioned if they have to cough up $500 on $5000, then that's the price they pay. however, if they bid it up and don't pay? definitely unethical both on inflation and of intentially wasting someone elses time and resources. and i applaud brent for automatically blocking nonpayers after the first instance. naturally he doesn't want his staff's time wasted, but it does weed out nonpaying shillers overtime which should help. of course, registering a new ebay account isn't brain surgery either. however, if 2 people collude to consign a card and then both bid the card up to a new stratosphere solely to create a new plateau, pay the commission fee and then they put one of their "other 9s" up a few days after this "new documented sale", i would definitely define that as market manipulation and completely unethical. this happens on an extremely frequent basis and have made notes on the subject matter over the past couple of years. it's funny how quickly the "new stratosphere card" comes right back to the market after the second card has sold at/near/above the new plateau price. they are basically paying a $500+ commission fee (or $250 max ebay fee and simply claim "mark item as being paid, don't exchange money or have to pay 3% paypal fee either) to generate thousands of additional dollars for that grade, twice!

4. and over time i have realized that what appears phishy to me "most" of the time probably isn't. recently someone pointed out publically what they thought was some suspicious activity on a spree of mantles that was purchased w/i a span of 30 minutes or so. just turned out that it was me, but again i can certainly understand where someone else would think that it was suspicious from their vantage point. a few other occasions have occurred as well, no need to rehash and i'll just digress there. must admit, brings a smile to this side of the fence and slightly entertaining to engage and gather the overall consensus when those type posts occur. a lil devious on this end, for sure.

5. now is it unethical for seller "a" to post a card, collude w/ buyer "b" to run the card up to a predetermined price or list an insane bin now price, click "buy" and money isnt even exchanged solely to manipulate vcp, ebay "sold" listings as a valid sale? definitely unethical, sad thing is that generally people fall for it all the time. and overtime it usually does become the new norm because of a "target/conversation/thread starter". "d@mn, did you see the hammer on the 79 gretzky psa 9 auction". stuff like this creates buzz for a said card/grade. is there anyway to prove that the card wouldn't have done that on its own accord overtime?

nope.


it is what it is.


so best just not to get caught up in the "what if's" and what the other side of the fence is doing.


concentrate on your game. not their's.




.

[botn]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

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.

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.

[steve B]

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

[egbeachley]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

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.

[botn]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

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 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.

[pokerplyr80]

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.