Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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

[1952boyntoncollector]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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

[glchen]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PM770

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.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

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.

[glchen]

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.

[drcy]

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.

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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.

[ezez420]

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]

[Gradedcardman]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

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.

[ullmandds]

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.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

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 bitters 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 better be legitimate it would not be nearly as high.

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

[ullmandds]

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

[MW1]

Originally Posted by botn

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.

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

[MW1]

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MW1

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.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MW1

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.

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

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

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!!

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

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

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

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Two, a bidder cannot retract if he does cross the threshold and become the high bidder.

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

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jantz

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

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.