Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[glchen]

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.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

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,

[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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

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.

[drcy]

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.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by drcy

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.

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.

[Leon]

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.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

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.

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?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

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?

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".