Originally Posted by conor912 (Post 1869277)

This was my first thought. This is not good. Once people who have no idea what they're doing start getting in, it usually signifies a problem.

Originally Posted by Leon (Post 1869317)

LOL

And Barry, I don't personally care if people want to invest in cards without knowing or even liking them. It's American and I have a laissez-faire attitude.

Originally Posted by AGuinness (Post 1869384)

I think we may be seeing things from a different angle. But from my corner of the hobby (and I am one of the smaller-scale collectors out there), and forgive me if this is addressing a different point than you are making, this IS happening in ways, shapes and forms. Investors do appear to be lining up, and have been. Various threads on this board address the numerous articles by Forbes on investing in baseball cards, collectors here and elsewhere often bring up the specter of "foreign investors" or somesuch when diving into price surges, PWCC has a section on their website for "Investors," the term "investment grade" is now well-established in the hobby, and even threads on this board dating from 2002 discuss investment in cards - and I'm sure there's many many other examples out there.
Anyway, I feel like this is a big tangent on a thread designed to help a board member's family in finding cards to fit their goals, and the tangent is perhaps belabored by now. Apologies to the OP if this has detracted from your inquiry!

Originally Posted by Huysmans (Post 1869410)

Regardless of how you try and rationalize it, the point is irrefutable that investing in baseball cards in no way compares to making investments in the stock market, and never will. How knowledgeable people are is inconsequential, for investor security and peace of mind, the stock market will always trump fly by night investments... period.

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1869401)

For me not one bit. TPGs have limitations, but they are commoditizing (raw cards into value buckets) makes it easier to assign value, thus adding liquidity, thus adding value. In fact, the more we get to i) a market where graded cards are the standard and ii) price indications as a result of online sales research (ebay and auctions), the more our cards will retain value and withstand future market dislocations.

The fact that people are interested and looking into card collecting is a GOOD thing, not something to be weary of. (I'd be more weary of having no where to hide in this asset bubble environment we are in.)

Originally Posted by AGuinness (Post 1869414)

Clearly at an impasse. I respect your unwavering commitment to not budge on the point, but will respectfully disagree that these two investments, or any two things in general, cannot be compared. I've had many a productive discussion on the matter and will look forward to others who are willing to explore the topic.

Originally Posted by Huysmans (Post 1869429)

In my opinion, you were not able to dispel the fact that the stock market to most would be a safer investment than baseball cards.

Originally Posted by barrysloate (Post 1869262)

So people now want to invest in baseball cards without being card collectors and without any knowledge of what they should buy. Does that concern anyone?

Originally Posted by groundskeeper (Post 1869302)

Cobb seems like a blue chip legend but if even a TASTE of the social justice movement gets into this hobby, he is going to take a serious hit. I know I avoid Cap Anson cards for this reason. Try selling that in 20 years for a profit (over inflation).

Ruth is the king. The gold standard.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy (Post 1869508)

Ummm...did you read the OP? They are asking questions of knowledgeable folks, like you would ask an investment adviser about which stocks/funds to buy. Face it, sports cards have become a commodity.



Ummm....Ruth was no golden boy. If the social justice movement is now asking to remove Thomas Jefferson statues and his name from buildings (they are), what makes you think they will ignore Ruth. Pretty soon Yankee Stadium will be "The House that Ruth Mantle Arod Whitey Billy Mo Built" Mo may be the only one left standing.

And back to the OPs question, I would invest in high grade, recognizable names - Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Robinson, Aaron, Mays, Williams, Dimaggio, etc.

Originally Posted by Bigdaddy (Post 1869508)

And back to the OPs question, I would invest in high grade, recognizable names - Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Robinson, Aaron, Mays, Williams, Dimaggio, etc.

Originally Posted by MVSNYC (Post 1869523)

+1

Add to that...

Joe Jackson...Derek Jeter, Mike Trout, Bryce Harper.

Oh, and T206 rare backs.

PS- Barry (Hi Barry), where have you been brother? Non-Collectors have been dipping into the Hobby for YEARS! And as someone above mentioned, that's a good thing for the Hobby. Recognize that. ;)

Originally Posted by frankbmd (Post 1869265)

Years ago I always went to the barber shop to get investment advice, but since I now have no hair, I’m stuck with Net54.:eek:

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 1869555)

Unlike coins, which have an intrinsic value, Stocks (without dividends) only carry a perceived value, similar to cards. They are only worth what someone will pay, and are subject to a catalysts within and outside if their respective marketplace.

In this regard, cards are are a similar "investment vehicle" to (non-dividend) stocks.

Originally Posted by buymycards (Post 1869553)

Yelich

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass (Post 1869591)

Intrinsic - belonging naturally; essential. ie face value, even melt value


Stocks - you don't even own a piece of paper anymore. What does future cash flow, or this "value" growth rate you speak of, allow you to spend? it's only worth what someone will pay at a given time based on what they think it will be worth.

edited: and each there is someone selling a stock convinced it will go down, to someone convinced it will go up. This happens with cards sometimes

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1869588)

I respectfully disagree on these points. Everything is “perceived”.

Coins intrinsic value is limited to face value which is nominal. Anything above is collectible value, same as baseball cards but without the attachment to history.

Stocks without dividends are valued based on its growth rate of future free cash flows (augmented by one time tax cuts, unsustainable accommodative central banks, and admittedly a strong economy) discounted by a historically low Goldilocks discount rate, and impacted by smoke and mirrors stock buybacks and positive headline risk fomo.

Cards are impacted by general asset (re)valuation, employment, and people’s liquidity requirements as it impacts short term supply and demand.

They all have different coefficients, but would suspect coins and cards have higher correlation and r squared than cards and stocks.

Originally Posted by joshuanip (Post 1869596)

Don’t mean to hijack the thread to stocks but growth (no dividends) is particularly (over) valued in low rate environments because it’s the compound affect of discounting that future growth is muted.

Hence value without any dividends (spending $). Add demand from stock buybacks and lack of options being us (market) is the best house in a bad neighborhood and the reduction Of publicly availble stocks from pe buyouts, and you have a meltup

Originally Posted by Exhibitman (Post 1869636)

I tend to look at relative values. Like why has the green Cobb T206 skyrocked but the 150 series Young portrait hasn't? They used to be much closer in value. I'd pick up a nice Young or two. I'd also focus on nice eye appeal T206 portraits. Boring but solid. I'd also throw in a bet on a few of the top Mike Trout RCs in PSA 10 or Beckett 9.5 condition. They've doubled in recent months but given their potential for a LeBron like further surge, maybe worth it.