Are his rates/terms/logistics better maybe? I have no idea.

Theoretically Could the Vault be used as a front by the house to get whatever price they want on whatever card they seem fit? Just keep relisting it.

Certainly if an auction house owns an item that is being listed in their own auction, it makes you wonder about whether they might be tempted to approach the auction differently than if they're merely listing the item on behalf of another owner.

Sounds a lot like some of what PWCC has done in the past. It wasn’t the card altering that got them kicked off eBay; eBay publicly announced (they must have been absolutely confident beyond a doubt to do that) it was their shill bidding operation.

The real shock would be if PWCC doesn’t shill and fake results for certain items they want to hype and promote legit transactions of to collect fees on without having to even ship or move the card.

Based on the quality of the PWCC website.....
 

What makes anyone think that Brent and Betsy can manage $175XL well in their lending biz?

They easily have the single worst website of any AH in the world! And what is it? 12 to 18 months old??? Pathetic

Ohhhh. The Market could POP too? :D What could possibly go wrong where Brent Mastro, known 5-pronged fraudster is concerned LOL

I greet the news with the same emotion as any PWCC news:

https://photos.imageevent.com/exhibi...ong%20jack.gif

They can do whatever they want and I do not care since I will never do business with them. I don't lay down with dogs and I don't wake up with fleas.

That's so disgusting. Do you have to post that? It isn't original, it isn't funny, and it isn't appropriate. It makes you look like you're 12 years old.

Not sure if this hook up with the lender is suggestive of PWCC growing or not. What it is incredible to me that after their suspension from eBay for shill bidding on top of a multi year FBI investigation into that and the card altering, that anyone wants anything at all to do with them. Not to imply that every other industry entity is run beyond reproach by ethical law abiding people but some actually are. Fraud has clearly found its way into the industry and made itself right at home.

Done business with PWCC but none since I was put on notice as to their now obvious business practices. So to bring this back to the thread topic, I would stash my collection in Hefty trash bags outside my home before I left anything with him at the vault. Even if the material is not at risk, should something go down, who knows what a nightmare it would be trying to retrieve the material.

Absolutely correct Jay. Had often told clients, tax evasion is a crime, but tax avoidance is your constitutional and God given right. LOL

In Ryan's defense, I'm guessing he just mixed up the terminology and was referring to the idea of people using a vault purposely to get out of paying sales tax. And doing so by almost immediately pulling out cards they had sent to a vault and having them sent to their residence.

However, as Peter later pointed out, I don't believe it would be the vault company's responsibility to ever collect and remit sales taxes to any state on behalf of a card's owner. The vault company only provides a storage service, and to my knowledge has nothing to do with actual sale or purchase of items, nor in the handling of any monies involved in such sales. In the case of PWCC and Goldin, who both provide vault services, I believe their vault operations are set up as/in completely different business entities from their auction/sales businesses. It would be stupid business practice to have their different operations all in one single entity, and I don't think either of them are stupid by any means. As Peter stated, it would most likely be considered a use tax owed by the individual who bought the card and then took it out of a vault right away to add to their personal collection at their home. How a state is going to find out about such individuals who may may be abusing this practice, remains to be seen.

We collect baseball cards. I think the maturity thing went out the window a long time ago.

Not necessarily. The idea of charging sales tax on an item being shipped to a buyer is that the sales tax is charged based on where an item is ultimately to be stored or used. It is different from when you actually walk into a store and buy something and take physical possession of the item right there. In that case it doesn't matter what state you may actually live in, you pay sales tax to the state where you physically took possession of an item, based on where the store you bought it from is located. If you were on vacation in say Oregon, and bought some mementoes, collectibles, and such, and then took everything back home with you, to say California, you aren't going to be met at the CA border by one of its sales tax agents demanding you pay CA sales tax on items you're now bringing back into your home state. You wouldn't owe any use tax to CA as you already paid the applicable sales tax to the state the store you bought and took possession of the items you purchased was in, even if it was Oregon that has no sales tax.

There is no law anywhere that says you have to keep everything at your home residence. So if you do decide to have cards you buy sent and kept at an out of state location, that is perfectly acceptable, and something I don't think any state can change by simple legislation. And to then move items from one state to another shouldn't automatically cause the owner to suddenly owe sales taxes on items moved, should it? To argue otherwise could end up opening a huge can of worms. Like for example anytime someone moves from one state to another, and takes all their belongings with them, are they now going to be subject to having all their belongings inspected by someone from the state they are moving into, and potentially getting assessed a sales/use tax on all their belongings they brought with them? That would go over with the voting public like a ton of crap, but is intrinsically the same as storing your cards in one state, and then deciding later to move them elsewhere. And since supposedly not everyone using a vault is doing so just to evade sales taxes, passing any legislation that potentially proves detrimental to them likely won't be viewed in a kind light either. It is not entirely as black and white a question as one may initially think.

Hey Bob,

Just thinking out loud but while there is no law that says that everything we buy has to be sent and kept in our homes, it is clear most, some, many of the purchases that are going to vaults are not necessarily staying at the vaults. The vaults are a brief stopping point for the purchase which the buyer has every intention of taking physical possession of as soon as possible. I think that is where the gray area may not be so gray.

How that could be enforced, I dunno and since the vault concept is relatively new and I have no statistics on what percentage of the items that are shipped to them stay with them. It is entirely possible the tax evasion practice is not material enough to be worth the effort. I also think it would would be complex to track purchases (entering and leaving the vaults) even if that was the burden of each vault to do on a quarterly basis.

Chase

And this is a big reason why I'm guessing the vault services are provided by entirely separate companies than the related AH/sales companies. At least it now lets people know to ask these vault providers how their businesses are set up, and if they are independent and totally separate from other possibly commonly owned businesses. And by separate, I mean where there is not just one single business that owns and runs the AH/sales operation and the vault, or where one is a total or partially owned subsidiary business of the other. And you can have both businesses owned entirely by the same people, yet they ae still considered separate as long as the businesses themselves don't own any part of each other.

My guess is the operation lending people money on their collectibles may be set up as an entirely different/separate business and entity from the vault and AH/sales businesses as well. Would make some sense.

I’m pretty sure this is exactly the situation why use tax exists - for people buying stuff in low or no sales tax states and then taking it home with them to high sales tax states.

You’re not met at the border by a tax agent.

But the law does say that you owe use tax.

It’s just that no one actually ever pays it.

True, but say they buy a '33 Goudey Ruth card for $33K off Ebay. Sending it to a vault in a state with no sales could easily save them $2K-$3K or more, in sales tax they would otherwise have to pay. You may have to leave the Ruth in the vault for a while, but you could buy a few more items with that saved money, no?

Hi Chase,

And exactly why I'm saying it isn't so easy and clear. For now, probably not enough dollars to make it worthwhile for states to try going after these vaults. The states are still basking in the glow and sales tax windfall created with the SCOTUS decision in the South Dakota vs, Wayfair case from back in 2018. And remember, the vaults aren't doing anything wrong. It is the individuals that own the cards who are responsible and potentially liable in these cases. And whereas states don't mind pushing against big companies, like Wayfair and Amazon, when it comes to sales tax law changes like in that 2018 SCOTUS decision, this issue would be pushing against individuals and going after use tax they owe. States don't have the time and resources to go after all those people for the somewhat nominal amounts each of them would potentially owe. And for the states to change sales tax laws to somehow make vaults, AHs, or other online sellers responsible in this particular case would entail some rather profound changes to sales tax laws in general, and could even lead to issues and conflicts between states. Also, big companies don't vote, people do. Tax authorities potentially going after all the individuals in a state (who can vote) usually doesn't make them very happy with elected officials who let those tax authorities come after them. The SCOTUS decision didn't really change any sales tax laws. All it did was redefine the definition of when a seller was responsible to collect and remit sales tax on sales to customers in a particular state, which is known as "nexus".

Mmmmmmm, not exactly. Under old laws, sales tax was only collected by sellers who had a physical presence in a state in which they made a sale. That physical presence gave them what is known as "nexus" in that particular state then to be responsible for collecting and remitting sales tax on sales to customers in that state. This was from back in the days before the internet and online sales. So back then, if you bought something through a catalog or magazine from an out of state seller who had no physical presence in your state, they had no sales tax nexus in your state and wouldn't charge you sales tax. And then under the "use tax" part of your state's sales and use tax laws, you were supposed to send what you should have been charged as sales tax on that purchase to your state yourself as "use tax". But virtually no individuals ever do. Truth is, the states primarily use the "use tax" part of sales tax laws to go after big businesses that would buy machinery, equipment, and such, and have it shipped to them from out of state suppliers with no sales tax nexus in the state the items were being shipped to.

However, when you go into a store and buy something there, that is where you physically take possession and ownership of an item, and that location is where the sales tax is based on and paid, not where you might live or be taking the purchased item to. You cannot generally charge someone sales tax twice on the same item, and all the states with sales taxes have agreed to not allow such a double tax to happen. It would be impossible to keep track of anyway. In some states the sales tax is not uniform, and rates can vary by county or region. So if you go visit a friend or relative one county over (that also has a lower sales tax rate), and on the way back you stop and buy some carryout food and drinks in that lower sales tax county to then take home and eat, do you really think any state sales tax agent in their right mind is going to tell you to figure out the additional sales tax you would have paid had you stopped and bought that carryout food in your home county, and be sure to then send that difference to your state as "use tax"? Probably not if they want to keep their job.

And going from state to state is pretty much the same thing. Granted, if you go to the next state to buy say a living room set because they have a lower sales tax rate, your home state might be interested in that because it is probably a more expensive purpose. But the thing is, to my knowledge no state has written into their sales and use tax statutes any de minimus or threshold amount under which they say to not bother with any "use tax" and over which they say you have to calculate and pay any "use tax". The states just don't bother normally even trying to enforce the "use tax" on individuals because of how impossible it is to track and figure it out.

I suspect its Whitehawk Capital Partners that's the regulated financial business. My read of the article is that PWCC has partnered with Whitehawk. Its similar to the way a car dealer might use a financing company to offer car loans. In that scenario the finance company is the one doing the lending. Thebthe dealer benefits because they can sell more cars and they probably get a fee from the financing company for every loan .

G@ry G01db3rg

Stupid question…. How do these companies set up these vaults? Has anyone seen one? Is it a real bank style vault in a secure location? Or is the use of the word vault just a descriptive term?

This got me curious too!
Went on PWCC's site & here is their "Vault" Link

https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/vault

Assuming for a moment that this isn't a stock photo, I find it interesting that their vault has a floor to ceiling window.

EDIT:Never mind, that appears to be a reflection.

Possibly I didn't read it closely enough I was thinking whitehawk was an investor in PWCC and was providing capital for them to use.

So let’s say for a moment there’s a business involved in large dollar transactions on behalf of customers who reside in a high sales tax state. And that business is even so cheeky as to actively advertise to customers to use their service to avoid paying sales tax. Let’s assume for a moment that for a particularly tax-happy state, the lost revenue adds up to 5% of the state budget for any given year.

Query:

1) what are the odds that the state will care?
2) what are the odds that the state will go after the business whose marketing message entices customers to evade sales tax?
3) what kind of penalties and interest might be applied to that situation that the state would seek to recoup from the business that deliberately aided and abetted their customers in evading those sales taxes?
4) what are the criminal penalties that might apply to the business so involved?

Maybe the state won’t care. And maybe no one will ever have to pay in such a situation. But it seems like the risk of the above possibilities has to be a nonzero number. And once that ball gets rolling with the right politician who gets wind of it or the right newspaper that decides to highlight the obvious and flagrant practices here, it could start to pick up momentum fast.

What's a Tua Torkelinni? I was just starting to hear about this Looka guy and that fat china doll, one flapjack away from 4 bills, Zeon. I have 1 of 1 PSA 10's of Jayllon Domingos and Luis Roobert already. They both have 16 names so I'm insulated and covered if they suck donkey balls, which they do.

In the scenario you've outlined...nobody "evaded" taxes, they avoided them. Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is every citizen's right. Nobody is under any obligation to pay more tax than they owe. If the current taxation systems allow someone to pay a lower sales tax in another state....they'd be silly not to avail themselves of the better price.

Now there's a new opportunity for PWCC, they can buy cards for you themselves from third parties so there's no sales tax on the transaction. Pay them a fee and then store it in the vault.

Most people I know using various vault services are flipping. They have 0 desire to actually have the card in hand.

They're prospecting or got something cheap and they're waiting for the right time to sell. It's a middle-man service that works out for how they do the hobby.

It's not how I participate in the $$ side of the hobby, but those people obviously exist and services are going to attempt to target them.

If all you’re doing is shipping the cards to another state, and then immediately re-shipping them to your home state to evade your state’s sales tax, then I don’t think you’re avoiding the sales tax. I think you’re evading it.

When I tried to have cards from my vault sent to my home address in CA, PWCC told me they would have to charge me sales tax unless I could provide them with a CA state resale permit.

Interesting. PWCC isn't making a sale, so I am surprised they feel obligated to do that. I thought sales tax was only collected in connection with a sale.

I agree, dishonest people don’t just take a shower and become clean. I take my business elsewhere.

There you go. Even the good folks at PWCC are above aiding and abetting tax evasion.

And if it also happens to mean that now you're locked into their system, then I guess they won't complain too much about it.

If that's the case, then people have a substantial disincentive to remove their items from the vault. I can see investors deciding to just leave their inventory there, for PWCC to eventually sell for them, rather than having a major AH sell them, factoring in the hit when removed from PWCC's vault.

As far as borrowing money using inventory in the vault as collateral, I wonder what would (will) happen when the market on a lot of stuff takes a corrective dip. Capital calls to restore the collateral percentage?

You would think PWCC would not necessarily use current market prices to value collateral, but who knows.

I wonder how many people are using the vault on the assumption they won't have to pay sales tax, ever, unless they volunteer it.

Has this happened to anyone else? As a friend points out to me, wouldn't this be a huge story in the hobby if the vault no longer avoided sales tax?

Suppose Biff, in Portland Oregon, registers an LLC called "The Weigh Station, LLC." The service he provides collectors and investors is, he weighs their collectibles.

So, you live in CA and ask PWCC to send your $100,000 worth of stuff. PWCC says they'll need to collect about $8,000 for the state of CA for sales tax. You say, no, you want it sent to Biff in Oregon, which has no sales tax. Biff receives your stuff, weighs it, charges you $50.00 plus the cost of shipping, and sends you your stuff along with a note saying how much it weighs. He collects no sales tax since he wasn't involved in a sale - he simply rendered a service (just like PSA does when they grade cards.)

If Biff can weigh and ship 20 packages a day, he can make something north of $250k a year. And all he needs is to live near a post office, or Fedex or UPS outlet, and have a bathroom scale.

There would be no more vault.
.

Terms!
 

Just got an email from PWCC with these details. Maybe not as rich as some had hoped:

Key items in the capital program are our loans and advances.
• Vault Loans – PWCC offers loans on a portfolio's conservative market value, using their trading card assets as collateral. We loan up to 40% of asset value at an interest rate of 1% per month in a 60-day term with optional renewal. A 1% origination fee may apply on these.
• Cash Advances – You can request a cash advance for up to 50% of the conservative market value of items you’re sending to auction. (more possible upon approval)

I'd rather go to crackpot pay-day loan check cashing joint then PWCC.

That's why Travis' comment really surprised me. I mean even if it's only California requiring PWCC to collect taxes on items it ships out of the vault, that is huge.

Is there really that much of a difference at this point?

So an effective interest rate of 12.683% at 40% loan to value, but the real trick is the 1% origination. Lets say you take a 25,000 loan and pay one point ($250) but have to pay the loan back in 60 days, that's another 6% interest over those two months. So you can effectively be paying 18.683% in the first 60 days.

Where do I sign up. As a Lender.
-

Sadly very little.

Two interesting FAQs on the PWCC Vault page.

What happens to my items if PWCC files for bankruptcy?
First, we would like you to rest assured that PWCC is in excellent financial standing. With that said, assets would be returned to their owners in the event of PWCC filing chapter 7. Unless a client's account is in default, or PWCC Capital has a lien against the assets for a loan, PWCC has no claim to ownership of the assets stored in the Vault.

And someone brought up valuations:

How do you determine market value for my item(s)?
We use our algorithm and recent sales data to determine items’ market value.

Wondering what their algorithm is.

I have not used the PWCC's vault but it seems that terms have possibly changed. I have not heard of anyone paying sales tax on their withdrawals once the cards have been seasoned and held by the vault for a certain amount of time. I have heard of administrative fees being paid to PWCC on a withdrawal.

A few more details
 

Not sure if the same deal is being offered to everyone, because the website lists one set of terms, and over email they're telling me some different details.

But over the last couple of days, I've exchanged emails with the lending team, and for those interested, these are the details I've received to date:

The original email details:

• Vault Loans – PWCC offers loans on a portfolio's conservative market value, using their trading card assets as collateral. We loan up to 40% of asset value at an interest rate of 1% per month in a 60-day term with optional renewal. A 1% origination fee may apply on these.
• Cash Advances – You can request a cash advance for up to 50% of the conservative market value of items you’re sending to auction. (more possible upon approval)

My queries over email (and their responses):

Q: Quick question for you about the 60-day loan term outlined below. What does optional renewal mean?

A: It means you can re-up the loan with new terms or you can pay it off in full.

Q: Is it a mutual option, or is it at my sole option?

A: Your sole option.

Q: You mentioned “new terms”. Does this mean that the interest rate get re-priced at then-prevailing rates if I re-up the loan?

A: No response yet.

Some commentary from me:

Obviously for a borrower who is borrowing on a 60-day loan, the paranoia is that the lender won't extend your loan, at which point either you need to come up with the cash to pay it off, or else they sell your cards. Or alternatively, if they do extend the loan, they will only extend it at onerous rates and terms. I'm not planning to use this product myself, but for those who do, I'd be interested in your experience, particularly around renewing the loan when the 60-day term is up.

Complete and utter BS. Whether they claim ownership of the asset they hold is irrelevant. As we found out when Legendary went into BK, unless you perfected a security interest in the assets, even if the bailee claims no ownership of the asset, its unfettered possession of the asset (unlike a safe deposit box, where you have the key that allows access) means that it is all considered part of the BK estate until the court sorts out the creditor claims. You are free to put in a claim in court and try to get the cards back. Good luck with that as an unsecured creditor.

If you are going to let someone hold your cards in a 'vault', take five minutes, spend five bucks, and file a UCC-1 with the secretary of state in the state where the vault is located. Worst case scenario, it is superfluous. Best case, it lets you get your cards back if something goes horribly wrong.

As I've explained before, I don't think the UCC-1 is technically required, but I agree with Adam that it's a good idea and could save a lot of aggravation and avoid risk.

I think if someone has to even think about the what ifs and go to those lengths to protect themselves, they might want to rethink who they are entrusting.

As far as we all know, PWCC is still a target of an FBI investigation. The outcome might be a slap on the wrist but it might not. Who needs to invite headaches into their life trying to get cards back.

For a sec, I thought you were going to dispute their assertion to being in strong financial health.

But I suppose there's the possibility for multiple complete and utter BS elements in any advertising piece. Puffery at its finest.

I would not trust my fate to a judge deciding between members of a pack of squabbling unsecured creditors, not when the cost and effort of protecting myself from that outcome is so minuscule. It is a heck of a lot easier to file a claim to retrieve the property as a secured creditor than it is to slug it out with the rest of the pack of unsecured hyenas.

Yeah, what's that saying about an ounce of prevention?:cool:

Guess this "anonymous" email puts this loan into a different perspective:

https://youtu.be/cBkfheyo-Fc?t=278

I have a vault at home with this bodyguard

Could you imagine a “bank run” on pwcc vault cards? Yikes.

Interesting, thanks for sharing that. Not implausible at all, but would definitely indicate some major business mistakes on a company's part that was making such loans, and didn't fully take into consideration the potential volatile nature of the "assets" being held as collateral. Most banks/lenders like to see at least a 20%, or more, down payment on a home loan so they have a sufficient buffer should they end up having to take back the property and sell it on a defaulted loan to recoup what they lent out. But house and land values are usually somewhat slow to change, and normally do not go down.

One would think that sports cards would be considered a very risky, non-traditional type of collateral, with an extremely volatile value nature. Personally, if it were me running such a company, I would be downright scared to offer a loan on more than say 25%-30% of a sports card's deemed value, and even then I would be constantly worried. I would also think that there would be some clause in such a loan agreement that called for a constant measurement/monitoring of the value of the underlying collateral, and that if it was deemed to fall below a certain level, the borrower would be subject to something similar to a "margin call" that occurs when people borrow against the value of stocks they own, and those stock prices fall below a certain level/price. I've never been involved in such a loan/advance based on sports cards, nor seen any agreement for one, so I don't know exactly what any such lender's specific loan terms may be. Nor if their loan agreements call for them being able to go back against a borrower for the balance of what they're owed if the card(s) used as collateral were sold, but didn't cover the full amount of the loan given out and still owed, plus interest, etc.

If enough people get concerned about their viability that will almost certainly happen.

Does anyone feel like a run on the vault would have the same impact as a run on a bank?

Since the business model is so different, it seems like the impact would be different. I mean, it would definitely reduce their business with people selling from the vault. And it would reduce their ability to basically move stuff from one owner to another within the vault while taking a commission without really doing much. But it’s not like they would run out of cards to give back to their depositors because they’ve loaned them all out.

Plus I suspect that for anyone with a loan against their cards, to get their cards back, they’d need to repay the loan first. So if PWCC is hurting for cash, getting those loans back might actually help their short term cash position.

I am intrigued by the inference in the video clip that loans would be made up to 100% of the sales price. Everything in their marketing materials they’ve sent to me suggests that 40% was the limit. But maybe I’m not eligible for their best loan terms.

Bob, you are spot on. I actually think one could make a very lucrative business out of lending against cards, but it must be done responsibly. First, the loan-to-value (LTV), must be appropriate. 50%-60% may make sense for Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Robinson, but not for modern. Regardless, the strength of the underlying collateral is key to setting an appropriate LTV. Second, the lender needs to underwrite each borrower and make them sign personally on the debt. This way, in the event the collateral is insufficient to cover the loan (plus accrued interest and penalties/cost) you can go after the human who should have net worth. Third, there should be a mechanism to value the collateral regularly and to require either additional collateral or pay down if the loan, if the value of the original collateral declines.

I guess we will find out in time whether there are real issues at PWCC- it will have zero impact on me and my collection. But if there is, expect a run on the Vault, SVB-style and some serious “hobby” fall out. Not fall-out in a bank way - as Nicolo pointed out, this is not cash, it’s cards and they belong to people and should all be in the vault. But fall out from PWCC having to dump all their underwater cards/collateral, further driving down the value of modern cards. And, if the vault closes, some people may need to pay major state sales tax but may not have the cash to do so, especially when they are paying tax on a card they bought for $X that is now worth 30% of $X.

I'd trust her a lot more than PWCC

Lending 100 percent of the value of the collateral or anything close would be incredibly stupid, I don't believe it.

Issue is pwcc allowed shilling to pump these prices up so high even 50% of today's ltv will leave THEM holding the bag.

Its almost self fufilling they lose everything and receive pennies on the dollar after the forced sales on bad loans..

Peter, Nic, Ryan, all excellent points, agree with everyone. If that video is even partially true, that is not a great sign for what may be happening. And Matthew, I think your point was maybe best of all. LOL

And Ted, if what you're suggesting is even partially true, that would demonstrate a level of business stupidity that is not seen very often. I had heard that 40% number before in regard to how much was supposedly going to be loaned against a card's value. But if in some cases it was actually going as high as 100% loan-to-value, that is pure insanity from a business aspect. And is especially and even more so if as you're suggesting, there may have been shilling activities involved in the realization of some of these card values used to then determine and set how much would be loaned. For a potential lender to be a party to assist in the setting of such false, overstated values, to me that would be like playing a business version of Russian roulette. From a business standpoint, you're just asking for it IMO. Should be reeaaallly interesting to see where this may end up leading to.

I'm in private equity real estate loans, it's a simple equation, collateral + risk = rate, term, and loan to value. It's an interesting model to me, no foreclosure since I already am in possession of your collateral, more like a margin call, if the price of your 48 Jackie drops below our agreement and you can't pay the delta within 30 days the card is mine, I'll auction it off and get my money back plus some since I only gave you 50 cents on the dollar. These vaults a smart to only offer 12 month terms since the market is so violate. I would guess fair market rate should be in the 12-14% range and an ltv of 50%, and that's on solid pre-war, modern? Maybe 20%. And when you add the 1% transaction fee the rate of return starts to push the ROR an additional percentage point.

I can see why hedge funds would gladly fund a line like this with that model.

I suspect that terms may vary from shop to shop, and probably over time for any given shop as they tweak their approach. But the terms I heard from PWCC are 40% LTV, 12% annual rate with a 3 month term, with 1-month extensions possible. However, they never did answer my question about who holds the option for the extension.

And I totally agree that the hedgies and private equity guys would make these loans all day long.

Your numbers makes sense, being in the business I would warn collectors to stay clear of this proposition.

That is exactly what I'm thinking and saying as well. What would be really interesting to see is a copy of one of PWCC's actual loan agreements that they have with these borrowers. If they were set up and operating as you mentioned you do in your business Phil, I would initially think the lender (which would be PWCC in this case) is likely not going to end up in any tough or problematic business position at all. But, if there is any truth to this other rumor/commentary about PWCC now needing to get additional funding to cover themselves so they can continue operating, that sends out an entirely different message as to what may be happening in this case, and how it may be affecting PWCC now, and going forward. As I said before, it will be very interesting to see where this may be going.

And Nic's points, and Phil's comeback, again seem to be right on the money as well. The only way I'd ever think of doing something like this, and take a loan against cards I own, would be if I had a chance to acquire an item that I knew was pretty much a slam dunk steal on my part, that I could (and would) quickly flip for a profit, and pay off the loan as soon as I could.

I watched the clip and while there were some questions raised, to me it's nothing more than a guy spreading a rumor. Another thought or explanation could be the lending business for PWCC is so robust, they raised more capital to support that need. I have no information either way but just bringing up another possibility. I'm also not (nor ever) wearing an "I HEART PWCC" t-shirt.

As for lending against the value of cards, I'm sure there's a business there if done properly and I'd bet the returns would be very strong. Whether PWCC is on the good side of it or not isn't for me to say or even guess. I just didn't see any smoking gun w/that 5 minute clip but more a guy w/a youtube page spreading rumors for clicks. Throw some proof and it'll have much more credibility.

I tend to believe it's never as good as it seems and it's never as bad as it seems. Extreme's belief's on either end draw the hype and attention on social media... I tend to think it's somewhere in between. That's being said if you fail to do your own homework prior to engaging you may be setting yourself up for not so pleasant results. The homework I've done on PWCC has informed me enough to never use or consider to use their platform.

Very, very true, Troy. And exactly why I was saying IF these rumors/comments have any truth to them. We'll just have to wait and see if anything else starts coming out about this.

I use PWCC to vault my cards and I use them probably 2-3 times a year to sell off cards for me so that I can buy other cards I want. I know this board is not a huge fan of them and some of the things they have done in the past, and thats fine. To debate the merits of them as company is not the point of the response. I wanted to respond only to provide some factual information based on what I am experiecing as a user of their platform.

PWCC loans out at 50% of the INSURED value on the cards you have within the vault. The value of my vault is mid six figures as of this post and that number updates almost daily based on current market sales. The insured value on at least my cards seems to historically low. As I said above, I sell typically 2 or 3 times a year and sell about 10-18K in cards at a time. What I have experienced is that the insured values on my cards tend to be 15-25% lower than the realized prices on those same cards via auctions.

I hope this information provides some of you value.

Edit to add: I have never taken a loan against cards or borrowed money from PWCC or anyone else for that matter, so I can not speak to repayment terms, etc.

Thanks Matt. It’s helpful to have real info rather than speculation, and as Troy pointed out, who knows how accurate that video is, if at all.

Personally, I think 50% of value is a decent LTV on more stable cards; not sure I would lend on that LTV with more modern/speculative stuff. I mean, I still simply do not understand why/how a Luka Doncic or a Justin Herbert rookie (even if it’s a numbered RPA or whatever) can be viewed as valuable as a m101-4/5 Ruth.

a big concern for me would be death. not all of our family/wives are aware of the collection… so how hard would it be to retrieve it after.

I take everything from Sports Card Radio with a grain of salt. Which is to say, I don't believe a damn word he ever says without actual evidence. He has repeatedly proven himself to be full of sh!t. This "anonymous" source is probably either some random troll from Blowhard or just himself making stuff up to get a rise.

I have first-hand experience with taking "loans" from PWCC (in my case, I wasn't borrowing money against cards in my vault, but rather taking an advance on cards I had already consigned for auction, but it's the same process). This is how it works. First, they appraise your cards and assign an insurance value to them. These values are always low. In some cases, extremely low (one of my cards was insured for $10k, but sold for $18k at auction the following week). If you have cards that you want to take a loan against, you have to put in a loan request for the amount you wish to receive. You are allowed to request up to 50% of the insured value for items in your vault, and up to 75% for cards that have already sold in one of their auctions, but for which you have not yet received payment (normally, it takes about 2 1/2 weeks to receive payment, but you can escalate some of those proceeds if approved - in my case, it was free of charge. I did not have to pay any fees or interest since my cards were already submitted to auction. However, there are fees if you just want to take a loan out on cards sitting in your vault, of course). After you submit your request, it then gets reviewed by a team of underwriters. They will typically send you a counteroffer for less than you've requested (so if you requested the full 50% LTV against the conservatively appraised cards in your vault, you will probably get countered for something like 35% instead. When it's all said and done, their actual exposure is probably somewhere around 25-30% of a card's actual market value when a loan is approved. Unless that's for a card that has already sold and awaiting payment, in which case they'll approve a higher amount as mentioned.

As far as a "bank run on the vault" is concerned, all that would do is cause a shipping backlog at PWCC. Even if they went bankrupt, everyone would still get all of their cards back. Unless they've taken loans out against those cards of course, in which case, PWCC obviously reserves the right to auction those cards to recover any funds owed to them.

I had a discussion with SCR on Blowout where it was clear he did not understand the first fucking thing about the PSA guarantee, but was dismissing all my correct statements about it with LOLs and inane observations. Bad combination of ignorance and arrogrance.

He's the trolliest of trolls in this hobby. Fun for entertainment purposes I suppose, but anyone getting their "news" from him isn't someone I'm interested in having a long conversation with.

Yeah he is a self-appointed expert (and he is anything but an expert) and he is always feuding with that other moron who runs Sports Card Investor on youtube. Both are perfect examples of horrible content and spreading misinformation but they both have a huge following.

I think they're brothers, right?