CBC News story comparing Canadian home prices to baseball cards valuations
 

Overvalued housing prices and how to read them:
Looking for signs of an overvalued property market? Read on

By Don Pittis, CBC News Posted: Jan 13, 2015 5:00 AM ET

Don Pittis


I was reading about baseball cards over the Christmas holidays and it made me think of Canadian houses.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/over...ttis-1.2898003

Interesting read. Despite having to translate from a foreign language (e.g., favour to favor). :D Thanks!

There have been a rash of these articles recently discussing the "baseball card bubble"and all of them are flawed, this one included. The one example the author gives is the T206 Wagner (although unnamed) that Gretzky purchased for $500,000 in the early 90s. Guess what? It's worth a heck of a lot more than that now. If you bought a house in the 90s for $500K that sells for $4M now you'd have made a fantastic investment!

These articles all mistakenly conflate the saturation of the modern baseball card market in the 90s with the idea that baseball cards are not worth anything anymore. It is a flawed premise. Those cards were never worth much -- no one should have invested in early 90s cards thinking they were going to get rich. As a teenager I knew then it was foolish as they just kept printing more.

But investing in vintage cards then would have been highly lucrative and it remains a solid investment (although very few of us do this for the investment aspect).

Stop comparing risky financial ventures to baseball cards! It doesn't compare.

Big +1...well said, Andrew.

So-called "journalists" are so incredibly lazy today that they could not be bothered to research a thing. This guy just bootstraps off an Economist story written by another lazy "journalist" who got the premise wrong too.

And you are right - it is HILARIOUS that he uses the Gretzky/McNall Wagner as an example in his poorly-researched (really no research at all) story, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the card proved to be a fantastic investment over this time period.

What a joke!!!

Cheers,
Blair

Brian this a interesting read. My wife is addicted to HGTV's Love it or List it which is based in Canada.

I love Canada, great national anthem but we often look at each and say "Wow those prices are high." You could buy a mansion here in the south for a row house price in Toronto!

As a real estate broker in ny and a collector i dont see any similarity between cards and houses. For many reasons.

A card is what it is. Meaning a t205 sgc 3 cobb is just that. Its value will vairy depending on the buyer and the overall economy.

A house in neighboorhood abc's value will be based on comps, how the area is or has changed, how the school preforms, if the owners have kept the house up, added new kitchens, baths etc, or let the house get old. Also how are the neighboors? Is it next to a gas station or homless shelter, etc, etc. that t205 cobb will alwys be an sgc 3. Just about the economy, and what collectors are paying for it.

Also we can get into competition. Depending on price range there are many homes available to choose from but as far as t205 cobbs or what ever the card is, its limmited and they arent making any more.

+1. While we may not actually collect for investment purposes because true collectors really don't buy for the purpose of resale later on, I think an item's appreciation potential is often a consideration, just as it should be. Even if you never intend to part with your collection, it will outlive you, and creating an estate for the eventual, ultimate purpose of benefiting others that survive ourselves is always a good thing!

Best regards,

Larry

Agreed. The depth of this gentleman's ignorance of the state of the vintage card market is truly amazing. Might he be a bit surprised to learn that a 1914 Baltimore News Ruth first came out of the [auction] shoot [as far as I am aware] in 1989 for $6,000, or that the M-101 Ruth rookie booked for $1800 or so in near mint in 1990? This is simply an exercise in lazy, careless journalism by someone who hasn't the faintest clue of what the term "due diligence" means.

Best always,

Larry