Brent has left PWCC

[Peter_Spaeth]

According to reports I have seen Fanatics informed employees via email. It wasn't that long ago he reportedly was offered an astonishing total by Fanatics to sell but turned it down. Evidently he also made terrible decisions to loan millions against cards at the very top of the market with the result that PWCC was worth one dollar at the end. A stunning fall.

[Jay Wolt]

So Brent walked away with nothing?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

So Brent walked away with nothing?

Perhaps he was paid some salary or severance, but received only his share of one dollar for the sale of the company itself.

[Snowman]

I call BS. Zero chance he walked away with nothing. Brent would rather watch it fail and crumble to the ground than walk away with nothing. Don't believe everything you hear. Brent got paid.

[G1911]

Anyone have a source for the price paid, $1 or a lot?

[Michael B]

I have no opinions one way or the other and everything is anecdotal. According to ESPN:

Despite PWCC layoffs in late April that eliminated roughly 25% of its workforce, Fanatics has announced that "all of PWCC's 125 employees" will move over, though it's not immediately clear how PWCC's platform will be utilized or integrated.

It's believed, according to sources close to the deal, that the acquisition will prove beneficial to the still-to-come Fanatics Live, a live shopping platform and commerce service for collectors. Fanatics Live, expected to launch in the second half of 2023, will focus on money-pooled case and box breaks to start.

According to Cardlines:

We don’t know the exact sum of the sale. But according to a source familiar with the deal, it was executed at a meager price. This will surprise no one since PWCC has been in serious trouble for a while now.

In April, the company fired one-quarter of its workforce, a total of 30 workers. Reportedly, none of those fired received any severance pay. That is both an indication of the ethically challenged practices of PWCC and a sign of their financially troubled position.

In an internal statement, PWCC assured their remaining employees that the move was designed to “restructure and streamline PWCC into increasingly efficient, technical, and data-driven departments.”

But many of their workers were understandably not feeling reassured. However, Fanatics’s company purchase will provide a much-needed cash infusion for PWCC.

While PWCC was in financial trouble, that doesn’t mean Rubin got to name his price. According to sources, Collectors Universe and at least one potential buyer were in the mix to purchase the vaulting and auctions company.

Indeed, Collectors Universe may have been pretty close to making a deal. Therefore, the price was probably not optimal from the perspective of Fanatics.

[Johnny630]

The true story may never be told....many side deals behind closed doors take place on the DL in this industry, that's life...the truth lies somewhere between. Either way I can say his impact on the Industry over the past 15 years has been massive.....right, wrong, or indifferent he has exited stage left for now. Many in this Hobby/Industry are akin to toenail fungus they go away, remain dormant, but always come back in some way shape or form.....stay tunned.

[mrreality68]

I agree I cannot picture Brent walking away with nothing.

For all the problems PWCC had and despite what many people thought about the company many many people were using it.

IT has a variety of values including its Data Base of customers both sellers and buyers.

What that value is and what he was paid I do not know. Hope we all find out

[Jay Wolt]

Wonder if all the vault users want their stuff now

[Exhibitman]

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

Wonder if all the vault users want their stuff now

I would think they are in a better position since the acquisition. Also, with the change at top, it puts a bit more legit (to me) perspective on PWCC. I haven't bid in their auctions in years but will now start to do so.
.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jay Wolt

Wonder if all the vault users want their stuff now

I would think they are in a better position since the acquisition. Also, with the change at top, it puts a bit more legit (to me) perspective on PWCC. I haven't bid in their auctions in years but will now start to do so.
.

[Snapolit1]

Could easily see some package whereby he runs the company into the ground and then the new owners pay him a handsome no show consulting contract for a few years. Seen that a million times.

I had one direct incident with him and he was an obnoxious blowhard.

Also remember one National where he was taking a lot of heat and he was nowhere to be seen. But his wife was manning the tables. Tells you a lot about someone. Always looked to me like an overgrown weasel.

[glynparson]

He didn’t walk
Away with nothing if fanatics took up any debts pwcc had. I have heard everything Peter posted is true. If he had let it go under he’d have lost more than selling it for a buck and having them assume all debts. It’s not the first time a deal like this has taken place in this hobby. One of the boards favorite conpanies was acquired in a similar fashion. Letting it go under would have cost him more than he could lose from everything I hear from people that know the principles and are familiar with the deal. I don’t know if it’s true for sure but it is absolutely what I have heard.

[bobbyw8469]

Bear in mind I am an idiot, but I would think letting people borrow money against baseball cards might not have been the smartest move that they pulled off.

[Snapolit1]

Sounds just like the kind of dude Id want holding my $350,000 “asset” in his personal vault. Yep.

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Sounds just like the kind of dude Id want holding my $350,000 in his personal vault. Yep.

Funny, very few people have actually admitting using the vault. Odd.

[parkplace33]

Whatever the case, Brent is still sitting pretty. And don't worry, he will pop up elsewhere. They always do.

[Brian Van Horn]

One interesting coincidence for me and this in no way shape or form involves Leon:

The Monday it was announced that PWCC was sold I no longer was prompted to use a sign in screen and enter my password for Net54.

[Brian Van Horn]

Now, on a separate idea. I just hope that Brent Huigens and Bill Mastro never get together on a behind the scenes running of collecting.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Whatever the case, Brent is still sitting pretty. And don't worry, he will pop up elsewhere. They always do.

Like Whack-a-mole

[Yoda]

Can only imagine that Fantastics valued PWCc's 'good will' at zero. Wonder why?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Could easily see some package whereby he runs the company into the ground and then the new owners pay him a handsome no show consulting contract for a few years. Seen that a million times.

I had one direct incident with him and he was an obnoxious blowhard.

Also remember one National where he was taking a lot of heat and he was nowhere to be seen. But his wife was manning the tables. Tells you a lot about someone. Always looked to me like an overgrown weasel.

It's funny, as many issues as I had with him, and of course he knew it, our interactions were always pleasant.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Funny, very few people have actually admitting using the vault. Odd.

I think it's mostly modern guys.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Could easily see some package whereby he runs the company into the ground and then the new owners pay him a handsome no show consulting contract for a few years. Seen that a million times.

I had one direct incident with him and he was an obnoxious blowhard.

Also remember one National where he was taking a lot of heat and he was nowhere to be seen. But his wife was manning the tables. Tells you a lot about someone. Always looked to me like an overgrown weasel.

I was at that National and remember it well. Brent was in hiding for most of the show, while Betsy was thrown to the wolves. It was basically Betsy and a 300 lb. security gorilla manning the booth.

It was a very busy National, but the PWCC booth was almost abandoned, with the only visitors being people who wanted up-close and personal views of some highly graded altered cards in PSA holders. People were closely scrutinizing all the 8s, 9s and 10s - all offering their own theories of how and where the alterations appeared most evident.

It was truly a disgrace, but I suppose most collectors have short memories (provided the number on the flip suits them).

[G1911]

So we have an anonymous ‘source close to the deal’ credited as saying it was a “meager price”. Nothing for $1.

Brett fanboys having no source at all, they just can’t imagine their favorite fraudster losing.

Good stuff.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

So we have an anonymous ‘source close to the deal’ credited as saying it was a “meager price”. Nothing for $1.

Brett fanboys having no source at all, they just can’t imagine their favorite fraudster losing.

Good stuff.

I have a couple of corroborating anonymous on the $1 but I know that doesn't persuade anyone. Of course if it includes debt forgiveness it's really semantics, you could say it's $1 plus the debt.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Can only imagine that Fantastics valued PWCc's 'good will' at zero. Wonder why?

Logistics. They bought an existing vault with staff and inventory already in hand. No need to reinvent the wheel and no need to reacquire the customers. When you compare the outlay needed to build, establish and staff a new facility, picking up PWCC was probably a cheaper means of getting a vault. It's the T. Boone Pickens theory of oil exploration: why spend $50 a barrel drilling for oil when you can buy the stock of a company with proven reserves at the equivalent of $35 a barrel?

[Lorewalker]

To the skeptics, details on deals like these are never disclosed but typically in this hobby when some details start to circulate they are closer to the truth than fiction. So while ya might want concrete info, it does not mean it did not go down as suggested.

Everyone now knows the company was in trouble over lending issues and possibly or seemingly close to insolvency. The $1 paid is likely what was paid with some incentives to Brent.

That Brent is gone when just 3 months ago he gave this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMdXQNQkbpc interview that indicated a great deal of passion and a vision for his company, an exit would be the last thing I would think he was wanting. Think the shit hit the fan over there.

The irony of this interview is that early on he talks about his departure from Engineering to build PWCC and his inspiration was seeing all these PhD's he was surrounded by run companies into the ground. What a difference 3 months makes...

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by glynparson

He didn’t walk away with nothing if fanatics took up any debts pwcc had. I have heard everything Peter posted is true. If he had let it go under he’d have lost more than selling it for a buck and having them assume all debts. It’s not the first time a deal like this has taken place in this hobby. One of the boards favorite conpanies was acquired in a similar fashion. Letting it go under would have cost him more than he could lose from everything I hear from people that know the principles and are familiar with the deal. I don’t know if it’s true for sure but it is absolutely what I have heard.

You hit it on the head.

If he sold it for dollar but had all liabilities assumed, he honestly made out like a bandit. The outstanding loan catalog can easily be imagined to be in the realm of 8 to 9 figures at the speed they were moving. The original financing approved was for 175 million. Who knows the default percentage both current and future of that idea with current devaluation of collateral. If the devalued assets are the written collateral, it would completely make sense to walk from those debts.

https://sportscollectorsdigest.com/n...it-175-million

If they had moved to any bankruptcy, additional lawsuits to protect personal property outside the business LLC from creditors would have cost a ton to litigate...win or lose. The financing aspect would not include the additional civil possibilities for any other scandal if it should surface either.

Thinking he got a big payday seems illogical. Thinking he received an incredible super-sized life preserver would be logical and one hell of a win.

[ValKehl]

With Brent's quick departure, I don't see the company name PWCC lasting much beyond Labor Day.

[jbsports33]

Time to move on! not surprised by the move, another year with hobby stories about PWCC - maybe Fanatics will change the name

Happy collecting everyone!

Jimmy

[parkplace33]

Originally Posted by ValKehl

With Brent's quick departure, I don't see the company name PWCC lasting much beyond Labor Day.

I would have thought they would have changed the name by today, but we shall see.

[nolemmings]

I wonder if the new ownership and shedding of Brent will allow the company to re-enter the Ebay world.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I wonder if the new ownership and shedding of Brent will allow the company to re-enter the Ebay world.

Their excuse for getting rid of them was kinda weak. Do you think Probstein can prevent their consignors from bidding on their own items? How about other sellers?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Their excuse for getting rid of them was kinda weak. Do you think Probstein can prevent their consignors from bidding on their own items? How about other sellers?

The ebay claim was that persons affiliated with PWCC were doing the shill bidding.

[Jay Wolt]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I wonder if the new ownership and shedding of Brent will allow the company to re-enter the Ebay world.

If they change their name & became a new company, their shouldn't be any problem re-joining ebay

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have a couple of corroborating anonymous on the $1 but I know that doesn't persuade anyone. Of course if it includes debt forgiveness it's really semantics, you could say it's $1 plus the debt.

Exactly; Brent wins, by not losing.

Fanatics takes over PWCC's debt, he saves what he already has.

Steve

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ens-part-ways/

[Lorewalker]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...ens-part-ways/

Mutual and no other details? Oh ok. I would say it was anything but amicable but I could be wrong.

[chalupacollects]

Basically, Fanatics got all of the info they need from him and then cut him loose. Happens all the time in business mergers. Show me the ropes and clear out your office please...

[trambo]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Funny, very few people have actually admitting using the vault. Odd.

I had some tobacco cards in there for awhile but decided against having anything in there earlier this year. Now if I happen to win anything in their auction, they're not in the vault for very long at all.

I do like the idea of a vault and all of its benefits. You just have to be sure you trust the vaultmaster and in the PWCC case, well.....I emptied my vault..haha!

[nolemmings]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Exactly; Brent wins, by not losing.

Fanatics takes over PWCC's debt, he saves what he already has.

Steve

I am not at all clear on the debt situation, but unless the debt was literally forgiven-- a tax event--he likely has co-liability, whether primary or secondary. I suppose the debt could have been paid off as part of the transaction, in which case he basically did get paid. Otherwise, I assume that he has indemnification or reimbursement rights in the event Fanatics defaults on the debt, but that still leaves him on the hook while the debt remains owing; i.e. I doubt he was completely released. I also assume that he signed personal guaranties on these debts, or else he has no exposure absent fraud or similar skullduggery.

Finally, I am uncertain what what was meant in the original post. Loaning money against undersecured assets (overvalued cards) does not create debt for Brent-- it just adversely impairs collectability for him. So long as his borrowers are current on repayment and don't default, there is nothing to see, even if he used those loans as collateral to get his own, provided there is no provision that allows his lender a right to call its loan due upon the occurrence of certain events.

This is one of those days where I'm just a step or so behind on my thinking. Hopefully others can make it simpler for me.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by nolemmings

I am not at all clear on the debt situation, but unless the debt was literally forgiven-- a tax event--he likely has co-liability, whether primary or secondary. I suppose the debt could have been paid off as part of the transaction, in which case he basically did get paid. Otherwise, I assume that he has indemnification or reimbursement rights in the event Fanatics defaults on the debt, but that still leaves him on the hook while the debt remains owing; i.e. I doubt he was completely released. I also assume that he signed personal guaranties on these debts, or else he has no exposure absent fraud or similar skullduggery.

Finally, I am uncertain what what was meant in the original post. Loaning money against undersecured assets (overvalued cards) does not create debt for Brent-- it just adversely impairs collectability for him. So long as his borrowers are current on repayment and don't default, there is nothing to see, even if he used those loans as collateral to get his own, provided there is no provision that allows his lender a right to call its loan due upon the occurrence of certain events.

This is one of those days where I'm just a step or so behind on my thinking. Hopefully others can make it simpler for me.

Many of them walked away from their loans, is my understanding. That created (bad) debt because of the money lent not being repaid .
.
.

[Snapolit1]

Likely he went from an extremely wealthy dude to a regular wealthy dude. There are worse fates in life.

[bobbyw8469]

Originally Posted by Leon

Many of them walked away from their loans, is my understanding. That created (bad) debt because of the money lent not being repaid .
.
.

Correct...and now they held cards whose values dropped lower than what the money loaned out was.

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Leon

Many of them walked away from their loans, is my understanding. That created (bad) debt because of the money lent not being repaid .
.
.

So Brent took all the money they had and called it a loan or dispersement (depending on how many owners they had) which basically left just the tax to pay on it. I’m sure he was making an attempt to pay back the company 1.5 percent a year to keep it legal, based on his lawyer advice. In many ways it’s a lot better than paying yourself a big Salary. Maybe for Brents next adventure he can do something with Bill Mastro and conquer a different industry. What ever happened to the FBI investigation to?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Correct...and now they held cards whose values dropped lower than what the money loaned out was.

Sounds like what a lot of commercial lenders are experiencing in office buildings. They prefer to carry the non-performing loans on their books rather than realize the losses. Brent probably did not have that option.

[Oscar_Stanage]

The loans were ultimately made to customers with cards in the vault. The way asset based lending works, there is a steep haircut relative to the card price. If a customer had $100k market value of cards in the vault, they were likely only able to borrow $60k, maybe less. It’s unclear to me what exposure PWCC had as a firm. The hedge fund provides the capital for PWCC to tap for lending. If the borrower defaults, PWCC simply sells the cards in possession and pays back the hedge fund. In all likelihood , the hedge fund is the direct counterparty to the customer and PWCC simply stands in the middle and collects a fee with no risk. The beauty is that PWCC holds the assets, so the only risk to the hedge fund is that the price falls below the haircut value.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Oscar_Stanage

If a customer had $100k market value of cards in the vault, they were likely only able to borrow $60k, maybe less. .

I’d be really surprised if it was close to 60%. Hell, once the dust settles on an AH consignment, a seller is generally lucky to see 2/3 of FMV.