What do you guys think about..........Cardtarget

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

http://www.cardtarget.com/cgi-bin/index.cgi>

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

A card isn't a company; Why would I want to own a fractional share of a card that I never get to touch?

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

This is really dumb. It's the same principle as the stock market, which unless you buy a stock that gives dividends isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Stocks are shares of a company but what say do you have, same as the these card stocks. If people really took a hard look at the stock market and what it really was, it would all crash. Save your money and buy a card you can afford and hold. That's the real deal not a worthless piece of paper that says you own shares in something. My two cents.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jay Miller

There are many factors to consider in looking at this:

1-Are you an investor or a collector-If an investor go on

2-Will high grade(read expensive) vintage cards outperform lower value cards--If so go on

3-Is the fee for performing this service reasonable-If so go on

If you are at this point maybe it is worth looking into this further. Not for me but possibly for others. Funds invest in alot of things from stocks to commodities to real estate. This is effectively a fund investing in a diversified portfolio of high grade baseball cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

Has anyone checked out the cards they are selling shares of? A bunch of cr_p. If anyone but the owners of this site make money I'll eat my entire collection.

[Archive]

Posted By: Tom Boblitt

few stocks even pay a dividend anymore but just eliciting some responses. This guy came over here a while back asking about vintage cards. Don't know if anyone remembers him. He was asking about scarcity, grading and some other issues in the vintage cards market.

His 'Cardtarget' market is pretty slick otherwise. I have followed it a little and they trade the 'Etopps' cards. Not a good market for them in particular but this guy has this secondary market where you can buy and trade them and it's pretty slick. Just wondering where it will all go....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

But not for most on this board, I don't think. I would rather own a $10-$20 vintage card (Obak, strip, lower grade T card etc..) than a piece of paper showing I own part of a card locked up somewhere else...Sounds sort of crazy to me....but then again so did "pet rocks".....

[Archive]

Posted By: Kevin Cummings

Fractional shares of items that are very expensive and you want to share might make sense in some areas (airplanes; vacation condos), but I think fractional shares of sports memorabilia makes no sense at all.

Since most of us treat card collecting as a hobby and not as an investment, physical possession of what we hunt for is the name of the game.

It might sound selfish, but if I can afford a $100,000 card, I don't want to share it with anyone else (at least in terms of letting them own it part of the time). And if I'm going to spend $X for something, I want it to be something I can hold any time I want.

[Archive]

Posted By: jackgoodman

Didn't the founder of PSA originally try to do something like this - selling securities backed by portfolios of "investment grade" cards? Didn't go anywhere then as I remember.

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

Im really surprised that no one is jumping all over the "stocks arent worth more than the paper they are written on" statement. Its just plain wrong. By that same token, since the US no longer recognizes the gold standard, paper money is worth no more than the paper its written on either. Yet we all recognize that paper money has value.

[Archive]

Posted By: Max Weder

Perhaps someone with US securities law background can comment: is there any issue here about publicly selling security interests not by way of prospectus or offering memorandum? The numbers may be small enough that there is an exemption or perhaps no regulatory body would care, but it did strike me as a question to ask.

Max

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

I'm only a law student but it seems to me that under a Howey analysis, card target would be considered offering a security and must register with the SEC. In short, a Howey analysis states that something is a security if:

1. there is an investment of money
2. in a common enterprise
3. with the expectation of profits
4. derived solely from the efforts of others

In the actual Howey case, for example, fractual ownership of an orange grove was found to be a security and as such, needed to register with the SEC before being legal...

Edited to add that I believe the minimum number of investors needed is either 9 or 15.

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

That argument about stocks not paying dividends being worthless is just laughably ignorant.

I do recall that this was done with coins a while back. Many portfolios of fine coins were created and as I recall some municipalities lost money and got in hot water for investing in groups of overgraded coins. I think Bruce McNall was involved in some of them.

To me, this site is purely an investment vehicle so unless they have some prospectus and some proven history in the securities business I woudn't look into it, even if I was interested in investing in baseball cards.

(edited to add a missing and)

[Archive]

Posted By: Josh K.

ok, Jon - this is completely off point, but Ive got to ask - how does a law student afford a classic car collection, a jag and a vintage bb card collection? (actually, please dont feel any obligation to respond to this - I just know when I was in law school I was lucky to scrap up some cash for pizza).

[Archive]

Posted By: Chris Mc

If you have stock you own a piece of paper that has a worth of only what another party is willing to pay for it. I have a opinion and have stated it as I see it. You don't have to agree. I have invested in tangible assets and have done well. I view stocks not as tangible assets but as pieces of paper that state I hold a share of a company. This type of investing holds no interest for me. I think calling my view as "ignorant" is a little over the top but you are entitled your own opinion.
Best to all, Chris

[Archive]

Posted By: dstudeba

I called the opinion ignorant because a stock has more than a paper value. It is backed by the assets of the company. If you liquidated the company whatever you are left with would be divided up amoung the shareholders. Therefore in most cases as a shareholder even if no one was willing to buy your shares, it would still have a value. Also if the stock was not liquid the shareholders would most likely force the company to pay a dividend creating a cash stream of "more" tangible value.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

This has gotten off topic. I think stock market discussions should be done via private e-mails.

[Archive]

Posted By: Derek

Does this mean if you buy 51% of the card that you can have full posetion? HAHA, Ill buy it for 3k and ask for my rights!!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Investing in a bread basket of cards is an interesting idea, but I would be less concerned with whether the cards are a good investment and more with who these guys are that you are sending your money. I think all of us are pretty knowledgable about the card market and I think any one of us could pick some quality cards that have a reasonable chance of increasing in value. What do these guys know that we don't already know ourselves?

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

went broke in part on coin schemes and some crooked pols in Ohio will be seeing the inside of jail cells in part on the same.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

According to the site, Rickie Weeks cards (or shares thereof, or something or other) are available @ $7.61 and Kirk Hinrichs @ $3.00. I don't think I'm part of their target audience. And I'm pretty happy about it, too. I'll stick with Babe Adams and Fred Merkle.

edited for spelling

[Archive]

Posted By: Richard Masson

Not that a municipality should do such a thing, but had they possessed more staying power, they would have been the richest county in America.

There is no discernible difference between being right too soon and being wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Since Mr.Cardtarget, I would use your name but don't know it, wants more exposure, and is trying to be helpful, I figured I would shoot this back to the top. best regards.....

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

never wrong, only early

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Why not just cut up the card into little squares and insert them into packs of new cards? At least this way you actually have a piece of the card rather than a piece of paper that really isn't worth much more than the paper.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: steve f

His post a year ago, when he was looking for advice from collectors;

Mike Masinick
CardTarget.com

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

What they are doing appears to be issuing unregistered securities and conducting an illegal security trading enterprise. Under many state laws a security is very broadly defined to include virtually any kind of transferable share or investment contract, which is what this appears to be.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I am not sure he want's to hear that. Can you just send a check for a piece of paper showing you own part of a card, or is it shares in part of a card? It really looks like they spent a lot of time conjuring this up...

[Archive]

Posted By: Cardtarget

Apparently I'm allowed to post here Leon? Note that I never posted this or responded in this thread. In fact, I didn't even know this thread existed until 5 minutes ago. My name is Mike Masinick.

Here's the deal:

If CardTarget isn't for you, that's fine. I certainly respect that many of you have MUCH more experience dealing with vintage cards than we do. If you have the cash to spend at Mastronet auctions and the time to do the research and you enjoy your collection, you are not our target audience. No hurt feelings, I completely understand!

To understand why/how CardTarget works you have to understand a lot about where we came from. Most of our users are people who got into eTopps cards. For those of you that don't know, eTopps cards are made by the Topps company and are stored in their "vault" and bought and sold online. That whole concept was modeled after the stock market and started back in 2000.

For the most part, eTopps cards lost a lot of value. Many people lost a lot of money by purchasing these eTopps cards for $9.50 from Topps and then they can only sell them for $2 a few months later. The weird thing is, they kept buying them for $9.50. Why? Because the concept of eTopps is very fetching to a lot of people in the internet generation. Being able to speculate, buy and sell, have no shipping, etc was perfect for a lot of people looking for a hobby they could enjoy at work, at home, and on the road without having to make daily trips to the post office and have closets full of cards and a nagging wife asking them why they have a full basement.

Fast forward 5 years and here we are. CardTarget has taken a lot of the negative things about eTopps and replaced them with a "marketplace" where you are buying a share in a card that likely isn't going to drop in value. You can build a collection of solid high grade stuff as long as you can sacrifice the ability to pick it up and look at it every morning. This is not an investment opportunity... It's an avenue for a new class of collector. It bears saying again that CardTarget was never intended for members of this message board. But I very much appreciate the help I've received from many of you. I will now change my username since it is apparently met with aggression from the moderator. It was not my intention to invade this forum or use it for any advertising purpose. In fact, I'd prefer you all stay away from CardTarget for a few months until we streamline the processes and get the market to a more advanced state. =)

Feel free to email me with any questions. mike@cardtarget.com

Bottom line: Many people enjoy it and it provides them an outlet and a community. You might not be one of them, but don't discourage those of us who do enjoy online collecting from getting into vintage cards. It's all in the name of enjoyment.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Fair enough....good luck with it...and no I wasn't being aggressive. I asked not to hijack a different thread and you responded after that. I deleted it because I had asked not to do that. This thread is fine and you have explained yourself. You're right. It's not for most on this board but maybe there is an audience somewhere.... Most on this board like to fondle and smell our cards , at least I do.....

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

But when a business offers the general public a chance to buy into a pool of investment items, I think you are securitizing the investment items and it has to be registered under local and possibly Federal securities laws. Totally different than a bunch of people deciding to acquire an item as co-owners. And, if you were to form a business entity to own an item, you'd have to register it with the state under either its securities laws or an exemption to them.

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

I noticed that he sidestepped the legal issue brought up by Adam. Although I have zero interest in ever getting involved with them, I certainly like to hear what have to say about what Adam brought up. He might even pick up a few customers if cleared up any legal concerns.

Jay

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

We passed our whole business plan through a team of lawyers before we began. While the laws are always, of course, open to interpretation, it is unlikely that the SEC would reasonably consider sports cards to be a "security" in their sense of the word.

A security that the SEC deals with is a share in a business sold to raise funds for the business or to raise funds for a certain project. While some of you may have expectation of future results for sports cards and the word "investment" is thrown around, that is not how they are marketed by us or any of the CURRENT major retailers. They know better than to say that the cards they sell today will be worth more in the future.

The people in our marketplace are purchasing a share of ownership in a physical item. What that item represents to them personally or to the marketplace is irrelevant. It's still a physical item that does not represent anything else (unlike a stock certificate which represents ownership in the profits and losses of an actual company). These physical items may go up or down in perceived "value", but that does not change the physical item in any way or change what they actually own. While we do have clauses in our user agreement for the sale of items, it is unlikely that many of our items will ever leave our marketplace once they enter.

That said, we have made our marketplace as transparent as we possibly can. You'll know exactly how many shares any of the big holders of an item have before making your purchase and we do our best to make all of the information necessary to make an informed decision available to everybody. This is what the SEC is in place to make sure of... and even though we don't feel we are covered by the Securities acts of 1933 and 1934, we will do our best to give the market users any information requested in accordance with those documents.

You're buying part of a sports card. That's it. We wrap it into a nice interface to make it more fun, pretty, and interesting and give users the look and feel of stock trading software, but it's still a sports card. Wayne Gretzky would be proud.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

I guess the most important issue is whether we are selling "investments" or selling parts of a sports card. You can argue that the reason people buy sports cards is an investment. But a more logical person, and I'd think most of you would agree, would think that people buy sports cards as a hobby and then if they happen to go up in value, that's great. We're selling the hobby, just packaged differently.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark

The investors have a lot of faith in the site's integrity. They can't view the cards in person (except for the possiblity that a few of the cards may be brought to shows in the future). So it takes some faith to believe that the cards were purchased in the first place when the IPO raises thousands of dollars for the site's owners. It also takes some faith to believe that the owner holds on to the cards - the shareholders have no right to receive (or view) the card as they do with etopps. There are no auditors, as there are in the case of stocks, to verify to the continued existence of the assets the certificates represent. It would be relatively easy for an unscrupulous owner to sell the cards (perhaps first resubmitting them to PSA/GAI/SGC first to get a different cert number) say to raise money to defend against an SEC lawsuit. I am sure Mike and the site are 100% honest, I'm just saying this business model requires quite a bit of faith.

[Archive]

Posted By: warshawlaw

The following is cut and pasted from the Cardtarget web site. See how many times the words "share" "investment" "IPO" "value" and "marketplace" appear in this excerpt:

"Welcome to the new CardTarget Marketplace. We're not just eTopps anymore! Today we bring you a new and exciting marketplace that is a first in the collecting industry - the CardTarget partial shares marketplace! Now everybody can afford to purchase high quality investment grade memorabilia and trading cards regardless of your bankroll!

There are many fantastic pieces of sports history out there in private collections that never see the light of day. They are never shared and appreciated by the world because the price is too high for most collectors. We aim to change that by providing a community where, for a fraction of what it would normally cost, you can enjoy the ownership of these great pieces of history.

The new CardTarget "partial shares" marketplace community will purchase high end investment grade memorabilia, cards, autographs, and merchandise at the best possible prices and break them into "shares" at $10 each. Did you ever dream that you could own a Whitey Ford Rookie Graded PSA 9? Maybe you can't... but together as a community, WE can! By bringing together a community of buyers, we can all own sports collectables that DON'T drop in value immediately and will likely increase in value over time!

CardTarget prides itself on quick customer service, safe and transparent transactions, and ease of use. You will see every transaction that happens on the marketplace in real time. You will be able to follow your collection prices based on what you paid for each and every share and see how you're doing. You will be able to research shares, compare prices, read articles, recommend IPO purchases, and even bring your own item into the marketplace! Imagine your online investment account at a stock market broker, but instead of owning 10 shares in Microsoft, you own 10 shares of a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle Rookie Card graded near perfect by PSA!"

I'm sorry, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and has a bill and webbed feet, you can call it what you want but it is still a duck. The web site is touting for sale to the public "shares" of "investments" that it says "DON'T drop in value immediately and will likely increase in value over time". If that isn't a forward-looking statement soliciting an investment in a security, I am not sure what is, regardless of what you want to call it.

[Archive]

Posted By: T206Collector

Adam,

You regularly make very broad statements about what state laws might apply to some set of circumstances in the vintage baseball card world and I would just like to see some proof on this occasion. What state law can you point me to that discusses selling shares of an item that is reasonably close to the definition of a baseball card? How is this much different from http://www.thepit.com/?

Paul

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I'm just wondering- given a choice, why would someone want to purchase a share of baseball card they can't see or touch when it is so easy to own a baseball card and actually hold it in your hand? In the end isn't the fun actually building a collection, piece by piece? Why would a collection that one builds himself be worth any less than one someone else is putting together and holding for him. What am I missing?

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

response? It sure looks like your website and your statements on this board are contradictory. Maybe this board, in fact, isn't the right audience. Approximately 24% of the folks, in our last poll, are lawyers.....kind of a tough crowd over here...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jon Canfield

First I wnt to state that I actually support the idea of cardtarget. Although not directed to my personal tastes, I still applaud the idea and can defenately see a potential market for others to enjoy.

That being said, I have to echo Adam's post and my original post about what a security is... I think it's important to keep in mind that the SEC is out there to protect the little guy - it's what they do - they can almost deem anything they want to be a security. Even though section 2 of the 1933 Act has a laundry list of what constitutes a security, the SEC has been able to go well beyond that. As I mentioned earlier, fractional ownership of orange trees in Howey were deemed a security [ this is the cornerstone case of what is a security]. That case alone seems very similar to this - people purchased ownership interests but they weren't able to actually go an pick their trees, or walk on the property (similar to an ownership interest in a card in which you can't take it home for a night, or even hold it whenever you want to). Furthermore, in the Silver Hills Country Club case - a country club was found to be a security. Tiered partnerships have been found to be securities, and Viatical settlements damn near became a security - and the SEC may decide to fight the issue more; and a saw mill has been found to be a security. I guess my point is - a security goes well beyond the definition of what a "normal" security is - any good securities lawyer will tell you that. If you satisfy the 4 part test of Howey, then the SEC can force regulation (not to mention state laws that may be applicable even if federal laws are not).

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

The only difference between CardTarget and thepit, etopps, and even Upper Deck Babe Ruth jersey cards for that matter is that we don't cut the item up. Instead of getting a physical 3/4 inch square of an item to keep for your very own, we keep the item whole and put it in a safe.

We also provide a marketplace for the shares, a way of tracking what you own, and we know who all of the owners are at any time. That doesn't make it a security.

Like Paul suggested, pointing us toward some actual law or legal precident would be helpful to move this conversation along.

I agree that this takes a lot of trust. Luckily we have personal relationship with many of our users and they do trust us. If you have any reasonable suggestions for ways to "prove" that we have the items in our possession at all times, please let me know.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

Orange Groves and Country Clubs both have a function that produces income on a regular basis in the form of a dividend, or have a function wrapped into the ownership where the item is USED to make money. It would be a tough argument that a sports card inherently produces some kind of dividend or makes money. I would have to read the opinion in the case to understand why that judge ruled the way he did.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

What if somebody wants to bail out and sell his shares. Is there a guarantee that there will be a buyer in a timely fashion?

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

STATUTORY DEFINITION OF “SECURITY”

• The Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities
Act”) and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the “Exchange Act”), the two principal Federal
statutes in the area, contain definitions of the
term “security” that, although not identical, are
interpreted as “virtually identical.” Landreth
Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U.S. 681 (1985). In addition
to a laundry list of items, including,
among other things, “notes,” “stocks,” “bonds,”
“debentures,” and the like, both statutes provide
that an “investment contract” constitutes a
“security.” Moreover, both statutes provide that
their statutory definitions of the term security
apply “unless the context otherwise requires.”

----------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think it's reasonable to argue that we are providing an "investment contract". The only issue I see is the phrase "unless the context otherwise requires". Point has been taken regarding how the website is written up, and I will make some modification soon to clarify things.

[Archive]

Posted By: Mike Masinick

Barry, there is no "guarantee" that the shares will be sold in a timely manner. However, on the two items we have IPO'd so far we have no users who would not be able to sell their entire stake immediately at a price higher than what they paid for the items.

While it's not guaranteed, it is reasonable to expect that someone will always be willing to step in and buy your shares at a price they feel is undervalued... just as you should be willing to sell your shares when you feel they are overvalued. It's a true marketplace in that aspect.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I'm sorry but the more you explain the more it sounds like an investment...but that's just me....and probably a lot of lawyers....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

If I believe in the profitability of Microsoft the reason I buy shares is that I can't afford the whole company, and it's probably not for sale. But if I have a modest amount of money to spend I can actually buy a few nice cards and I don't see why they can't be just as profitable as shares of something I ultimately can't take possession of. Why can't I just buy a few cards that I feel may be undervalued?

[Archive]

Posted By: jay behrens

Sounds like a baseball card version of the NYSE. Substitute PSA 8 1933 Goudey Ruth for IBM, etc and it's the same exact thing.

Jay- is that quacking I hear?

I've just reached Upper Lower Class. I am now officially a babe magnet for poor chicks.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bruce Babcock

With all due respect to all the parties involved, every day on ebay we see auctions where the item for sale is simply a stolen scan. Getting involved with something like this would take a lot of trust.

Mike describes his potential customers as not having the "time to do the research." They like to "speculate, buy and sell, have no shipping, etc."

"They are looking for a hobby they could enjoy at work, at home, and on the road without having to make daily trips to the post office and have closets full of cards and a nagging wife asking them why they have a full basement."

I've known a few people who "enjoyed" their hobby so much at work that they got fired. I've never made "daily trips" to the post office. My wife doesn't nag and my entire collection would fit into a couple of medium size suitcases.

People who don't take the "time to do the research" and like to "speculate, buy and sell, have no shipping, etc." should perhaps go with "Monopoly." These people are the reason Ponzi schemes still work.

Most of the 1849 California Gold Rush miners found nothing and lost everything. Some lost their lives. But some of the guys who sold the miners picks, shovels and supplies got very rich. Cardtarget may do well, assuming they have their legal ducks in a row. But I don't think too many of the clients will.

There are less expensive and more rewarding hobbies out there. There are also smarter investments. I realize there is a generational thing going on here, but I'm not sure this enterprise makes sense om any level. Just my 2 cents.

Best of luck to all involved.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

At least IBM pays a dividend of about one percent. I think I hear some quacking too, Jay.