Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[drcy]

I think if a "market protector" is bidding what he is honestly willing to pay if that is the winning bid (as opposed to a shiller who would retract a bid once he gets in the lead), that is okay. Though, if he is the regular winner, it is a bad investment strategy, akin to throwing good money after bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let's suppose that a "market pusher" (not my term by the way) is successful 70 percent of the time in getting someone else to pay more than he would have, and 30 percent of the time ends up winning and paying. Those are probably conservative numbers based on looking at some bidding histories. I don't see why it's perfectly OK to drive up someone else's price deliberately on numerous transactions just because you're willing to pay if you guess the top wrong. And whether it's your own card you are bidding on or someone else's, if the result is the same -- another bidder pays more -- I don't see why that matters either. People who were bidding their own cards up in Mastro also were willing to, and did, pay if they won. But that was deemed irrelevant. Whatever.

[drcy]

If someone (collector, investor, someone buying a birthday present for his grandson) is not shilling, is not bidding on something he owns or for someone (shilling) and places a bid at an amount he's honestly willing to pay and knowing he may well end up being the winner-- it's hard to convince me that he did something wrong. In fact, that's what auctions are about.

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by drcy

If someone (collector, investor, someone buying a birthday present for his grandson) is not shilling, is not bidding on something he owns or for someone (shilling) and places a bid at an amount he's honestly willing to pay and knowing he may well end up being the winner-- it's hard to convince me that he did something wrong. In fact, that's what auctions are about.

Actually in your post the buyer did nothing wrong. They wanted the card and were willing to pay the ending price for the card.

This isn't about buying, winning, being outbid or even owning a card. Its about holding or increasing market value so that there is no loss on an investment.

[Leon]

It matters because the "pushers" have the risk associated with winning. Take away the risk (BP, fees etc...) and then I have a problem. I am with Adam on this too, as long as the sale is arm's length I am good with it.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's suppose that a "market pusher" (not my term by the way) is successful 70 percent of the time in getting someone else to pay more than he would have, and 30 percent of the time ends up winning and paying. Those are probably conservative numbers based on looking at some bidding histories. I don't see why it's perfectly OK to drive up someone else's price deliberately on numerous transactions just because you're willing to pay if you guess the top wrong. And whether it's your own card you are bidding on or someone else's, if the result is the same -- another bidder pays more -- I don't see why that matters either. People who were bidding their own cards up in Mastro also were willing to, and did, pay if they won. But that was deemed irrelevant. Whatever.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Leon

It matters because the "pushers" have the risk associated with winning. Take away the risk (BP, fees etc...) and then I have a problem. I am with Adam on this too, as long as the sale is arm's length I am good with it.

What's the difference then with Mastro, where the shill bidders in many cases had the risk of paying the BP, and did pay the BP if their shilling was unsuccessful, yet the government deemed it illegal?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

What's the difference then with Mastro, where the shill bidders in many cases had the risk of paying the BP, and did pay the BP if their shilling was unsuccessful, yet the government deemed it illegal?

And once again, which is falling on many deaf ears, the first hand information I have is that the government really made their case against Mastro Auctions for the artificial bidding which took place by those bidders who did not even know what the high bids were and who even paid the BP when their bids did not get topped. The house had a policy, like Brent does, to not allow it, but did nothing to stop it, just like Brent is doing.

Now some of the same people on this thread who were furious that the shill bidding in Mastro distorted actual market value and posted about it constantly are now ok with the "pushing". What a difference a day makes, eh? What took place at Mastro pales in comparison to what is going on with the "pushing".

[glchen]

Originally Posted by botn

And once again, which is falling on many deaf ears, the first hand information I have is that the government really made their case against Mastro Auctions for the artificial bidding which took place by those bidders who did not even know what the high bids were and who even paid the BP when their bids did not get topped. The house had a policy, like Brent does, to not allow it, but did nothing to stop it, just like Brent is doing.

Now some of the same people on this thread who were furious that the shill bidding in Mastro distorted actual market value and posted about it constantly are now ok with the "pushing". What a difference a day makes, eh? What took place at Mastro pales in comparison to what is going on with the "pushing".

There is no comparison at all between market pushing and what happened with the shillers at Mastro. The consignors and bidders in the Mastro lots knew each other. Nothing arms length about that at all. Do not try to justify what those named on the Mastro list did with market pushing. It makes what happened at Mastro worse.

[botn]

Originally Posted by glchen

There is no comparison at all between market pushing and what happened with the shillers at Mastro. The consignors and bidders in the Mastro lots knew each other. Nothing arms length about that at all. Do not try to justify what those named on the Mastro list did with market pushing. It makes what happened at Mastro worse.

Really? No comparison? Now that is pretty funny.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

There is no comparison at all between market pushing and what happened with the shillers at Mastro. The consignors and bidders in the Mastro lots knew each other. Nothing arms length about that at all. Do not try to justify what those named on the Mastro list did with market pushing. It makes what happened at Mastro worse.

Of course there is a comparison, although there are differences too and it's a matter of opinion for each person to judge whether you think the similarities outweigh the differences. But don't pretend there is no comparison: In both cases, people are placing bids with the intent and hope of not winning the item but causing someone else to pay more, in order to realize a personal benefit. And in both cases, people take the risk of having to pay if they are unsuccessful. And in both cases, the price realized is higher than it would have been if only people trying to win at the lowest price were bidding.

[iwantitiwinit]

Goes to the most fundamental of economic principles, the law of supply and demand. Why think too much about it. A free market will eventually balance the two regardless of synthetic forces. In the end a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card. They will get what they deserve.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by iwantitiwinit

Goes to the most fundamental of economic principles, the law of supply and demand. Why think too much about it. A free market will eventually balance the two regardless of synthetic forces. In the end a shiller will be left holding the last priciest card. They will get what they deserve.

More likely the shiller's buyer, or a buyer several levels removed, I would think. These guys are extremely savvy, they aren't going to be left holding the bag if they see a decline coming.