PWCC vault?

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Wheres Dpeck? How can these guys be selling unsecured " investments" with no license, private placement memorandum, etc. Seems like a whole lotta good ideas, poorly executed .

I am generally in favor of what PWCC is doing in the hobby but the only thing so far that has me scratching my head is this.

I am not certain how they can be giving investment advice on cards and treating them like securities and not have some form of oversight.

There were a lot of people trying to do similar with the crypo currency market and the SEC stepped in.

In a thread on CU we discussed this and one thing that stuck out to me was when a person using their advisory service was quoted as saying Brent told me not to bid on that card and wait for another one. To me this is just like a realtor saying don't bid on the house I am selling. When you agree to sell someone's trading cards you are obligated to them and to try and achieve the best selling price. I find this scenario as a major conflict of interest and something I believe needs to be more well thought out.

I will just add I don't know Brady Hill personally but if anyone follows high level collectors at all the guy is a whale.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

In a thread on CU we discussed this and one thing that stuck out to me was when a person using their advisory service was quoted as saying Brent told me not to bid on that card and wait for another one.

Maybe he generously steered his client away from a trimmed or otherwise altered card in a PWCC auction? It's theoretically possible I suppose. Wait, probably not.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Maybe he generously steered his client away from a trimmed or otherwise altered card in a PWCC auction? It's theoretically possible I suppose. Wait, probably not.

If I recall it said with better eye appeal for the grade.

We can all agree that not all cards within in a grade are created equally and obviously there can be intense debate over the topic but from an investment standpoint clearly eye appeal is huge.

That said the advice needs to be coming from someone who is not selling the card and talking potential bidders out of bidding on it and potentially hurting the final selling price.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

In a thread on CU we discussed this and one thing that stuck out to me was when a person using their advisory service was quoted as saying Brent told me not to bid on that card and wait for another one. To me this is just like a realtor saying don't bid on the house I am selling. When you agree to sell someone's trading cards you are obligated to them and to try and achieve the best selling price. I find this scenario as a major conflict of interest and something I believe needs to be more well thought out.

Was the card in question in a PWCC auction? If so, then your scenario plays out. If it was in another auction, then that opens up another can of worms. Having your clients avoid other auctions and steering them towards your auctions. In either case, there is a definite conflict of interest.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If "investment advice" includes advising people how much to bid on cards in PWCC auctions, that strikes me as conflicted.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

Was the card in question in a PWCC auction? If so, then your scenario plays out. If it was in another auction, then that opens up another can of worms. Having your clients avoid other auctions and steering them towards your auctions. In either case, there is a definite conflict of interest.

Yes it was a PWCC auction. Essentially saying how unbiased their advice was.

In real estate you can't represent both sides without full disclosure.

To me this is a huge can of worms because I under no circumstances feel it is right to pay someone to sell your cards and then have them at the same time tell preferred buyers to pass and wait for a better example to come along. If they want to give advice on other sellers cards in this form great. Just not on cards they are selling.

[Dpeck100]

It was in this article


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidse.../#2b0cba6d22fa


Here is my post


Let me first say I am a big fan of PWCC and really feel they have done a great job in the trading card market. I used to marvel when I would see their listings on EBAY and it took a few years to realize they weren't actually the one's who owned all of the awesome cards they were selling. I have purchased from them many times and feel they are miles ahead of other major EBAY sellers and their great results speak for themselves.

This quote from the article caught my eye and has me pondering whether or not this is a good idea.

In several cases, Huigens steered him away from the cards PWCC was selling: “I prefer you focus on slightly higher grades where the eye appeal is less volatile and the market is more stable,” he wrote him about an early Bowman Mickey Mantle in off-condition.

My first take is that this is a conflict of interest. When you have someone list your card the goal is to achieve the highest selling price. If the person selling it for you is talking buyers out of bidding on your card it can work against the final selling price as less buyers are in the market for it. I feel that this is kind of like a listing agent in real estate talking you out of the house they are selling. Their first priority is to the person whose home or in this case card that they are representing. I do think it is a great concept when dealing with others sellers cards and another value add that PWCC is trying to offer.

Curious what others think about it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

It was in this article


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidse.../#2b0cba6d22fa


Here is my post


Let me first say I am a big fan of PWCC and really feel they have done a great job in the trading card market. I used to marvel when I would see their listings on EBAY and it took a few years to realize they weren't actually the one's who owned all of the awesome cards they were selling. I have purchased from them many times and feel they are miles ahead of other major EBAY sellers and their great results speak for themselves.

This quote from the article caught my eye and has me pondering whether or not this is a good idea.

In several cases, Huigens steered him away from the cards PWCC was selling: “I prefer you focus on slightly higher grades where the eye appeal is less volatile and the market is more stable,” he wrote him about an early Bowman Mickey Mantle in off-condition.

My first take is that this is a conflict of interest. When you have someone list your card the goal is to achieve the highest selling price. If the person selling it for you is talking buyers out of bidding on your card it can work against the final selling price as less buyers are in the market for it. I feel that this is kind of like a listing agent in real estate talking you out of the house they are selling. Their first priority is to the person whose home or in this case card that they are representing. I do think it is a great concept when dealing with others sellers cards and another value add that PWCC is trying to offer.

Curious what others think about it.

Sure...that's a conflict of interest...and an exhibition of preferential treatment likely in the hopes of making more money from that client at a later date...imo.

Similar to the preferential treatment that may occur on the part of the TPG'ers to their best clients/friends...same as what occurs in the government and in big business on a daily basis.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Money corrupts. Lots of money corrupts, if not absolutely, pretty close to it.

[ullmandds]

Originally Posted by peter_spaeth

money corrupts. Lots of money corrupts, if not absolutely, pretty close to it.

yup!

[MikeGarcia]

..interesting thread , but every once in a while y'all need to look at a pre-war baseball card.

..

[Leon]

What if PWCC said on the front end that they represent both buyers and sellers interests?

I guess I can imagine telling a friend not to bid on a card I am selling as it isn't the best card for them, given their circumstances and desires? If my specific intent is to be honest, transparent and helpful I don't think there is a problem.

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

It was in this article


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidse.../#2b0cba6d22fa


Here is my post


Let me first say I am a big fan of PWCC and really feel they have done a great job in the trading card market. I used to marvel when I would see their listings on EBAY and it took a few years to realize they weren't actually the one's who owned all of the awesome cards they were selling. I have purchased from them many times and feel they are miles ahead of other major EBAY sellers and their great results speak for themselves.

This quote from the article caught my eye and has me pondering whether or not this is a good idea.

In several cases, Huigens steered him away from the cards PWCC was selling: “I prefer you focus on slightly higher grades where the eye appeal is less volatile and the market is more stable,” he wrote him about an early Bowman Mickey Mantle in off-condition.

My first take is that this is a conflict of interest. When you have someone list your card the goal is to achieve the highest selling price. If the person selling it for you is talking buyers out of bidding on your card it can work against the final selling price as less buyers are in the market for it. I feel that this is kind of like a listing agent in real estate talking you out of the house they are selling. Their first priority is to the person whose home or in this case card that they are representing. I do think it is a great concept when dealing with others sellers cards and another value add that PWCC is trying to offer.

Curious what others think about it.

[AustinMike]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I do think it is a great concept when dealing with others sellers cards and another value add that PWCC is trying to offer.

Curious what others think about it.

If they steer you away from another company's auction, is it because they don't highly recommend that particular card or because they don't want you to put your money in other's auctions but want you to only spend in theirs (PWCC's)? If you are in the auction business, you should not be advising anyone in regards to what auction they should or should not bid in. Honest or not, the perception of a conflict of interest rears its ugly head in any recommendation you might make. If you steer them from your auction, as you've pointed out you are not acting in the best interest of your consignor. If you steer them toward your auction, is it because you're trying to help your (PWCC) bottom line?

Also, what if they have more than one client looking for a particular card? Do they advise them both to go after it in a particular auction knowing that the final hammer price might greatly exceed the current value, or do they tell one client to hold off? If they tell one client to hold off, how do they decide which one?

If they have more than one client looking for a card, what if they can get all of them to not bid in other's auctions, but to wait until they (PWCC) have one in their auction? Just imagine what the final price could be. That would be great for their consignor, wouldn't it? Maybe they are looking out for their consignors after all?

I think the whole concept is terrible.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

If they steer you away from another company's auction, is it because they don't highly recommend that particular card or because they don't want you to put your money in other's auctions but want you to only spend in theirs (PWCC's)? If you are in the auction business, you should not be advising anyone in regards to what auction they should or should not bid in. Honest or not, the perception of a conflict of interest rears its ugly head in any recommendation you might make. If you steer them from your auction, as you've pointed out you are not acting in the best interest of your consignor. If you steer them toward your auction, is it because you're trying to help your (PWCC) bottom line?

Also, what if they have more than one client looking for a particular card? Do they advise them both to go after it in a particular auction knowing that the final hammer price might greatly exceed the current value, or do they tell one client to hold off? If they tell one client to hold off, how do they decide which one?

If they have more than one client looking for a card, what if they can get all of them to not bid in other's auctions, but to wait until they (PWCC) have one in their auction? Just imagine what the final price could be. That would be great for their consignor, wouldn't it? Maybe they are looking out for their consignors after all?

I think the whole concept is terrible.

I think you raise some excellent points.

The hurdle for conflict of interest is much lower I believe if there card investment advisor's that are helping you build a card "portfolio" are telling you to buy a card in say a Heritage auction or some other marketer rather than their own.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Yes it was a PWCC auction. Essentially saying how unbiased their advice was.

In real estate you can't represent both sides without full disclosure.

To me this is a huge can of worms because I under no circumstances feel it is right to pay someone to sell your cards and then have them at the same time tell preferred buyers to pass and wait for a better example to come along. If they want to give advice on other sellers cards in this form great. Just not on cards they are selling.

Let's say a collector who plans to build a major high grade collection asks an auctioneer to steer him to the very best cards in the sale. If the auctioneer points out what are in his opinion the very best cards, he is doing nothing wrong. If I've consigned a bunch of VG cards to the sale, and someone else consigned well centered MT cards, I don't expect the auctioneer to recommend mine first.

I don't think recommending a group of better cards necessarily hurts other consignors. And if the auctioneer can spot a flaw that the bidder missed, it's okay to tell him to wait for a better example.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Let's say a collector who plans to build a major high grade collection asks an auctioneer to steer him to the very best cards in the sale. If the auctioneer points out what are in his opinion the very best cards, he is doing nothing wrong. If I've consigned a bunch of VG cards to the sale, and someone else consigned well centered MT cards, I don't expect the auctioneer to recommend mine first.

I don't think recommending a group of better cards necessarily hurts other consignors. And if the auctioneer can spot a flaw that the bidder missed, it's okay to tell him to wait for a better example.

If I consigned a card to someone I wouldn't want them talking someone out of buying it.

The person is paying them a fee to try and secure the highest price for the consigned item.

This is how I feel but if others feel differently I understand that too.

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

If I consigned a card to someone I wouldn't want them talking someone out of buying it.

The person is paying them a fee to try and secure the highest price for the consigned item.

This is how I feel but if others feel differently I understand that too.

So if I were to ask the auctioneer to help me secure the best cards, is he obligated to say all the cards in the sale are equal? If you were the bidder asking that question, would you find that answer satisfactory?

I agree, as an auctioneer myself for many years, that I had more of an obligation to consignors than to bidders. Consignors sign contracts, while bidders are on their own. But if someone asked me that question I would feel obligated to give an honest answer.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So if I were to ask the auctioneer to help me secure the best cards, is he obligated to say all the cards in the sale are equal? If you were the bidder asking that question, would you find that answer satisfactory?

I agree, as an auctioneer myself for many years, that I had more of an obligation to consignors than to bidders. Consignors sign contracts, while bidders are on their own. But if someone asked me that question I would feel obligated to give an honest answer.

Honestly I don't know how to answer your question.

I have never gone to anyone for advice on what cards to buy but I suppose if I had I might feel differently and that opens up some grey area. Honesty in my view is the best policy in life so I could see someone feeling obligated to give an honest answer.

In the case of PWCC I can't begin to answer how long they have been giving buyers advice. I have always thought of them as the premier trading card auctioneer on EBAY and not an advisory service too and for all I know Brent might have been giving people advice the entire time.

None of this is of great concern to me but one day if I ever decide to sell some of my higher profile items I certainly would look into using them and I can say I wouldn't be excited if I found out that they talked someone out of bidding on my card because trading cards have very inelastic prices and just a few bidders can mean the world to the auction.

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

So if I were to ask the auctioneer to help me secure the best cards, is he obligated to say all the cards in the sale are equal? If you were the bidder asking that question, would you find that answer satisfactory?

I agree, as an auctioneer myself for many years, that I had more of an obligation to consignors than to bidders. Consignors sign contracts, while bidders are on their own. But if someone asked me that question I would feel obligated to give an honest answer.

There's a difference between being honest about a card's merits, and talking a buyer out of a card.

If a buyer asks me specifics about a card, of course I can be honest about the card's qualities.