Crossover grading

[BobC]

I found the back and forth between the several attorneys regarding potential anti-trust issues and relevancy to be interesting in regards to supposed activities and actions by and between TPG companies A and B. While I'm a CPA/accountant and not an attorney, I like to think I have a rudimentary grasp of some aspects of the law as I have to deal with federal, state and local tax laws on an ongoing basis. Having said that, I think I'd have to lean toward the side where I can't really see the anti-trust relevancy due to the issue of crossovers. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

However, I had a slightly different thought and take on this I'd like to run up the flagpole. Since one of the supposed issues that can cause perceived value differences for grading between the various TPGs has to do with the existence of a Set Registry maintained by one of the TPG companies, do any of you think any other TPGs could make a case that their graded cards should also be included and listed as part of that Set Registry?

Right now, the one TPG that has its own Set Registry only allows and includes cards graded by themselves, and doesn't include or recognize cards graded by any other TPGs. And since this Set Registry has been established and maintained for quite some time now, it is considered by many as the sole, main registry in existence, and can and does have a demonstrated impact and effect on the comparative value of similarly graded cards between the different TPGs. And then because of the perceived negative impact on the value of graded cards from TPGs that are not included in the Set Registry, could it be argued that this puts those other TPGs at a decided disadvantage from a business standpoint and will ultimately work to put them out of business versus the TPG with the Set Registry? And then along that same reasoning, could it not also be argued that anyone trying to establish a new, competing TPG would similarly be at a great disadvantage and deterred from successfully competing with the TPG that has and operates the Set Registry because their graded cards are not included in that registry also?

I know a simple argument to counter that would be for these other TPGs to set up their own Set Registries, but then how does an already existing or new start-up TPG ever hope to compete with an already established and accepted Set Registry by another TPG? They likely can't and won't. So could this be construed as a type of restraint of trade or competition then that other cards graded by different TPGs don't get included or considered in the one TPG's Set Registry? I know this may be a stretch, but when I think back to how the courts have dealt with businesses like the electric and gas companies who had their own lines and pipes to all the houses in their markets, and weren't they eventually forced to allow other competing companies to send and sell electricity and gas over or through those lines and pipes owned by them so as to create and promote competition and not prohibitively hinder new companies from entering their markets?

And if you think about it, there would/could be some positive effects on the industry as well. One that comes to mind would be the need for the TPGs to try and get their grading criteria to be more consistent amongst themselves then if everyone was to be represented in a single Set Registry. It would also likely give new or existing non-Registry TPGs a bump in the perceived value of their graded cards to be more on a par with those of the TPG that originally established the Set Registry. This would potentially foster more business for the other or new TPGs and eliminate the need to try and seek crossovers of their graded cards to the TPG that currently maintains the Set Registry. The other and new TPGs would then be competing for business on a more level playing field with costs, customer service, turnaround times, grading accuracy and so on becoming even greater factors in determining who you give your grading business to rather than "with this TPG I can be on the Set Registry, with anyone else I can't" mentality. Wondering if anyone had a thought on this.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by BobC

I found the back and forth between the several attorneys regarding potential anti-trust issues and relevancy to be interesting in regards to supposed activities and actions by and between TPG companies A and B. While I'm a CPA/accountant and not an attorney, I like to think I have a rudimentary grasp of some aspects of the law as I have to deal with federal, state and local tax laws on an ongoing basis. Having said that, I think I'd have to lean toward the side where I can't really see the anti-trust relevancy due to the issue of crossovers. Seems like a bit of a stretch.

There seems to be a misperception about my antitrust point. I never said (or if what I said could be interpreted as such, that was not my intent) that a company merely engaging in something sneaky (in this instance refusing the crossover not based on the whether the card satisfies the company's criteria but simply because it comes from a competitor) creates antitrust exposure. The scenario I was outlining is when that company has an extremely disproportionate market share. And it is that extremely disproportionate market share coupled with alleged unfair business practices that could create the antitrust exposure.

So going back to my companies A and B. Maybe it is the case as some of the posts said that B has no need to worry about A. But if in the end B becomes the only TPG left in the industry, it is that domination of the market that could create antitrust exposure.

[benjulmag]

Bob,

I think you are raising a great point. If we ever get to the point that a TPG so dominates the market, which domination is believed to be caused by its set registry (and in one of my posts where I discussed what A could do to improve its market share and I suggested probably not much due to the dominance of B's registry), and the courts get involved, a remedy along the lines of what you are suggesting would seem to merit serious consideration.

[Peter_Spaeth]

The set registry as an "essential facility"? That would be the applicable doctrine. Like real estate multi-lists, or football stadiums? I'll have to think about that one, it's an interesting point.

For background, in one sentence, there is an exception to the "refusal to deal" line of authority that says when a monopolist controls a "facility" and sharing it is "essential" to the existence of any competition, the monopolist may have to grant access. The doctrine originated, I recall, in a case involving a firm that controlled the only railroad bridge, I forget where now. It's also been applied, again from memory, to advertising in a town's dominant newspaper, real estate multi-listing services, and a football stadium. That said, it's usually construed pretty narrowly.

[swarmee]

It's also not the only differentiation. SGC has had a set registry for a very long time, and through their own fault have let it become useless because the new flips are not integrated into the old set registry, as far as this board knows.
If it was critical for the success of SGC, they wouldn't have modified their flips to be incompatible with their existing service.

In the case with Beckett, their backlogs are much longer than PSA for bulk services. Someone on blowout got their bulk (nonguaranteed) submission back 16 MONTHS after submitting it, and the average in the last few months received them back after 12-13 months. They're more slammed than PSA is, or their throughput is just much smaller. Edit: forgot to mention that BGS charges UP FRONT, while PSA charges when completed.