Analysis of PWCC Vintage Auction 10/13/19

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

If you were a company going public in need of $50,000,000, would you sell

A) 10,000,000 shares of stock for $5 a share in an IPO or

B) would you short print 25 pristine stock certificates in plastic cases impregnated with Joe Orlando’s saliva and verified by Spence and sell them for $2,000,000 each?

The players (in the market and in the Vault) may be the same, but how a short-printed modern, shiny piece of in cardboard is analogous to equity in a potentially very profitable start-up or in a Fortune 500 company for that matter eludes me,

but then again I will never be vault-worthy and my lack of understanding doesn’t bother me one iota.

The shareholder base of an IPO is not a good comparison here but I will try and answer your question. On one hand it is nice to have a smaller number of shareholders to answer to with more skin in the game. It also will impact how shares are traded in the secondary market and make it harder to gain access so in theory this will make it easier for the share price to rise with such a limited supply of shares. It also though makes you more susceptible to price decline due to the limited liquidity and will also expose you to the issue of some shareholders not being interested because they can't come up with the amount to get in or can't buy enough in the secondary market once launched. The larger offering gives more people a chance to get in but will create much greater liquidity in the secondary market and you may end up with some very significant shareholders controlling more of the voting rights than perhaps you want and making it harder to manage the business. There is no right or wrong answer here.

Short print cards are about bragging rights. That is why they were printed this way. The goal was to create artificial scarcity and the ability for only a very few to say they own one. I certainly have 200k but I am not in a position to drop 200k on a single card as it would be too risky of a move but for someone with a massive net worth this might be the equivalent to a 2k card to them. Once a card becomes a must own the price goes up and where this goes from here is anyone's guess. For the nearly ten years I have been participating in online forums there has always been a chorus of people blasting the buyers of these cards and yet they only seem to go up. 15k was too much for a Jeter 1993 SP. 25k was unthinkable. You get the point.

I don't try and put myself in someone else's shoes when it comes to what they buy because everyone's circumstances are different. Do I think putting 200k into some of the more marquee vintage cards is smarter? Perhaps but perhaps not.

At the end of the day this modern frenzy is alive and well and while the risk profile of the purchases appears quite high so have been the rewards and this is going to keep it going.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To each his own, but the fact that a company intentionally printed only 10 or 5 or 1 of a card in an attempt to CREATE a valuable -- like the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- means nothing to me.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To each his own, but the fact that a company intentionally printed only 10 or 5 or 1 of a card in an attempt to CREATE a valuable -- like the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- means nothing to me.

The only modern cards I collect for the most part are Brock Lesnar. I just bought his "rarest" card and it is numbered to 25. I own the only PSA graded copy too. I paid $125 and $124. I am not the target audience for one of these cards either. It is fun to chase these down but under no circumstances am I paying 100 times more for this one vs. the other variations of the same card just in different colors with more made.

[frankbmd]

I'm sticking with my argument.

A shiny Jeter is not the stock exchange, it's a house of cards.

A shiny Jeter is not an asset, where's the bank to would accept it as collateral?

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I'm sticking with my argument.

A shiny Jeter is not the stock exchange, it's a house of cards.

A shiny Jeter is not an asset, where's the bank to would accept it as collateral?

Comparing cards to stocks is tough. There have been a multitude of stocks that would appear a safer investment but have have gone down substantially. You can lose on anything in life.

Would I rather put 200k into liquid financial investments? Yes.

That said the buyer might have 200 million already there and wants to handle this card and be able to say he has it.

We are actually moving in the direction of cards being used as collateral. It has been discussed on this message board.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

Comparing cards to stocks is tough. There have been a multitude of stocks that would appear a safer investment but have have gone down substantially. You can lose on anything in life.

Would I rather put 200k into liquid financial investments? Yes.

That said the buyer might have 200 million already there and wants to handle this card and be able to say he has it.

We are actually moving in the direction of cards being used as collateral. It has been discussed on this message board.

I'm not finding Net54 on any list of major lenders. If Leon is accepting cards as collateral, perhaps he can explain how that is structured.

[Dpeck100]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

I'm not finding Net54 on any list of major lenders. If Leon is accepting cards as collateral, perhaps he can explain how that is structured.

It has been done before back in the day and in the works now for sure. We had a big discussion on it here and clearly it will not give you advance rates as high as liquid investments can. You can borrow in the range of 75% against many traded securities and I would think somewhere in the 30% to 40% range is the most anyone should consider on cards.

I am going to give you an analogy that is more appropriate here. My wife is into purses. She has seven or eight Chanel's, a bunch of Gucci's, some Yves Saint Laurent and a few others. Quite a pricey collection of purses. A purse has one function and that is to carry things but the prices of these purses are predicated on scarcity and bragging rights. You would think these would be a enough but she wants a Hermes Birkin bag. These are the most scarce of designer bags and you can't just go into a store and buy one. They have to ask you if you want one and it is hard to have that happen. Which one of these sells for the most? The Birkin naturally because it has the ultimate bragging rights. This is just how the world works. We don't make the rules. Once cards are elevated to elite hobby status symbols they can take on a mind of their own in terms of price. It is really simple.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Typical female wasting money on nonsense.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

It has been done before back in the day and in the works now for sure. We had a big discussion on it here and clearly it will not give you advance rates as high as liquid investments can. You can borrow in the range of 75% against many traded securities and I would think somewhere in the 30% to 40% range is the most anyone should consider on cards.

I am going to give you an analogy that is more appropriate here. My wife is into purses. She has seven or eight Chanel's, a bunch of Gucci's, some Yves Saint Laurent and a few others. Quite a pricey collection of purses. A purse has one function and that is to carry things but the prices of these purses are predicated on scarcity and bragging rights. You would think these would be a enough but she wants a Hermes Birkin bag. These are the most scarce of designer bags and you can't just go into a store and buy one. They have to ask you if you want one and it is hard to have that happen. Which one of these sells for the most? The Birkin naturally because it has the ultimate bragging rights. This is just how the world works. We don't make the rules. Once cards are elevated to elite hobby status symbols they can take on a mind of their own in terms of price. It is really simple.

I'm glad your wife has enough purses to make a cash purchase of the Jeter card.

You're certainly entitled to your opinions.

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Dpeck100

I am going to give you an analogy that is more appropriate here. My wife is into purses. She has seven or eight Chanel's, a bunch of Gucci's, some Yves Saint Laurent and a few others. Quite a pricey collection of purses. A purse has one function and that is to carry things but the prices of these purses are predicated on scarcity and bragging rights. You would think these would be a enough but she wants a Hermes Birkin bag. These are the most scarce of designer bags and you can't just go into a store and buy one. They have to ask you if you want one and it is hard to have that happen. Which one of these sells for the most? The Birkin naturally because it has the ultimate bragging rights. This is just how the world works. We don't make the rules. Once cards are elevated to elite hobby status symbols they can take on a mind of their own in terms of price. It is really simple.

https://www.malleries.com/hermes-bir...-293984-s-2907

Crazy sh*t! What grade do you think PSA would give it?

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To each his own, but the fact that a company intentionally printed only 10 or 5 or 1 of a card in an attempt to CREATE a valuable -- like the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- means nothing to me.

Well, the Golden Ticket means everything to me! I would love to pull one out of those delicious-tasting chocolate bars and have the opportunity to meet Mr. Wonka!

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

To each his own, but the fact that a company intentionally printed only 10 or 5 or 1 of a card in an attempt to CREATE a valuable -- like the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory -- means nothing to me.

I see your point, but in an era of over production a few issues stand out for one reason or another. Cards that were hard to track down even back then. I remember opening 93 finest packs trying to find refractors. And 96 select certified hoping for a mirror red, blue, or gold.

I didn't collect basketball back then, but those PMG cards fall into the same category. 91 topps desert shield seem to be hot as well.

I think as guys around my age who collected as kids in the 90s and remember these cards get back into the hobby demand will only increase.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

I see your point, but in an era of over production a few issues stand out for one reason or another. Cards that were hard to track down even back then. I remember opening 93 finest packs trying to find refractors. And 96 select certified hoping for a mirror red, blue, or gold.

I didn't collect basketball back then, but those PMG cards fall into the same category. 91 topps desert shield seem to be hot as well.

I think as guys around my age who collected as kids in the 90s and remember these cards get back into the hobby demand will only increase.

I get the appeal of the refractors, which I think were the first cards to use that technology, but from that point of view rather than scarcity. The certified mirrors just seem a copycat to me.