ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Or maybe his wife found out he was cheating so he decided to sell the card to reduce his liabilities in divorce. Also possible, isn't it? You're really out on a limb, Bob, with the speculation.

Peter, I distinctly said this wasn't necessarily what was happening in the specific cases several posters were going back and forth about. But it does seem true that as our hobby appears to really be plunged into the investment side of things that actions of some may start more from an investment way of thinking. I've had numerous discussions with people adopting this investment strategy over the years, especially in times where markets are down, like the crash back in 2008, or even the 2020 market hit from the pandemic. They still like the investment (card) and don't necessarily want to sell it, but if there is a way they could still keep that investment (card) AND also generate a current tax saving capital loss, why wouldn't they go for it? Time value of money and all, they could take the dollars they saved from harvesting the tax losses and use it to buy more investments (cards) that they maybe couldn't have afforded to buy now otherwise. You would likely be surprised how many people would think of harvesting capital losses like that.

I'm not speculating at all, this thinking and investment strategy happens every day. I'm merely trying to point out that there may be other legit reasons for what some people say are attempts to manipulate the card market that they did not realize and consider. This hobby is undergoing such rapid and dramatic changes right now that you have to be aware of new ideas and concepts going forward, and can't just blindly assume things aren't changing, whether you like or agree with them or not.

So I am not out on any limb and what I'm saying is absolutely valid, whether it is applicable to the specific cases discussed in this thread or not. If not those cases, maybe the next ones down the road.

And even your postulated reason for selling having to do with a pending divorce could be a valid alternative as well, however, a lot less likely I think than my suggestion for selling to harvest capital losses for tax purposes. First off, you said they may have sold to reduce liabilities, don't you mean reduce assets so they could then try to hide the cash and pay less in the divorce settlement? Of course, that begs the question of whether the spouse knew about the card to begin with. Assuming they did, the sale could have been to establish the exact value for the divorce proceedings and make it real easy to just split the cash between the parties. Otherwise, if the spouse knew of the card they would likely tell their attorney, who would likely inquire and investigate what it ended up selling for and where did the cash go. And if the spouse was not aware of the card, I think the last thing you'd want to do is sell it to potentially create a taxable event that the spouse's attorney could pick up from doing a review of the divorcing couple's tax returns. In that case you'd be better off leaving the card alone and just keeping it, and a big reason why a sale because of divorce may be less likely than a sale to utilize capital losses.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

Peter, I distinctly said this wasn't necessarily what was happening in the specific cases several posters were going back and forth about. But it does seem true that as our hobby appears to really be plunged into the investment side of things that actions of some may start more from an investment way of thinking. I've had numerous discussions with people adopting this investment strategy over the years, especially in times where markets are down, like the crash back in 2008, or even the 2020 market hit from the pandemic. They still like the investment (card) and don't necessarily want to sell it, but if there is a way they could still keep that investment (card) AND also generate a current tax saving capital loss, why wouldn't they go for it? Time value of money and all, they could take the dollars they saved from harvesting the tax losses and use it to buy more investments (cards) that they maybe couldn't have afforded to buy now otherwise. You would likely be surprised how many people would think of harvesting capital losses like that.

I'm not speculating at all, this thinking and investment strategy happens every day. I'm merely trying to point out that there may be other legit reasons for what some people say are attempts to manipulate the card market that they did not realize and consider. This hobby is undergoing such rapid and dramatic changes right now that you have to be aware of new ideas and concepts going forward, and can't just blindly assume things aren't changing, whether you like or agree with them or not.

So I am not out on any limb and what I'm saying is absolutely valid, whether it is applicable to the specific cases discussed in this thread or not. If not those cases, maybe the next ones down the road.

And even your postulated reason for selling having to do with a pending divorce could be a valid alternative as well, however, a lot less likely I think than my suggestion for selling to harvest capital losses for tax purposes. First off, you said they may have sold to reduce liabilities, don't you mean reduce assets so they could then try to hide the cash and pay less in the divorce settlement? Of course, that begs the question of whether the spouse knew about the card to begin with. Assuming they did, the sale could have been to establish the exact value for the divorce proceedings and make it real easy to just split the cash between the parties. Otherwise, if the spouse knew of the card they would likely tell their attorney, who would likely inquire and investigate what it ended up selling for and where did the cash go. And if the spouse was not aware of the card, I think the last thing you'd want to do is sell it to potentially create a taxable event that the spouse's attorney could pick up from doing a review of the divorcing couple's tax returns. In that case you'd be better off leaving the card alone and just keeping it, and a big reason why a sale because of divorce may be less likely than a sale to utilize capital losses.

I said reduce liabilities IN divorce, which to me meant reducing what one would owe the spouse and so in effect means reducing one's own assets. But sorry if I was imprecise there.

And rational or not I think it does happen that guys getting divorced try to hide their collection or cash part of it out. There was a member here who shall remain nameless who had his whole collection on a personal website. When he became headed for divorce, it disappeared.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I said reduce liabilities IN divorce, which to me meant reducing what one would owe the spouse and so in effect means reducing one's own assets. But sorry if I was imprecise there.

And rational or not I think it does happen that guys getting divorced try to hide their collection or cash part of it out. There was a member here who shall remain nameless who had his whole collection on a personal website. When he became headed for divorce, it disappeared.

No problemo, i simply took the liability term from a different viewpoint. We're actually on the same wavelength. And I do think what you said is very rational and can and has/does happen. It was a very good, alternative selling reason, in addition to mine regarding sales to take advantage of otherwise unrealized capital losses. I still think the utilization of capital losses would happen more than divorced related sales, but both still happen. And I'm guessing there are still other plausible reasons that neither of us has thought of as well. Just saying you can't automatically say all weird looking sales are due to shilling or attempts at market manipulation.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BobC

No problemo, i simply took the liability term from a different viewpoint. We're actually on the same wavelength. And I do think what you said is very rational and can and has/does happen. It was a very good, alternative selling reason, in addition to mine regarding sales to take advantage of otherwise unrealized capital losses. I still think the utilization of capital losses would happen more than divorced related sales, but both still happen. And I'm guessing there are still other plausible reasons that neither of us has thought of as well. Just saying you can't automatically say all weird looking sales are due to shilling or attempts at market manipulation.

I agree but when the seller is PWCC and the same exact card nominally sells THREE times in a short time span, I am going to be skeptical until proven wrong.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I agree but when the seller is PWCC and the same card nominally sells THREE times in a short time span, I am going to be skeptical until proven wrong.

Peter, I'm with you 100%. If it looks, like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck.............................!

Still, there is always a small chance that one of these other plausible reasons could be a part of what people are seeing. Just trying to keep a somewhat open mind till more facts and info are out there going forward. Like that recent revelation by Travis/Snowman about PWCC being limited in how many people can be blocked from their Ebay auctions at any one time. Never heard that before, but guessing other Ebay sellers on here may be able to confirm or deny that. I don't know his sources and how accurate what he said truly is, and this has nothing to do with other allegations such as alleged alliances with card doctors and so on, but if any of what Travis/Snowman said is true, that may change, or at least point to differences in, the narrative regarding alleged shill bidding issues with PWCC. I am by no means defending them and saying they are entirely innocent, nor am I saying they are entirely guilty. Just that I don't think there is enough fully vetted and credible information out there yet to make a final, conclusive decision.

[Republicaninmass]

Assets that go down in a span of 2 months.


Where are the underbidders?


Must be the new crypto. I dont.buy it for a second, and never did since the 06 run ups

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

Assets that go down in a span of 2 months.


Where are the underbidders?


Must be the new crypto. I dont.buy it for a second, and never did since the 06 run ups

And that is a big part of the problem, we're not able to see and know who those underbidders were. If we could find out and question them it would hopefully remove any doubts and skepticism. Maybe one day the government will go forward with a case and we'll finally get more info and answers.