Health of Asset Class - Over/Under 1955 Topps Koufax PSA 9

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by BobC

Exactly right, and totally agree. But, I'm also thinking in terms of there maybe being some bidders who prefer to only bid with Goldin, and vice versa. And I'm going further out on a limb and guessing a Goldin fan/bidder is more likely to use Goldin's vault than an REA fan/bidder is likely to use any vault. Other than that, no real rationale, just mostly pure guessing.

There's no greater disparity of an approach to business than there is between Brian and Goldin, some people identify with Brian's approach some people identify with Goldins approach, when it comes to pre war I think Brian's approach resonates with more folks.

[raulus]

But after almost 1 whole day of bidding, the REA version is up to $210 (with the juice).

Naturally, most of these auctions tend to see a lot of action early, as we all get our initial bids in. Usually followed by a lull as we all try to assess what we really want, and how high we're willing to go to get it.

And then during the last couple of days the bidding goes nuts again as one by one the earlier bidders drop out until the winner stands alone atop the mountain.

Of course, sometimes we get that last part out of the way a little earlier, as a couple of bidders will decide to go nuts early on until one of them gets exhausted and finally gives up. By that point the price is so astronomically high that no one else will touch it, so it doesn't move again, and goes final a few weeks later at that price.

Goldin opens later tonight, so we'll see how quickly it shoots up.

[Touch'EmAll]

Article from today, interesting read. I would imagine nice vintage and pre-war cards to fall into this same category (as art).

Diversify with fine art
The younger generation of investors increasingly believes that “a traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank.

Fine art is the perfect alternative investment for savvy and high net worth investors who are looking to diversify their portfolio. It’s notably consistent, as contemporary art has outperformed the S&P 500 by 131% for the past 26 years.

Previously, there was no way to invest unless you had millions to buy an entire painting. But Masterworks has completely changed that. Instead of buying a single painting for millions of dollars, you can now invest in shares of individual works.

With this revolutionary investment platform, all you have to do is select which shares you want to buy and Masterworks will handle the rest.

[Johnny630]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Article from today, interesting read. I would imagine nice vintage and pre-war cards to fall into this same category (as art).

Diversify with fine art
The younger generation of investors increasingly believes that “a traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank.

Fine art is the perfect alternative investment for savvy and high net worth investors who are looking to diversify their portfolio. It’s notably consistent, as contemporary art has outperformed the S&P 500 by 131% for the past 26 years.

Previously, there was no way to invest unless you had millions to buy an entire painting. But Masterworks has completely changed that. Instead of buying a single painting for millions of dollars, you can now invest in shares of individual works.

With this revolutionary investment platform, all you have to do is select which shares you want to buy and Masterworks will handle the rest.

When it comes to investing I like to follow many of the Buffet/Munger ways. I’ve never heard them interested in hard assets such as Gold or Art. They despise crypto, as do I. I wonder if they agree with what your first quoted comment, that traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank. Somehow I think they’d rather invest in Farmland instead of non-wealth producing assets.

[Touch'EmAll]

Yes, very true what you say about the way of the older Buffet/Munger. But the article is about the younger generation of investors.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Yes, very true what you say about the way of the older Buffet/Munger. But the article is about the younger generation of investors.

These alternative investment structures for illiquid assets like this have been around for a few years now.

In concept it’s certainly intriguing.

I think my biggest concerns are:

1) I don’t actually own all of the thing, but instead I just own some small fraction of it. I’d rather own all of something to enjoy it personally, rather than own 0.001% of something that I will never actually see.

2) Admin costs for these investments tend to be high, which eats into your returns pretty dramatically.

3) I’m worried about shady characters and fraud. Do I really own part of a Van Gogh? Or did I just get part of a fake? Did they only sell 10 million shares, or did they sell 500 million shares, and I own a lot less than I thought? What happens if the people running the show take the asset and flee to Brazil? I know that there’s supposed to be safeguards for a lot of this stuff, but I’m not ready to really trust it just yet. Hopefully the crypto goons have taught us to be wary about other goons pitching alternative investments.

4) While it’s supposed to be liquid, I suspect that in times of economic stress, you might struggle to find buyers, or have to sell at fire sale prices to cash out your investment.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Article from today, interesting read. I would imagine nice vintage and pre-war cards to fall into this same category (as art).

Diversify with fine art
The younger generation of investors increasingly believes that “a traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank.

Fine art is the perfect alternative investment for savvy and high net worth investors who are looking to diversify their portfolio. It’s notably consistent, as contemporary art has outperformed the S&P 500 by 131% for the past 26 years.

Previously, there was no way to invest unless you had millions to buy an entire painting. But Masterworks has completely changed that. Instead of buying a single painting for millions of dollars, you can now invest in shares of individual works.

With this revolutionary investment platform, all you have to do is select which shares you want to buy and Masterworks will handle the rest.

Not really unexpected that for investments of this type things would start to go this way, is it? And in relation to earlier comments made about differences in business practices and strategies between the likes of REA and Goldin, which of the two could any of you see as more likely to also start doing something similar for their customer base, offering to buy and hold a major collectible item that no one can really afford to ever buy themselves, and then offering to sell partial interests in it to the general public?

For a T206 collector that could never afford one of the "Big Four" cards themselves, this could at least be a way for them to buy a partial interest in say a T206 Wagner, and afford them some level of ownership. It isn't perfect, and certainly not what most any true collector would really want. But in the world of reality where there are only an extremely limited number of T206 Wagner cards that exist, and at prices that are beyond most every collector's ability to ever afford, that may be the only way such a collector could ever theoretically own a complete T206 set.

I keep hearing and seeing things about Goldin's 100 greatest collectible cards, or something along those lines they are working on, and soon to come out with. For the average collector, or a new, younger collector just starting out in the hobby, how many of those 100 greatest collectible cards do you think any of them may be able to afford? But what if someone like Goldin actually goes out and acquires one of every one of those 100 cards, and then offers collectors the chance to buy an interest in the ownership of the entire collection? You can easily go and buy and sell shares in things like an S&P 500 index fund, why not something like a 100 greatest cards collectible fund? At this recently ended Mint Collective convention out in Las Vegas, I can most definitely see that being a very possible, and viable, topic being discussed among members of the collecting industry.

And before any of you start shaking your heads and muttering that that will never happen and so on, how many of you can remember back to when you could go to the corner store to pick up some bread or milk, and you would also be able to grab a pack of baseball cards at the register as you were checking out? Would any of you back then, in your wildest dreams, have ever imagined things like Breakers and the card market/industry like it is today with the wild and astronomical prices we're seeing, or the idea of TPGs, the internet and Ebay, and on and on? Even mentioning the fact that baseball cards could ever possibly be thought of as actual legitimate investments one day would have gotten you laughed at by most everyone. Just go ask all those old collectors with their boxes of Gregg Jeffries rookie cards they're still waiting to be able to retire on. Baseball is one of those unique things that is permanently embedded in the fabric of American life, that crosses and embraces all generations, and is growing more and more on the international market as well. Soccer may be the current biggest international sport, but baseball seems to be rising and growing. like basketball has. And unlike soccer, baseball was invented and started in the U.S., so we have an even more intrinsic desire and affection for the sport, and their related collectibles, cards, and history. So, does anyone really think there wouldn't be an extremely viable, potential market for people to buy into such an idea as owning a piece of the 100 greatest baseball cards of all time. And how many times have I seen/read on this forum, people telling/advising others to look to buy the nicest condition cards, of the greatest players, from the most widely collected sets they can, if they want to have the best possible chance to grow the value of their collections? And now how many of these 100 greatest cards that Golding is supposedly coming out with do you think will exactly fit that investment advisory advice and goals?

And such an idea would likely appeal to an even larger part of the population that wouldn't normally think of collecting baseball cards at all. Now you've got people investing in the idea of Americana, Mom, and apple pie, along with potentially making a buck or two down the road...........

[Rhotchkiss]

Bob, I 100% agree with everything you said. Many on this board like things how they are and bemoan innovation. I don’t blame them, I hate change too! But where there is money involved, there is innovation, and we are seeing that in the hobby/asset class (why I struggled initially with the terminology). Those who don’t recognize the innovation may miss opportunities, or worse, get left behind.

I think fractional shares makes sense for a very few things that are super rare and super expensive - t206 Wagner, BN Ruth, PSA/SGC 9+ 1952 Topps Mantle, etc. That said, buying into a card mutual fund of diversified cards makes sense and is not very different from a stock or bond mutual fund. Nicolo makes some good points that one would have to consider, but if you can get comfortable with the sponsor and the fee structure, I card mutual fund makes. Frankly, I have dabbled with the idea of starting one and seeding it with my collection at FMV (as determined by appraisal).

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Frankly, I have dabbled with the idea of starting one and seeding it with my collection at FMV (as determined by appraisal).

You looking to get out of the game, with this execution as your exit ramp?

Or maybe it’s more of a thought exercise rather than anything serious?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by raulus

You looking to get out of the game, with this execution as your exit ramp?

Or maybe it’s more of a thought exercise rather than anything serious?

I am not seriously considering it, at this point.... It certainly could be an exit down the line, especially if I keep some skin in the game and serve as the operator; it could be my "next act". I have recapitalized several real estate portfolios, why not recapitalize a baseball card portfolio?! But to answer your specific question, maybe at some point, but not now (a) because I am not ready to give up full control over my cards, (b) I dont currently have the time to manage a mutual fund of cards, and (c) I dont believe the "market" is best for valuations (thus the thread) -- I think I would rather be a buyer than a seller right now, although I am not actively buying much either.

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Bob, I 100% agree with everything you said. Many on this board like things how they are and bemoan innovation. I don’t blame them, I hate change too! But where there is money involved, there is innovation, and we are seeing that in the hobby/asset class (why I struggled initially with the terminology). Those who don’t recognize the innovation may miss opportunities, or worse, get left behind.

I think fractional shares makes sense for a very few things that are super rare and super expensive - t206 Wagner, BN Ruth, PSA/SGC 9+ 1952 Topps Mantle, etc. That said, buying into a card mutual fund of diversified cards makes sense and is not very different from a stock or bond mutual fund. Nicolo makes some good points that one would have to consider, but if you can get comfortable with the sponsor and the fee structure, I card mutual fund makes. Frankly, I have dabbled with the idea of starting one and seeding it with my collection at FMV (as determined by appraisal).

Ryan-I disagree. Equity or debt mutual funds make sense because there is price transparency on the components. Arbs will keep the value in an appropriate range. Not so on a collectibles fund. If you can’t set value based on components then you are left solely with determining a market by best bid/offer. If an event happens the volatility could go through the roof. Are you going to trust the fund provider to tell you what the shares are worth?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Ryan-I disagree. Equity or debt mutual funds make sense because there is price transparency on the components. Arbs will keep the value in an appropriate range. Not so on a collectibles fund. If you can’t set value based on components then you are left solely with determining a market by best bid/offer. If an event happens the volatility could go through the roof. Are you going to trust the fund provider to tell you what the shares are worth?

No. I would be the fund provider…. But I hear what you are saying Jay. Sponsorship becomes SO much more important

[oldjudge]

Originally Posted by Touch'EmAll

Article from today, interesting read. I would imagine nice vintage and pre-war cards to fall into this same category (as art).

Diversify with fine art
The younger generation of investors increasingly believes that “a traditional portfolio of stock and bonds is not going to deliver above-average returns over time,” according to Jeff Busconi, chief operating officer at Bank of America Private Bank.

Fine art is the perfect alternative investment for savvy and high net worth investors who are looking to diversify their portfolio. It’s notably consistent, as contemporary art has outperformed the S&P 500 by 131% for the past 26 years.

Previously, there was no way to invest unless you had millions to buy an entire painting. But Masterworks has completely changed that. Instead of buying a single painting for millions of dollars, you can now invest in shares of individual works.

With this revolutionary investment platform, all you have to do is select which shares you want to buy and Masterworks will handle the rest.

At what cost? My sense with baseball cards is that you pay a substantial premium and that you never can physically have the card. To me, fractional ownership seems like a great deal for the organizer and a bad deal for the investor.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

At what cost? My sense with baseball cards is that you pay a substantial premium and that you never can physically have the card. To me, fractional ownership seems like a great deal for the organizer and a bad deal for the investor.

It's a bet on the come, embracing it strictly as an investment and bragging rights at the local pub that you own a piece of xyz famous card.

The bet is that the portfolio, minus admin fees, will appreciate more than an alternative investment. You would also have to consider how many investors would show up at initial subscription, if its poorly subscribed value goes down, over subscribed, value goes up, as well as your ability to move in and out of the fund, someone may have to be a market maker if there is a run on the fund.

Might make sense for some but for me it would take all the fun out of collecting.

[BobC]

Here's an interesting interview with Bryan Dwyer on NASDAQ Trade Talks, talking about the memorabilia side of the collecting industry, but I think, most all of what he says would apply to the card side as well. So even though many people think of REA as maybe more "collector" oriented, they recognize the investor and investment aspect as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnpGlMWlrOw

[BobC]

As an alternative way to look at things in regard to atypical or non-ordinary types of investments, at least with sports cards you still have an actual physical asset to back it up, totally unlike things like NFTs or digital currencies. Is that really any different than the vast number of publicly traded company stocks existing today that never have, and likely never will, pay any of their investors any dividends? When you own shares of such publicly traded companies you technically own a piece of all the physical assets that make up that company. Is that really any different than if you own a fractional piece of a sports card(s)?

Now if you say the big difference is that the publicly traded company is operating and is in business, and can therefore grow its value by expanding and making more money, while the sports card(s) doesn't grow or produce anything, that is true. But then the publicly traded company also has a much greater chance of having a major downturn in business, reducing their value, or changes to technologies and markets, that will eventually negatively affect them. Just look at retail companies like Sears or J.C. Penny, and how changing technology and markets impacted businesses like them. Meanwhile, I don't think anyone has to worry about Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb suddenly getting injured or having a bad year, so that the interest and demand for their cards go down. So on some levels, investing in such "blue chip" sports cards may actually be a lot smarter, and maybe even more conservative, than investing in many companies on the stock markets.

But then what about investing in things like precious metals, gold for example. Gold in and of itself doesn't produce or generate any income whatsoever, unlike the ability a publicly traded company has. In that respect, gold is really no different than a sports card, and its value is totally subject to the whims of the public at large. (However, I do realize that gold does have an industrial application and multiple uses as an actual metal, but that its value would be considerably less than it is if that were the only factor in determining what gold is worth.) Gold prices fluctuate on perceived market value by the public at large. And what is also interesting is that the supply of gold is ever growing. To my knowledge, there is still gold being found and mined today. So, in the ever-present law of supply and demand, one would normally assume that as more gold is mined, once the industrial demands have been satisfied of course, that any excess production would cause gold prices to continually drop over time as there is constantly more and more of it available in the world, and unlike other resources such as oil or coal, it is not a consumable resource. And another question to then ask, why is gold (and silver to a somewhat lesser extent) viewed as such a universal currency/commodity? Why did humans originally pick and assign this value to gold (and silver), and not so to other elements and resources, like say zinc, iron, or copper, that all have much more practical and useful purposes in our society today? Is it at all possible because early humans found gold (and silver) deposits, and even though they didn't really have any practical uses for them at that time, they liked and were attracted to them because they were shiny, and early humans liked to collect and keep such shiny things that for some reason made them happy? And then over time, as more and more early humans started populating the Earth, this somewhat universal desire and attraction to these shiny metals they all liked to collect (and you can include the shiny stones (diamonds, rubies, etc.) as well) turned into some of the first forms of universally recognized currency among these early humans. And because the human animal, and all its instincts and traits, are really no different today than it was back then, this intrinsic and instinctual desire to collect and hold such things, shiny or not, is still embedded in our human thinking and being today. And those early human instincts and desires have of course been passed down through the thousands of years, till today. So maybe that is why we all view gold and silver as such valuable alternative currencies today, because early man like to collect the shiny stuff! (And that maybe helps to better explain why the modern card collectors are so attracted to the "shiny stuff" themselves. Card companies finally caught on and invoked those early human animal instincts to attract the new, younger collectors out there. LOL)

Things like gold/silver, and even digital currencies that are still being mined and constantly added to as far as supply is concerned, have made millionaires of countless many people, especially younger people today that have gone full into many of these new types of investments. And people trade and invest in them with no true intrinsic value other than mostly people see them as a type of alternative currency if you will. So why not the same potential view and treatment as such an investment with baseball or other cards that are highly desired and collected among a large part of the world's population? The bottom line is, God forbid we have a nuclear war that destroys most of the human population and that turns the world back into the dark ages, or even worse. But you know what, regardless of how bad things may have then become, some humans will come across a piece of gold or silver jewelry, or maybe a couple of baseball cards (especially the shiny ones LOL) that somehow survived the devastation and destruction, and will grab and keep and cherish them as their valuable and prized collectibles. And then who knows, maybe in future millennia baseball/sports cards end up becoming a universally recognized de facto currency for a new world.

Human nature!!!!!!

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

There's no greater disparity of an approach to business than there is between Brian and Goldin, some people identify with Brian's approach some people identify with Goldins approach, when it comes to pre war I think Brian's approach resonates with more folks.

Exactly why I was saying what I was. There are many people I've heard exclaim they'll never do business with the likes of some sellers/AHs. Also, some business formats/platforms are set up more for the investor types than the true collector types as well. I would classify Goldin as playing more to the investor type, and REA to the collector type. Nothing wrong with either, but the investor type IMO would be much more likely to take advantage of a vault service.