Shanus-REA suit

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by steve B

I would have to believe that there are few auction houses where shilling hasn't happened, and those few would be new ones. But there are probably only a few that have done the shilling themselves. In theory I could consign anywhere, and have a friend bid on my items. Pretty hard to prove, and harder to stop.

I also have to believe that every auction that's been around long enough has handled an item or two that is either fake, altered, or stolen. Stolen stuff because the item isn't widely known as stolen. Altered stuff - Maybe the alteration was done well enough to pass inspection at one time, but newer technology has made it possible to detect the alteration. And some fake stuff can be well done enough to get past many experts. Nobody can catch 100% of the questionable items unless they have access to a lot of lab gear and time. And even then some stuff would slip through.

The need for third party graders to not buy or sell cards is a tough one. Yes, it's a conflict. But I wouldn't expect someone with no knowledge or interest in cards to be able to authenticate them. Stamps are authenticated by experts in a particular issue. All of them collect, and buying and selling are a part of that.

Steve Birmingham

I agree completely. We'll never see an auction system that is free of shill bidding; however, at the very least we should expect auction houses not to engage in fraud themselves.

[ls7plus]

Agree completely with Jeff on that one. It's just so annoying to be so very conveniently cha-chinged right up to but not past your maximum bid near the end of the auction by some of these auction houses. I can think of at least two instances where that's happened to me right off the top of my head. I would think the auction house would have to have been involved in those cases, at least to the extent of tipping off the consignor concerning the maximum bid. Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Good move, by the way, Bill. Oh and by the way, Jeff? My wife tested out at an IQ of 163, and she still doesn't like baseball cards!

Best regards, everyone.

Larry

[Bosox Blair]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

Larry

If you don't trust them, don't use max bids at all. Only put in the next bid that puts you on top. Monitor the auction to the end.

Cheers,
Blair

[sports-rings]

not once have I ever informed any auction house what my high big was. to me, it's none of their business.

Would you give your credit card or keys to your house to strangers? In most cases, how well do we really know the employees at auction houses?

[ls7plus]

Sometimes my schedule just doesn't permit staying up to the very end; otherwise I would agree that perhaps max bids just shouldn't be used with auction houses that engage in these tactics. It would be great if the max bid simply worked as it was supposed to: you simply decide how much you're willing to pay for a given lot, and don't get caught up in the action to the point that you start to feel it's a contest, and that the other guy is bidding on "my" card. That way you get enough sleep and still maintain control over the bidding.

Larry

[bsuttonosu]

Originally Posted by ls7plus

Maybe the only thing you can do with auction houses known to have pulled this is to set the maximum bid a few rungs lower than you ordinarily might-- better suggestions?

If you know an auction house has engaged in this activity, why are you looking for suggestions about how to modify your bidding activity? My suggestion would be that you NEVER USE THAT AUCTION HOUSE AGAIN. They stole from you.

The truth is, this is the real problem. Everyone gives example after example of unethical behavior and then continues to bid. It seems there are very few (though I do know some) that are willing to boycott these unethical practices when it comes down to a card they really want. Until we stop accepting it as buyers and put these places out of business, it will continue...and it will continue to be our fault.

Ben Sutton.

[ls7plus]

That's all well and good in theory, Ben, and I agree with you completely "in theory." If you're looking for an item that comes up regularly (which is almost always not what I'm looking for; I much prefer rare and significant, in the best condition available or that I can afford), then there is no problem. With regard to such fungible items, you're right; you simply avoid those auction houses whose ethics are not what they should be.

But if what you're bidding on is an item you've been after for perhaps a decade or more without success, and/or is very, very rarely seen in auction catalogues at all, has a pop report of less than ten, all of which tends to indicate that the examples that do exist have been gathered into private collectors' hands and are intended to be kept that way for many, many years (what is referred to as "strong hands" with regard to great rarities in the realm of coin collecting), then you've got a far tougher choice. As Adam (Exhibitman) has said with regard to '50's cards, it is no great chore to find virtually any example in NMt-Mt or better at almost any time, and one can afford to be choosy with regard to who the seller is. Try doing the same thing with a 1923-1924 Exhibit Ruth, the 1931-32 Exhibit Ruth (beautiful portrait!) from the movie stars set (PSA has graded 3; I have the highest, a "5"), or even a more recent acquisition, the 1907 Dietsche Cobb Fielding Position.

The simple, inescapable fact of the matter is that there are certain cards that many of the members of this board will never have the wherewithal to acquire unless they are purchased when they are available within a certain price range (including me--I don't know about your finances, and that's absolutely none of my business in any event!). These are those cards that come up so rarely, that are so significant to the history of baseball and have such a significant upside in value, that they are best snatched up if you want them in your collection badly enough when they are available. One prime example would be when my wife and I were attending the Strongsville, Ohio show in the early '90's. One of the dealers there had a NMt-Mt M101 Ruth rookie. He wouldn't budge on it for less than $7,000. I had only $5,000 to spend, and couldn't make the deal (I ended up later settling for one in poor to fair condition for $1700, if memory serves correctly). The last (only?) sale I am aware of for that card in that grade was not so long ago (2009?) for $140,000. I highly doubt that I'll ever be in that market for a card (now the wife says she would have come up with the additional $2,000, but hindsight is 20/20--she's not a Babe Ruth fan, but she most definitely is a fan of $140,000!). The fact is, if I wanted that card in that grade in my lifetime, then was the time. And almost certainly the only time.

It depends upon your perspective, I guess. Mine is that sometimes you simply have to bite the bullet. If you feel that there is no room for compromise in your stance under any circumstances, I tip my hat to you.

Best wishes to you in your collecting endeavors!

Larry

[ElCabron]

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

[ls7plus]

Dear Ryan:

See the last two paragraphs of post #87. Let's set the record straight: beyond any rational, reasonable dispute, there's absolutely nothing amoral or greedy, let alone criminal, in sometimes biting that bullet--the key is simply in knowing enough to make an informed choice, and being able to consider all relevant factors in pursuing our collecting endeavors.

Good luck in your collecting!

Larry

[ElCabron]

Hi Larry,

I re-read the last two paragraphs and wasn't sure what you wanted me see. I wasn't trying to single you out. Many people agree with you. Actually, I think MOST people on this board probably agree with you. I happen to disagree and am of the opinion that it actually causes harm to the hobby, albeit unintentional. But more importantly, I think it would really HELP the hobby if everyone stopped bidding with and supporting scumbags who are stealing their money.

You know how if you feed a stray cat, it will keep coming to your house and scratch at your door until you feed it again? I'm saying, stop feeding Doug Allen.

-Ryan

[steve B]

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

But the way some people bid in a competitive manner is foolish. I might go a bid or two beyond my max at a live auction if the opposing bidder seemed weak and I really wanted something. But I wouldn't be the guy hanging on the phone raising any bid till I won. (Ok, maybe on a couple items, but I can't afford any of them) The other danger is thinking "it's worth 500 but I'll bid 1000 so I'll be sure to win" In any case shilling or not that sort of bid is a sure fire way to overpay and/or be unhappy with the price.

In the example you gave, obviously you'd have been happy to win it for 3500 since you eventually bought it for that. What's the difference between bidding 3500 and paying that or close to it, and paying that in a private sale?

Steve B

Originally Posted by NoizeBringer

Ben is exactly right. Larry is part of the problem that allows these criminals to continue to rip people off. Larry and just about every other member of this board who continues to bid with an auction house they know is ripping people off. The "bite the bullet" theory certainly contributes to the fraud that is so prevalent in the hobby. Bullet-biters are not nearly as responsible as the criminals themselves. But they do have some culpability. It's more like they're helping fugitives hide from justice in their house.

It's called greed, plain and simple. Not for money, exactly, but for that great item you just can't live without.

I had an item like that, one that I NEEDED, come up for auction a few years ago. But it was being offered by a fraudulent auction house. I don't want to name names, but it rhymes with "Mastro." Anyway, I was asked by someone if I'd be bidding on it. I told them that I, of course, would not be bidding with scumbag thieves who had stolen from me and many other collectors I know. So this person bid on and won the item for $1,500. Then they sold it to me for $3,500.

The moral of this story is, there's money to be made in the business of selling out your integrity. If you're willing to abandon your principles and any moral compass you may have had, there is profit to be made in this "hobby." If you're not after profits, you can always build a world-class collection of must-have items that you would have missed out on it had you not found a way to silence that pesky conscience.

Happy bidding.

-Ryan Christoff

[novakjr]

Originally Posted by steve B

I guess this is the part I don't get.
A sensible bidder can't really be "stolen from" because a sensible bidder bids what the item is worth to them and no more. If everyone bid that way shilling would be pointless Because all the bids would be nearly the same and a shill would end up buying the item or only making a small difference.

Steve B

I really don't quite understand what you're saying here. A sensible bidder CAN be stolen from, even while paying no more than what they were "willing" to pay. Auctions aren't set up for the winner to pay what he was "willing to pay". Auctions are set up for the winner to pay just more than the next highest bidder was willing to pay. Anything above that IS stealing, no matter how sensible a person's high bid was.

[the 'stache]

I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.

[Snapolit1]

Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Silence in response to a jury verdict for fraud and award of punitive damages is nearly deafening. Had same thing happened to Probstein we’d be at outraged and or gleeful post 625 by now. Jury verdict seems to be given back of hand by even attorneys on the board who champion rooting out fraud in the industry. Odd to say the least.

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk about it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

To be accurate, the Amended Complaint which is public had three counts.

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by calvindog

jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk about it.

So you’re saying OJ might actually be guilty???? How dare you!

[Snapolit1]

[QUOTE=calvindog;1775580]Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk

I will definitely use the “relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit” language in a press release next time one of my clients gets whacked. Useful. Thanks.

[frankbmd]

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk

I will definitely use the “relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit” language in a press release next time one of my clients gets whacked. Useful. Thanks.

Originally Posted by calvindog

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk about it.

A reasonable estimation of legal fees for both parties, if known, would lend credence to the characterization of a “reasonably tiny jury verdict” as an accurate assessment of the result.

[calvindog]

[QUOTE=Snapolit1;1775594]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit with numerous counts dismissed, Rob has a great reputation in the field and this is an isolated act, jury verdicts do not necessarily equate to truth as learned by people who actually try cases for a living and don't just talk

I will definitely use the “relatively tiny jury verdict in response to a massive lawsuit” language in a press release next time one of my clients gets whacked. Useful. Thanks.

Congrats on having clients, surprised me.

[T205 GB]

[QUOTE=calvindog;1775616]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Congrats on having clients, surprised me.

[Snapolit1]

I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.


QUOTE=the 'stache;1775566]I just read this entire thing, start to finish. All I can say is, I'm so glad I didn't go into law. Studying legal history in college is one thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the hundreds of hours I spent researching precedent cases in Lexisnexis and Westlaw. And every single element of mock trial fascinated me. But the actual practice of law in the real world is so very different than the young idealist in me could have ever anticipated. Jeff, Larry et all, I don't know where you guys find the patience your chosen profession requires. Chapeau.

To briefly touch on the point that was discussed earlier, comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.[/QUOTE]

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

I’ve had friends in the financial world who have been cited for serious securities infractions and have carried it around their neck like an albatross for years. They haven’t simply walked down the street and gotten another job doing the same thing. They have continued their careers but believe me the leading brokerage houses were not rolling out the red carpet to offer them another position.

I am not overstating it when I say that, in my particular industry, ethics was everything. It's a pretty big part of the Series 7 exam. I only worked for one broker-dealer firm, but they hammered it home that our fiduciary responsibility was at the forefront of everything that we did, especially when I began preliminary studying for my 66 to work as an RIA (registered investment advisor). I held that responsibility inviolate.

The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or FINRA (which used to be called the NASD) tracks every single registered representative within the industry, and continues to provide information on these representatives even after they are no longer a part of the industry. Case in point, here's my profile on FINRA's Broker Check. Even though it's been more than eight years since I was forced to leave the industry when I went on disability, everything I did as a registered representative is still available to the public. The licenses I held, and when they were passed, the firm I worked at, and the exact period of time that I was licensed. If any kind of regulatory actions had been brought against me, or if I had been terminated for cause-that information would be there. If you screw up, the black mark on your record, as far as I know, never goes away.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

[calvindog]

I just spoke to Leon about this. Yes, Rob was found responsible by a civil jury on the one surviving claim of Corey's. Yes that's bad. But spending seven figures in seven years to make 100K just can't feel like a win to me. The lawyers -- who I both know and are good guys and better lawyers -- won here.

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

Well, Bernie didn't walk down the street and get hired by another Wall Street shop, did he? Which appears to be the norm in this industry. Last I heard he was sitting in a federal prison until his day of death.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

Well, Bernie didn't walk down the street and get hired by another Wall Street shop, did he? Which appears to be the norm in this industry. Last I heard he was sitting in a federal prison until his day of death.

I didn’t defend or assess issue with the opinions regarding the op. My statement was merely addressing the responding posters statement about the “cleanliness” of the investment industry. IMO, anytime there is money at stake someone will be trying to angle the system.

Mark Medlin

[Peter_Spaeth]

I believe this is the "Fashion Course Trophy Ball."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ophy-baseball/

And this the "Origins of Baseball Letter."

http://www.robertedwardauctions.com/...ll-collection/

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.


Mark Medlin.

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

Originally Posted by calvindog

Hank, I can assure you that there is a higher percentage of people in the hobby/business with criminal records than there are in the field of politics, law, religion, finance and medicine.

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

[Leon]

Hey Bill
You had me until the bolded part below. You might want to ask Bill, Doug and some others about that? I will probably post a little more later but this caught my eye

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:

To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you f'g kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Leon

Hey Bill
You had me until the bolded part below. You might want to ask Bill, Doug and some others about that? I will probably post a little more later but this caught my eye

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I was a bit steamed when I wrote that, Leon. And my apologies for the F bomb.

What other forms of recourse are there besides civil court? Can an auction house and a complainant enter into binding arbitration?

Bill, sorry I missed your question, private parties can certainly agree to arbitrate almost any dispute, and I see no reason they could not have done so here. However, it's frequently the case that one side, or both, perceives that they will have the advantage with a jury. Parties can also enlist a mediator to help them try to resolve their dispute, and that's popular these days in certain types of cases and sometimes useful. Certainly both alternatives are more cost-effective.

[Mdmtx]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

I wasn't referring to large-scale malfeasance as exhibited by one perpetrator like Bernie Madoff. I was referring to the sheer number of individuals engaging in unscrupulous activity in our hobby as compared to professions like the law, or investments. My comment was in reference to, and in support of what Jeff said here:
Bui


To wit:

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of LARGE-SCALE
1 : involving many people or things.

If you needed clarification, you could have asked, and I'd have happily expounded on the point I was making. Instead, you made an assumption, and decided to respond like a smart ass. Furthermore-are you fucking kidding me with this? Do you think it's even remotely possible a licensed stockbroker could not know about Bernie Madoff? What, did you think that just because I went on disability, I magically developed amnesia, forgetting about what I'd done for the prior three plus years, while simultaneously losing touch with my professional contacts/colleagues/friends still gainfully employed within the industry? Did you think because I was no longer actively working for a broker-dealer that I would stop investing in my own trading account(s), and no longer stay abreast of investment news?

Clearly there are examples of people in the legal profession, and in investments, that have operated in illegal activity on a grand scale. No system is fool proof. But it is infinitely more difficult to further this kind of activity in investments than it is in the baseball card hobby. As was previously referenced, there is no collective body overseeing auction houses, no form of recourse available outside of civil court. And that can take several years, as evidenced by the central discussion of this thread. That process has not even been completed. Broker-dealers, and their individual employees, are subject to oversight and fines, which can be substantial, and happen quickly. These fines can be levied against entities and individuals without them ever stepping foot in a courthouse. Check out the last episode of Billions on Showtime. Dudley Mafee is a trader for the Axe Capitol hedge fund. The SEC fined him $181,000 for a tier three penalty, termed "fraud, and reckless disregard of regulatory requirements." When Mafee's complicity was brought to the attention of the SEC, the fine was imposed within mere days.

I didn't make it personal. You did. I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system. Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts! I am surprised that all the stock brokers knew, yet he rang the bell and was held in esteem.

Mark Medlin

[Peter_Spaeth]

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/libor-scandal.asp

https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2008/2008-32.htm

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I didn't make it personal. You did.

Because clearly this....

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I seem to remember a small little news story about a tiny investment firm. Something like Bernie Madoff Securities. You are correct. There could never be any large scale malfeasance in the investment world. Just tiny little deals like Bernie.

didn't sound at all condescending.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

I merely pointed out that money corrupts and contrary to your assertion, no industry is safe from those hell bent on gaming the system.

Where did I assess that any industry was safe from fraud?

Here's part of my first post:

Originally Posted by the 'stache

There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous.

Clearly, people are not going to engage in fraudulent activity if the system is foolproof, are they? That's tantamount to walking into prison, opening a cell door, and closing it behind them.

Originally Posted by Mdmtx

Call me smartass if you want, I just pointed out facts!

If it's your belief that I stated, in essence, "fraud on a large scale was an impossibility in the investments industry", statement of fact to repudiate my assertion would look something like this:

"Bernie Madoff's ponzi scheme cost his investors an estimated $50 billion."

You didn't do that. So, don't try to demure now, ok?

[Peter_Spaeth]

We sure seem to have strayed from the jury verdict, if we ever were there at all.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by the 'stache

comparing the amount of corruption prevalent in our hobby to that within the legal and financial realms-there's really no comparison to be made, at all. There are going to be those who engage in nefarious activity in any large group of people. It's unavoidable. Money attracts the unscrupulous. But speaking as one who worked in the investments industry, and is familiar with the oversight and safeguards in place, the kind of underhanded behavior that runs rampant in our hobby could never exist there. Not on that scale.