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

[MACollector]

Goldin has a show on Netflix starting April 28th. I will take the over just on the publicity and people that it may draw to the auction.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by MACollector

Goldin has a show.

I remember the Goldin show on HSN, didn't turn out so well for folks.

[Exhibitman]

The basic conceptual misalignment we have here is that cards are not a single asset class and card investors are not a single group. It is an oversimplification to treat any specific aspect of the hobby as a bellwether for the entire hobby. it is simply too diverse. A very interesting piece ran on Sports Collectors Daily recently with Chris McGill, the Co-Founder of Card Ladder, who provided some statistics on different segments of the hobby over the last 5 years:

Ultra-Modern: +639%

Modern: +744%

Vintage: +270%

Pre-War Vintage: 340%

Yet over 2022, modern was down 30% and prewar vintage was up 29%. it isn't monolithic. The 1986 Jordan RC losing 60% of its value from the market top didn't affect the market for T206 Cobbs or 1933 Goudey Ruths. Similarly, what happens with the 1955 Koufax will pass right by the guys looking for a Jim Brown rookie card.

[Rhotchkiss]

Deleted

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

under by 20%...imo.

In this boat here.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

I remember the Goldin show on HSN, didn't turn out so well for folks.

History may not repeat itself, but does make for a good mirror.


Pump and dump 90s junk on "new investors" before it all came to a crashing halt.

When your neighbor with no knowledge can flip (insert asset here) its wont end pretty.

This time, its different.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Republicaninmass

This time, it’s different.

Said by everyone, every time.

But this time it really is!

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by raulus

Said by everyone, every time.

But this time it really is!

5 or 6 of my signed HOF 52s which did "all time High's" in memory lane..are. being resold .through Goldin for less.


Been spending most their life, living in a flipper paradise

[steve B]

I get if you don't think the sales of the expensive stuff affects the related or identical cheap stuff.

But I'm completely convinced it's a factor in prices.

Consider a few sets.
T206 - easily the most common set of its era, maybe the most common prewar set. When I started, commons that were vg ish, were 1.50. First tier HOF $10. Cobb was more. Wagner was I think around 10K
Other sets from the same era? Despite being overall more difficult, often much ore difficult, the "easy" ones like E90-1 Sold for about the same.
Even later when T206 commons were around $10 E90-1s were maybe $15.
If there was no trickle down from the Wagner and slightly less from Plank, where would T206 commons be now.
I would say that being so easy, they would be less than 33 Goudey commons.

Similarly, I think 52 Topps owes most of its popularity to the Mantle. I don't think 52 Topps commons are tougher than say 53 Topps or 52 Bowman.

[Yoda]

I keep thinking about that old Wall St. maxim, "The Greater Fool Theory" where you are the last one holding the bag.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

I keep thinking about that old Wall St. maxim, "The Greater Fool Theory" where you are the last one holding the bag.

I have been saying that for a very long time with graded cards and card collecting in general with the crazy prices and rampant scamming. So far I have been very WRONG.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I have been saying that for a very long time with graded cards and card collecting in general with the crazy prices and rampant scamming. So far I have been very WRONG.

If you look at past manias and crazes, sometimes it takes several years to work through the process, with the mania growing in leaps and bounds along the way, before reaching peak frothiness and finally something breaks and it all comes crashing down.

The tulip bulb mania in Holland is one of my faves, and seems apropos here. In the end, the high end stuff was still very valuable. But all of the low end stuff got washed out.

[parkplace33]

Interesting that Rea in the next auction not only has a 55 Koufax psa 9 but a 55 Clemente psa 9. I marvel how these high grade cards continue to be auctioned one after the other.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Interesting that Rea in the next auction not only has a 55 Koufax psa 9 but a 55 Clemente psa 9. I marvel how these high grade cards continue to be auctioned one after the other.

It's eerie, almost like some artisan is just churning them out, one after the other.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

Interesting that Rea in the next auction not only has a 55 Koufax psa 9 but a 55 Clemente psa 9. I marvel how these high grade cards continue to be auctioned one after the other.

Obviously nosebleed prices have a way of bringing stuff out of collections and into the market.

At the same time, you always wonder when all of the buyers who are willing to pay nosebleed prices will be fully satiated. Or when they will run out of cash to keep buying.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by raulus

Or when they will run out of cash to keep buying.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by raulus

If you look at past manias and crazes, sometimes it takes several years to work through the process, with the mania growing in leaps and bounds along the way, before reaching peak frothiness and finally something breaks and it all comes crashing down.

The tulip bulb mania in Holland is one of my faves, and seems apropos here. In the end, the high end stuff was still very valuable. But all of the low end stuff got washed out.

Tulip mania was pretty much limited to three years.

I've been hearing about the pending collapse of card prices for about 45 years.

[raulus]

Originally Posted by steve B

Tulip mania was pretty much limited to three years.

I've been hearing about the pending collapse of card prices for about 45 years.

I’d say the asset class has gone through a few purgings in the last 50 years. Early 90s comes to mind in the wake of the crazy runup during the junk wax era. In the wake of the Great Recession there seems to have been another pretty solid pullback.

And given the recent runup during the pandemic of 300-1000%, which is maybe 2+ years old, I’d say that it’s a little early to proclaim that the parallels between this specific time and tulip mania are irrelevant.

[oldjudge]

LOL, looks like every auction has one—I’ll take the under

[JimC]

I assume by now most have seen that there is also a PSA 9 Koufax rookie in REA. Ryan, I'm curious - - does having two on the market at the same time alter your expectations?

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by JimC

I assume by now most have seen that there is also a PSA 9 Koufax rookie in REA. Ryan, I'm curious - - does having two on the market at the same time alter your expectations?

Good question Jim. Honestly, I am not sure. My knee jerk reaction is that the REA 9 should negatively impact the Goldin one, but who knows - maybe people hold off on the REA one knowing they have a second bite on the Goldin one. In my experience, the second one usually goes for less than the first. That said, the cards I bid on are usually much rarer than a 55 Koufax, even in a 9, and they are less “commodity cards”, meaning a thinner overall audience. As a result, by eliminating the winner from the first one, there is usually less competition on the next one and it goes for less.

A great example of this is the t206 Speaker Drum. In May of 2021, Heritage auctioned off a PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum. I won it for $31,200. Three months later REA auctions another, arguably nicer, PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum and Luke stole it for $24,600! That is almost certainly because I was not a bidder, having already just “won” one. As an aside, I think there are only 3-5 Speaker Drums, compared to the 25+ psa 9/10 Koufax.

BTW- I am not a player for either Koufax.

[theshowandme]

The Clemente 9 in REA though




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bigdaddy]

Even before seeing the REA Koufax, I'm on the side of 'under'. Just a gut feel.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Good question Jim. Honestly, I am not sure. My knee jerk reaction is that the REA 9 should negatively impact the Goldin one, but who knows - maybe people hold off on the REA one knowing they have a second bite on the Goldin one. In my experience, the second one usually goes for less than the first. That said, the cards I bid on are usually much rarer than a 55 Koufax, even in a 9, and they are less “commodity cards”, meaning a thinner overall audience. As a result, by eliminating the winner from the first one, there is usually less competition on the next one and it goes for less.

A great example of this is the t206 Speaker Drum. In May of 2021, Heritage auctioned off a PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum. I won it for $31,200. Three months later REA auctions another, arguably nicer, PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum and Luke stole it for $24,600! That is almost certainly because I was not a bidder, having already just “won” one. As an aside, I think there are only 3-5 Speaker Drums, compared to the 25+ psa 9/10 Koufax.

BTW- I am not a player for either Koufax.

Not to steal or hijack your thread, but maybe add on to your initial question? How do both cards fair in regard to your $345K over/under query, AND which AH's Koufax rookie card ends up selling for more, including the BP?

I had initially guessed the '55 Topps Koufax card being sold by Goldin would be under, and I'm going to guess REA's will be under as well. Now I initially want to guess REA's Koufax card will go for a higher amount than Goldin's, but I'm wondering if for a card of this value if the Goldin vault doesn't possibly impact the final sales price? Someone using Goldin's vault can absolutely escape sales tax, whereas an REA buyer may end up with a significant sales tax liability of tens of thousands of dollars, which I can only assume they may factor into what they end up bidding. So, I'll reluctantly guess the Goldin Koufax rookie card ends up selling for more.

And though I understand and agree with Ryan's thinking and logic regarding a second, later sale usually going for less, that mostly works best when you have exactly the same bidders in both auctions. I'm not so sure there may be serious bidders in only one or the other auction, but not in both, for whatever the reason(s).

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Not to steal or hijack your thread, but maybe add on to your initial question? How do both cards fair in regard to your $345K over/under query, AND which AH's Koufax rookie card ends up selling for more, including the BP?

I had initially guessed the '55 Topps Koufax card being sold by Goldin would be under, and I'm going to guess REA's will be under as well. Now I initially want to guess REA's Koufax card will go for a higher amount than Goldin's, but I'm wondering if for a card of this value if the Goldin vault doesn't possibly impact the final sales price? Someone using Goldin's vault can absolutely escape sales tax, whereas an REA buyer may end up with a significant sales tax liability of tens of thousands of dollars, which I can only assume they may factor into what they end up bidding. So, I'll reluctantly guess the Goldin Koufax rookie card ends up selling for more.

Unless I’m completely barmy, I understand that a buyer on any platform can ship to most any vault, and with most (all?) of the vaults being located in no sales tax states, a buyer of the REA piece could enjoy similar sales tax treatment that a buyer enjoys when buying from Goldin with a straight deposit into the captive Goldin/CU vault.

Ergo, anyone looking to save by using a vault should be able to do so even when buying on platforms that don’t have an integrated vault.

Having said that, my preference is for all y’all to have to pay sales tax, so that I can benefit from the inherent bidding advantage that comes with living in a state with no sales tax.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Unless I’m completely barmy, I understand that a buyer on any platform can ship to most any vault, and with most (all?) of the vaults being located in no sales tax states, a buyer of the REA piece could enjoy similar sales tax treatment that a buyer enjoys when buying from Goldin with a straight deposit into the captive Goldin/CU vault.

Ergo, anyone looking to save by using a vault should be able to do so even when buying on platforms that don’t have an integrated vault.

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.

[raulus]

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.

You could be right. Obviously the integrated auction houses cum vault operators hope that the convenience of their integrated operation makes their vault much more attractive to potential users.

And I suspect you’re right that the user base may vary a bit between these two AHs, although I also suspect the profile of buyers at the 6-figure level between these two platforms varies less.

And with a 5-figure sales tax bill in the offing, I suspect a vault might seem less odious to the purchaser.

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Good question Jim. Honestly, I am not sure. My knee jerk reaction is that the REA 9 should negatively impact the Goldin one, but who knows - maybe people hold off on the REA one knowing they have a second bite on the Goldin one. In my experience, the second one usually goes for less than the first. That said, the cards I bid on are usually much rarer than a 55 Koufax, even in a 9, and they are less “commodity cards”, meaning a thinner overall audience. As a result, by eliminating the winner from the first one, there is usually less competition on the next one and it goes for less.

A great example of this is the t206 Speaker Drum. In May of 2021, Heritage auctioned off a PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum. I won it for $31,200. Three months later REA auctions another, arguably nicer, PSA 1 t206 Speaker Drum and Luke stole it for $24,600! That is almost certainly because I was not a bidder, having already just “won” one. As an aside, I think there are only 3-5 Speaker Drums, compared to the 25+ psa 9/10 Koufax.

BTW- I am not a player for either Koufax.

surprised you didn't bid on that one too but you make excellent points. I always appreciate your insight, Thanks.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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

[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

[raulus]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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

Not to get tooooooooooo crazy here, but I suspect you'll have to comply with securities laws, which make the entire exercise a lot more exciting. Because the penalty for failure includes serious jail time, and that would end your trip real quick.

[trambo]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

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.

I don't have anything like your collection but the fractional share of a card, set or something like that has been intriguing to me as well. Buying a Wagner in a partnership of some semblance has always been the musing. Would be interesting to see as, like you, have also done some recapitalization in the real estate market (smaller scale, I'm sure, and different asset class). Doubtful I ever go that route but always interesting to think through!!

[Rhotchkiss]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not to get tooooooooooo crazy here, but I suspect you'll have to comply with securities laws, which make the entire exercise a lot more exciting. Because the penalty for failure includes serious jail time, and that would end your trip real quick.

That goes without saying. As someone who raises and invests funds, I am very aware of the federal and state compliance burdens associated with private offerings, and I believe something like this would qualify as a security for SEC purposes. Alas, it’s an idea right now, nothing more.

The point is that Bob’s discussion of card mutual funds is valid and could one day become a reality. Indeed, I have heard whispers of one about a year ago and I am very sure there are partnerships/LLCs of multiple partners/members that are currently buying cards, which is effectively fractional shares by another name

[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!!!!!!

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by raulus

Not to get tooooooooooo crazy here, but I suspect you'll have to comply with securities laws, which make the entire exercise a lot more exciting. Because the penalty for failure includes serious jail time, and that would end your trip real quick.

Bingo! Compliance with securities laws is the way to legitimize the effort. Not skirt it, embrace it. If the fractional interest promoters can manage that, they have a chance at selling people on it not being a giant scam. If they act like the crypto bros, not so much.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

Bingo! Compliance with securities laws is the way to legitimize the effort. Not skirt it, embrace it. If the fractional interest promoters can manage that, they have a chance at selling people on it not being a giant scam. If they act like the crypto bros, not so much.

Exactly right, and just think how that could also then apply to scrutiny and oversight of TPGs who review and opine on the sports cards and other items now being sold as investments. Just like the rules and regulations that CPAs who opine on the financial statements of publicly traded companies have to follow.

Like how a CPA cannot ever charge a contingent fee for any work or services they provide so they maintain their independence and do not have any potential bias or conflicts of interest, in both fact AND APPEARANCE! If that were similarly applied to TPGs, then they could technically only charge the exact same amount to grade a 1988 Gregg Jefferies rookie card as they would for grading a '52 Topps Mantle card, assuming they were providing the same exact service(s)/work. Now, how nice would that be that you are only charged for the actual work/services they perform, and not for what they can maybe get away with? Also, in the case of owners/employees of a TPG, they likely would never be allowed to have their own cards/items be graded or otherwise serviced by the same TPG they owned/worked for. For example, David Hall owned one of, if not the most celebrated T206 card collections of all time at one point, to my understanding. He also was behind the creation of, and at one time a major owner of, Collectors Universe I believe, which also (or at least did) own PSA as a wholly owned subsidiary. I wonder while still an owner who he may have had grading his T206 cards? Likewise, now that CU/PSA have been taken over by private ownership (and is no longer publicly traded), including by such as Nat Turner, I wonder who he has/would have do the work of grading any cards he may want to get graded now? That kind of thing happening would be a totally improper and unbelievably and absolutely biased conflict of interest occurrence and should never be (or have been) allowed to happen.