Goldin income verification

[Snapolit1]

Been bidding in their auctions for years, always pay on time, and have even been a consignor. Now they want me to prove income, ability to pay, etc. Must have been something dreamed up by the new owners. Hard pass. If my credit is no good or you have misgivings with my business, despite a 100% pay timely history, I will happily bid elsewhere. Same shit, different AH.

Sending financial records to an auction house. Could you imagine.

[calvindog]

What are you talking about? To be a bidder you meed to prove income? Or to get a much higher bidding limit?

[x2drich2000]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What are you talking about? To be a bidder you meed to prove income? Or to get a much higher bidding limit?

I feel the same way as the OP. Last I checked you could have up to $10k in total bids at any time before they wanted fund verifications. Not exactly a difficult amount to reach if you're putting in several placeholder bids.

[DeanH3]

Same experience for me as well. I was interested in an item in the last Premiere Auction. I was asked to prove income with bank statements. I've bid in their other auctions, so I was a bit surprised. I believe it's a Premier Auction thing. Yeah, no thanks.

[Casey2296]

Hard Pass on the Goldin "experience" for me.

[prestigecollectibles]

Not sure why my limit is $10,000,000

[doug.goodman]

I guess I'll be bidding via you Robert.

Doug

[Peter_Spaeth]

From the site and I am quoting: Bid limit request of $100K or more require purchase references and financial documentation,

Is that completely unreasonable?

[Rhotchkiss]

I don’t know what the initial bid limit is, but $100k without additional verification certainly sounds reasonable. At the same time, $10k is definitely too low, especially for people with a history.

Frankly, I don’t understand why people get so upset about having to verify ability to pay, especially is no credit card is posted as collateral. It’s nothing personal, just prudent business

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Bid limit request of $100K or more require purchase references and financial documentation,

Is that completely unreasonable?

It's not a $100k threshold though. I had to provide proof of funds to raise mine above $10k as well.

I have an even bigger gripe though. If you want to pay your invoice using your bank account, you'll get a cute little pop-up that says you must agree to giving Goldin access to your bank details including your entire transaction history. LOL

[Kco]

Originally Posted by calvindog

What are you talking about? To be a bidder you meed to prove income? Or to get a much higher bidding limit?

Yup, did the same to me last year, even after winning well into 5 figures and wiring money the next day. They have zero right to ask for it but they do. I for one haven’t bid again but hey.

[kengoldin]

Without getting into a response to some of these posts in this thread….
If anybody wishes to get a credit limit over $10,000 and does not currently have it and you do not wish to provide the requested information. Please email me personally give me your name. Give me the email you are registered under and just give me a couple hobby references and the limit you think you will need and I will take care of it for you.
Email me do not DM me here
Ken@goldin.com

Keep in mind these policies are done not only to ensure the winning bidder has the ability to pay for anything they are bidding on, but it also ensures the bidders are actually competing against people with the funds to pay, and lowers our default rate.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by kengoldin

Without getting into a response to some of these posts in this thread….
If anybody wishes to get a credit limit over $10,000 and does not currently have it and you do not wish to provide the requested information. Please email me personally give me your name. Give me the email you are registered under and just give me a couple hobby references and the limit you think you will need and I will take care of it for you.
Email me do not DM me here
Ken@goldin.com

Keep in mind these policies are done not only to ensure the winning bidder has the ability to pay for anything they are bidding on, but it also ensures the bidders are actually competing against people with the funds to pay, and lowers our default rate.

Tempest in a teapot at this point, guys. Ken's already come in and provided a very reasonable work-around.

The NPB thing is real and it is a problem. i've done some collections work for some AHs and going after renegging bidders is chasing gambling addicts. You pretty quickly find out that they love the rush of the win but are in way over their heads, have atrocious credit, and little to nothing by way of recoverable assets. It is also incredibly inconvenient for a business to have a sale blown up by a deadbeat.

[calvindog]

Here's Mathewson in a Reds uniform (Hal Chase too):

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Kco

Yup, did the same to me last year, even after winning well into 5 figures and wiring money the next day. They have zero right to ask for it but they do. I for one haven’t bid again but hey.

But they have every right to ask. You have every right to refuse and not bid. But that doesn't mean a business doesn't have the right to restrict customers to those approved via their methods.

[Snapolit1]

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

A lot has changed in the baseball card market in the last ten years, if you hadn't noticed.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Snapolit1

If this is such an obvious no brainer and customary, how come I’ve been bidding with about a dozen AHs for over a decade for prob hundreds of thousands in bids and no one has asked me for this before? Weird.

It probably has more to do with the customer base that each auction house caters to. Sites like Mile High or REA largely deal with vintage collectors, and most bidders in that segment of the hobby pay for their winnings. However, sites like Goldin and PWCC that sell a lot of higher-end ultra-modern cards likely have a significantly higher percentage of non-paying bidders since shill-bidding is a much bigger problem on that side of the fence. It makes sense that sites like Goldin and PWCC would ask for proof of funds before sites like REA or Mile High would.

[mrreality68]

its is the way they do business. I also had to do that at a few other auction houses (I think it was Christies where I won my Joe Jackson Minor League Postcard) and Chtisties did require verification of funds in the bank and available not even income
With Goldin there was a choice of either showing income or past purchase histories from other auction houses. I did the past pruchases and showing they were paid and from that my "limit was determined".

It was a paperwork pain in the butt but it was 1 time and it is done (unless I want to get my bidding limit raised).

[OhioLawyerF5]

If you take it as a personal attack on your integrity that an auction house, who doesn't know you from Adam, wants to verify your ability to pay before using their service, the problem is not with the auction house, it's with your fragile emotional state.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

If you take it as a personal attack on your integrity that an auction house, who doesn't know you from Adam, wants to verify your ability to pay before using their service, the problem is not with the auction house, it's with your fragile emotional state.

I read it as the opposite situation. An auction house he has a proven track record with going back several years. They do know him, or should. Being denied a bit extra in that situation seems unreasonable.

My one big auction experience was in a different hobby, had to apply for permission to bid at all. Gave a couple hobby references, and had to answer a couple questions about what I planned on bidding for. Very modest plan, pretty much the two lowest estimated items they had plus a slightly more expensive lot as a backup plan.
Approved, with no limit mentioned.
Totally blown out of all three..... Ah well.

[OhioLawyerF5]

I'm happy to be snarky when I see people claiming to take personal offense when a corporation doesn't trust them implicitly because they've been a customer before. I find that hilarious....and sad.

[gabrinus]

I find you hilarious and sad...Jerry

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by gabrinus

I find you hilarious and sad...Jerry

I love you, Jerry.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

I'm happy to be snarky when I see people claiming to take personal offense when a corporation doesn't trust them implicitly because they've been a customer before. I find that hilarious....and sad.

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.

Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.

Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.

Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.

I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.

Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.

So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.



Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.



Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.



Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.



I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.



Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.



So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

Talk about missing the point.

I didn't defend it at all. I merely said it was stupid to take personal offense to it. I specifically said that while the company has the right to do it (because they do), you are more than within your rights to hate it and stop doing business with them.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by OhioLawyerF5

Talk about missing the point.

I didn't defend it at all. I merely said it was stupid to take personal offense to it. I specifically said that while the company has the right to do it (because they do), you are more than within your rights to hate it and stop doing business with them.

Are you calling me and other members like me stupid?

[OhioLawyerF5]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

Are you calling me and other members like me stupid?

I'm saying it's stupid to take personal offense to a policy implemented by a company that applies across the board. If you want to take personal offense to that, well... I wouldn't be surprised.

Smart people do stupid things all the time. So I'm not calling you stupid. I'm saying something you are doing is stupid. The fact that you interpret that as calling you stupid just proves my point about how ridiculous some people are who take offense to non-offensive things. I like to live by the saying that taking offense just shows someone's inability to control their reactions to others. And this case is a prime example. A company makes a sweeping policy change and people think Ken Goldin specifically targeted them because he questions their personal integrity. Stupid. Yes, that's stupid. I don't know another way to say it.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

You're missing the point entirely, if you want to drop to your knees and suck the corporate teat that's your decision. You're defending a company that got its start hoodwinking people into buying sports cards with snake oil tactics on late night TV. Not a good start on the integrity meter.

Kens done a great job maximizing profits, props all day long, but if you think a corporations self interest is greater than normal folks with integrity that are bidding on sports cards in this hobby I would disagree.

Call me old fashioned, I'm good with that, I'd rather hang out with the dozens of old timers on this sub that live by the "my word is my bond" credo than prove we can pay for what we bid on. Lack of trust is your problem not mine.

Heritage, LOTG, REA, etc have never asked for any of that, I'm completely good sending them my unverified money, and they're completely good accepting it.

I'm just a small time collector but do occasionally spend more than 10k in an auction. I'll never deal with a corporation that makes it difficult for me to spend money with them, so no Goldin for me, Ken doesn't need my pittance of business anyway.

Peters false equivalence of mortgage loans makes no sense either, I'd be interested to see if Goldins stewardship of that highly sensitive information adheres to the strict laws we have in the mortgage industry.

So you can defend corporate bullshit all you want but your rooting for the wrong team imo.

Why is it a false equivalence?

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Why is it a false equivalence?

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

I now have an identity and credit monitoring account. It was provided to me free of charge, because the 3rd party servicer of my mortgage had a data breach. That means, all of my financial info provided to my mortgage company was compromised.

So much for mortgage industry regulations and protections.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Casey2296

The mortgage industry is a highly regulated industry when it comes to financial information, how we ask for that information, how we protect that information, how we can use that information, and how we store that information just to name a few.

I would posit the unregulated AH industry has little to none of those protections. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

But your originally stated objection was not concern that your information provided to Goldin could be compromised, it was that you found the request personally insulting. Old time collector etc. etc. So I asked why that was the case if you didn't find a request by a bank insulting. You seem to be shifting arguments.