Giant Size X-Men #1 for investment? 3 3

[namisgr]

2 hours ago, the blob said:

Delek is this guy:

https://pro.dentresearch.com/p/BNBZERO_0118/LBNBU767/?h=true

He'll own us all!

Or not.

[delekkerste]

10 hours ago, the blob said:

"history suggests" the S&P 500 (or some other broad index) will make 7-10% compounded over the next 20-30 years

Sorry to depress you further, but that is such a terrible way of looking at history.  What history actually tells us is that future returns are inversely correlated with starting valuations.  Invest at bombed out valuations and you will make much greater returns than 7-10% compounded.  For example, if you had invested at the end of 1979, your 20-year compounded return would be 17.9%* through December 31, 1999 (all figures include reinvested dividends).  On the other hand, if you had invested at the end of 1999, nearly 19 years later, you are compounding at a 5.7% annualized rate.  Which doesn't sound terrible, except that's because we are in the midst of yet another Fed-induced bubble (the "Everything Bubble").  The 10-year return from 1999-2009 is a more sobering -0.9% compounded annual loss.  If you achieve a 7-10% long-term CAGR it probably means you have spread out your investing over periods of varying valuations and ended up somewhere in the middle.

But, note that this is all backward-looking.  The U.S. economy is both more mature and more indebted than it was during the decades that it was growing at a higher rate of trend growth.  We are now at a stage where growth is structurally lower, which means that returns, absent financial engineering and other trickery, should be lower as well.  7-10% annualized over the next 20-30 years is VERY unlikely to occur.  Not impossible, but, very unlikely.  And, if it does, it probably means that we have an inflation problem and that real (inflation-adjusted) returns will not be impressive.    

 

* Obviously this figure is somewhat overinflated due to the tech bubble, but, even if you brought forward the end date to the end of 1995, the CAGR is still a robust 15.5%; end of 1996 gets you 15.9%, end of 1997 gets you 16.8% and end of 1998 gets you 17.4%. Bottom line is that it was investing at rock-bottom valuations that got you these well-above historical mean returns. 

Edited September 12, 2018 by delekkerste

[the blob]

You know, partially quoting me changes it a lot! Anyway, You can pick any 20 year period and find ones that are good and ones that are not so good. I am also viewing it not as a 1 year investment, but putting in yearly or monthly or biweekly like most people do (And yes I know the original post response was where to stick $800 for 30 years and I just didn't think a hulk 181 beater is the way). Fyi, the Nikkei is actually up a whopping 15% or so since 1989 if you factor in dividend reinvestment and look at it in dollars. About .5% a year! Better than Fish Police 1!

Edited September 12, 2018 by the blob

[the blob]

Ok I think this is my last one. I kept on putting into my 401k leading up to the internet crash and afterword for the stickiness of 2000-2002. Probably madness at the time, but I would have spent the money on dollar books or strip clubs. I have run calculations (with dividend reinvestment) for August 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 contributions. The rate of return to the present ranged from 5.7% - 9.6% for each year, averaging within the 7-10% range. You can't just act like 2009-18 didn't happen, sure things look terrible if you cut out most of the recoveries. And that includes a long stretch, where, as you note, the s&p was negative. I don't disagree that we are probably due for another correction, but nursing home and adult diaper stocks will keep the market robust for the next 20 years after that! In any event, I am far more concerned personally about NYC real estate staying bubbelicious for another decade or so.

[delekkerste]

25 minutes ago, the blob said:

You can pick any 20 year period and find ones that are good and ones that are not so good. I am also viewing it not as a 1 year investment, but putting in yearly or monthly or biweekly like most people do (And yes I know the original post response was where to stick $800). Fyi, the Nikkei is actually up a whopping 15% or so since 1989 if you factor in dividend reinvestment and look at it in dollars. About .5% a year! 

From the end of 1989 (which is when it topped) it's still negative in JPY terms...nearly 3 decades later.  In USD its up a little more than 4% total. 

4 minutes ago, the blob said:

Ok I think this is my last one. I kept on putting into my 401k leading up to the internet crash and afterword for the stickiness of 2000-2002. Probably madness at the time, but I would have spent the money on dollar books or strip clubs. I have run calculations (with dividend reinvestment) for August 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 contributions. The rate of return to the present ranged from 5.7% - 9.6% for each year, averaging within the 7-10% range. You can't just act like 2009-18 didn't happen, sure things look terrible if you cut out most of the recoveries. And that includes a long stretch, where, as you note, the s&p was negative. I don't disagree that we are probably due for another correction, but nursing home and adult diaper stocks will keep the market robust for the next 20 years after that! In any event, I am far more concerned personally about NYC real estate staying bubbelicious for another decade or so.

Nobody is acting like 2009-18 didn't happen.  Quite the contrary, in fact - it just further proves my case that it's the starting valuation that matters.  And, we're talking about buying one book now or putting that money into stocks now (no dollar-cost averaging, or, at least not over a multi-year period), so starting valuations matter a lot.

That goes for all asset classes.  I bought my NYC apartment in 2007 and it's probably appreciated ~20% since then.  If I had bought in 2009, it would be up ~60% (contrary to the belief of some, NYC real estate did tank in 2008-9.  Another unit in my line was offered at 26.5% less only a year and a half after I bought mine).  I only mention this because there are, similarly, some correction-deniers who think that comics just kept going up, up, up during the Great Financial Crisis/Great Recession.  They point to things like that Action #1 6.0 which sold for $300-odd thousand in 2009 as proof of that.  As if that comic wouldn't have fetched as much and probably more in August 2008 with oil at $140/bbl., gold at 28-year highs and everyone in a frenzy to buy hard assets? Puh. Leeze.  If, hypothetically, the Doug Schmell Collection had been sold in August 2008 or March 2009, which time period do you think it would have fetched more money?  Just because people weren't dumping comics en masse doesn't mean that valuations weren't impaired beneath the surface.  

I think you're underestimating the potential for a secular bear market period in the coming decades, which will cause equity returns to far undershoot your historical benchmarks.  I mean, think about it - you put in money in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 and have had this long runway through 2018 with the tailwinds of all the advancements of the past 16-20 years in technology, transportation, financial engineering, communications, etc.  Not to mention a secular bull market in bonds, interest rates manipulated to zero (even negative in much of the world), money printed by the trillions.  In other words, as steroidal a scenario as you could possibly envision for inflating asset prices...and yet returns only averaged between 5.7% and 9.6% annualized. I just don't think it's realistic to expect us to meet, let alone exceed, those levels in the next 16-20 years.  Especially given the aging population, the enormous levels of corporate and governmental indebtedness, near-record starting valuations, etc.  

Even the esteemed John Bogle is only expecting ~4% annualized returns going forward.  Here's his thoughts from the end of 2017:

With expectations of a future 2% dividend yield, which is lower than the historical average of 4.4%, and a 4% growth in earnings, Bogle forecasts that future investment returns on stocks will be 6%. Factoring in a drop in the historically high price to earnings ratio (P/E Ratio) of 24 to about 20 or possibly less would shed 2% off of that 6% return. That leaves an annual rate of return of 4% for the U.S. stock market, which is less than half of what the return has been over past decades, and that’s not including investment fees.

Grantham Mayo's models at the end of 2017 forecasted real returns of -4.7% annualized for the next 7 years for U.S. large cap stocks vs. a 6.5% long-term average (again, these are real/inflation-adjusted returns). Obviously, these models are taking into account the high starting valuation as opposed to just blindly looking at long-term averages.

We have enough data from the past 15-20 years to know that growth has shifted to a lower long-term trend potential.  Things have changed so much that we're at a point where we need to be taking a realistic account of the current starting conditions and assessing what that means for future returns, as opposed to just looking in the rearview mirror.  And that goes for comics as well as stocks.  

  

 

[the blob]

7 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

From the end of 1989 (which is when it topped) it's still negative in JPY terms...nearly 3 decades later.  In USD its up a little more than 4% total. 

Nobody is acting like 2009-18 didn't happen.  Quite the contrary, in fact - it just further proves my case that it's the starting valuation that matters.  And, we're talking about buying one book now or putting that money into stocks now (no dollar-cost averaging, or, at least not over a multi-year period), so starting valuations matter a lot.

That goes for all asset classes.  I bought my NYC apartment in 2007 and it's probably appreciated ~20% since then.  If I had bought in 2009, it would be up ~60% (contrary to the belief of some, NYC real estate did tank in 2008-9.  Another unit in my line was offered at 26.5% less only a year and a half after I bought mine).  I only mention this because there are, similarly, some correction-deniers who think that comics just kept going up, up, up during the Great Financial Crisis/Great Recession.  They point to things like that Action #1 6.0 which sold for $300-odd thousand in 2009 as proof of that.  As if that comic wouldn't have fetched as much and probably more in August 2008 with oil at $140/bbl., gold at 28-year highs and everyone in a frenzy to buy hard assets? Puh. Leeze.  If, hypothetically, the Doug Schmell Collection had been sold in August 2008 or March 2009, which time period do you think it would have fetched more money?  Just because people weren't dumping comics en masse doesn't mean that valuations weren't impaired beneath the surface.  

I think you're underestimating the potential for a secular bear market period in the coming decades, which will cause equity returns to far undershoot your historical benchmarks.  I mean, think about it - you put in money in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 and have had this long runway through 2018 with the tailwinds of all the advancements of the past 16-20 years in technology, transportation, financial engineering, communications, etc.  Not to mention a secular bull market in bonds, interest rates manipulated to zero (even negative in much of the world), money printed by the trillions.  In other words, as steroidal a scenario as you could possibly envision for inflating asset prices...and yet returns only averaged between 5.7% and 9.6% annualized. I just don't think it's realistic to expect us to meet, let alone exceed, those levels in the next 16-20 years.  Especially given the aging population, the enormous levels of corporate and governmental indebtedness, near-record starting valuations, etc.  

Even the esteemed John Bogle is only expecting ~4% annualized returns going forward.  Here's his thoughts from the end of 2017:

With expectations of a future 2% dividend yield, which is lower than the historical average of 4.4%, and a 4% growth in earnings, Bogle forecasts that future investment returns on stocks will be 6%. Factoring in a drop in the historically high price to earnings ratio (P/E Ratio) of 24 to about 20 or possibly less would shed 2% off of that 6% return. That leaves an annual rate of return of 4% for the U.S. stock market, which is less than half of what the return has been over past decades, and that’s not including investment fees.

Grantham Mayo's models at the end of 2017 forecasted real returns of -4.7% annualized for the next 7 years for U.S. large cap stocks vs. a 6.5% long-term average (again, these are real/inflation-adjusted returns). Obviously, these models are taking into account the high starting valuation as opposed to just blindly looking at long-term averages.

We have enough data from the past 15-20 years to know that growth has shifted to a lower long-term trend potential.  Things have changed so much that we're at a point where we need to be taking a realistic account of the current starting conditions and assessing what that means for future returns, as opposed to just looking in the rearview mirror.  And that goes for comics as well as stocks.  

  

 

I only got 5.6-9.6% returns on those 98-2002 investments because they were eviscerated at the time. Had to dig out of a hole. What do you think my august 2003 contribution did? Anyway, a bunch of folks were saying in 2009 the market would be a disaster for the next 5 year's. In any event, maybe the next 5 or 10 years will stink. Although bogle predicts 6%, getting it down to 4% required some maneuvering. I will never underestimate the ability of CEOs, CFOs, and wall street to jiggy prices up, whether rational or not. Their private jets and alimony payments depend on it!

[drotto]

All this stock talk reminds me of my best investments of the last 2 years; Salesforce stock, my X-Men 1 and my copy of Hulk 181.  Biggest difference is I have no emotional attachment to my stock.

[the blob]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 1:18 AM, delekkerste said:

 

 

  

 

Jeez louise all of this doom and gloom resulted in me moving most of my 401K into safer money market funds. My 401K would probably be up $10K if I had stayed put.

[jason4]

THis book is a good investment right now. I loved it and wanted one for about 25 years ever since I saw it as a 9 year old kid. Finally got one this week because I feel it’s due to explode and time is running out on it being affordable.

Disney is doing the xmen, and I’m willing to bet they’re going to do an amazing Storm character (not one with those horrid Sony quotes) as well as colossus and Nightcrawler. 

Also, as h181 continues it’s huge climb, look for more people going for the next best wolverine appearances in hulk 180 but I think also his 2nd full in gsx1.

[delekkerste]

23 hours ago, the blob said:

Jeez louise all of this doom and gloom resulted in me moving most of my 401K into safer money market funds. My 401K would probably be up $10K if I had stayed put.

It not only matters what the expected intermediate-to-long term prospects for the market are, it also matters how we get there (path-dependency).  As we are still in a bull market, I expect that the shorter-term returns could look a lot better than the back-end returns, which is why I am pretty much fully invested (though, not in the usual mix of overvalued index funds, closet-indexed mutual funds and momentum favorites that most people own).  

10 hours ago, jason4 said:

Disney is doing the xmen, and I’m willing to bet they’re going to do an amazing Storm character (not one with those horrid Sony quotes) as well as colossus and Nightcrawler.

I'd rather own Disney stock than GSXM #1.*  Over the next 10 years, Disney the company will likely generate over $100 billion in free cash flow.  My copy of GSXM #1 will still only be a copy of GSXM #1.  Think about it.  

 

* I actually own both.  Though, much more of the former than my one CGC 9.6 copy that I picked up probably around 2002 or 2003 (I paid $3K...it hasn't even doubled in price since then, has it?)

Edited September 21, 2018 by delekkerste

[the blob]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

It not only matters what the expected intermediate-to-long term prospects for the market are, it also matters how we get there (path-dependency).  As we are still in a bull market, I expect that the shorter-term returns could look a lot better than the back-end returns, which is why I am pretty much fully invested (though, not in the usual mix of overvalued index funds, closet-indexed mutual funds and momentum favorites that most people own).  

I'd rather own Disney stock than GSXM #1.*  Over the next 10 years, Disney the company will likely generate over $100 billion in free cash flow.  My copy of GSXM #1 will still only be a copy of GSXM #1.  Think about it.  

 

* I actually own both.  Though, much more of the former than my one CGC 9.6 copy that I picked up 15+ years ago.  

Yeah yeah, I know, I didn't expect the decline to happen the next day, but these crashes often happen around this time of year, I just don't want to stress about it. I sill have 15% in, I probably should have kept 30% in. oh well. it's not like selling Saga 1s for $10 a pop.

[delekkerste]

On 9/20/2018 at 4:19 PM, the blob said:

Jeez louise all of this doom and gloom resulted in me moving most of my 401K into safer money market funds. My 401K would probably be up $10K if I had stayed put.

YOU'RE WELCOME. 

[blazingbob]

Wow,  Quite the response,  Bolded,  king size fonts.

I heard that all the way out in Commack

[the blob]

1 hour ago, delekkerste said:

YOU'RE WELCOME. 

Well, if I had taken the $10K in last gasp increases and THEN gone into cash before the drop I would be better off. I still have 15% of my investments in the market getting hit, but am not having heart palpatations given that I got 85% out before this. I didn't do it because you were being gloomy, it was something I had been telling myself for months, I just finally pulled the trigger.

[the blob]

I just hope my mother moved most of her's into safer pastures as we had been discussing.

[the blob]

Needless to say I feel no glee from this. If we take a 20-30% hit it is going to make life rough in my parts. On the other hand, maybe I will finally be able to buy a distressed property or three and become fred mertz.

[Dick Pontoon]

Would that make Mrs. Blob Ethel?

Edited October 11, 2018 by Dick Pontoon

[the blob]

18 hours ago, Pontoon said:

Would that make Mrs. Blob Ethel?

No, Ms. Blob is actually very attractive. But whenever I blabber about my real estate schemes she just tells me to be quiet and focus on fixing our wreck of a house and managing to pay our bills. She has no vision for these things. Probably because I am a lot of talk and not great at doing. The other day I found out my paralegal, who makes half as much as me, owns six rental properties and will be retiring soon. He had the vision to buy $30-50,000 houses in the suburbs of Newark (East Orange) when the area was rougher and now he is basically independently wealthy.

[the blob]

On ‎10‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 1:52 PM, delekkerste said:

YOU'RE WELCOME. 

Just remembering this thread and how I mostly got out of the stock market in September 2018 thinking we'd be in for a 30-50% crash. I know we were down at the end of 2018, but I kept on waiting thinking all the madness in Washington would surely tank the market, at which time I would get back in. Meanwhile I lost the opportunity to pick up about 30% on my 401K in 2019. Not going to say how much $ that would have been, but let's say I am depressed. Probably sets my retirement planning back 2-3 years, possibly worse.

[WolverineX]

11 minutes ago, the blob said:

Just remembering this thread and how I mostly got out of the stock market in September 2018 thinking we'd be in for a 30-50% crash. I know we were down at the end of 2018, but I kept on waiting thinking all the madness in Washington would surely tank the market, at which time I would get back in. Meanwhile I lost the opportunity to pick up about 30% on my 401K in 2019. Not going to say how much $ that would have been, but let's say I am depressed. Probably sets my retirement planning back 2-3 years, possibly worse.

Sadly, now you know that the moment you put it in, the market will crash

Edited January 7, 2020 by Wolverinex