New podcast/video from Felix Comic Art (UPDATED 1/3/17!) 6 6

[Squeezy McSphincter]

On 13/12/2017 at 11:29 AM, Bronty said:

Well, royalties?    We still see snoopy on the blimps at game time sometimes, right?   There must be an ongoing income stream from the rights to the Peanuts properties.    Reprint volumes, replays of the old cartoons, the new movie, toys, etc.

The Schulz family sold 80% of the rights to a brand management company for $175M or so in 2010.   So you're right that they do still get a good chunk of whatever is earned, plus sit on a enough money to do just about whatever they want.

[Squeezy McSphincter]

On 13/12/2017 at 6:51 PM, Jay Olie Espy said:

I always wondered if the folks at Schulz would ever lend a hand in identifying fakes? What's your feeling? If anything, collectors in the Market for Peanuts originals should make a trip just to get a sense what an original is like.

I don't have the info handy, but I've seen it mentioned here a couple of times that someone in the Schulz family has been willing to help with that sort of thing.  I'm sure someone more knowledgable will chime in on this point.

[Bronty]

6 minutes ago, Squeezy McSphincter said:

The Schulz family sold 80% of the rights to a brand management company for $175M or so in 2010.   So you're right that they do still get a good chunk of whatever is earned, plus sit on a enough money to do just about whatever they want.

Ouch.   Good money back then but I bet they could get way more today

[Bronty]

Then again 175m isn’t a bad inheritance

[Squeezy McSphincter]

You're right: I looked it up and the rights sold again this year for $345M.  The selling company ran into (from what I remember) a bit of an accounting scandal a year or so ago and may have had to sell.  When they originally sold the rights in 2010 the Schulz company did about $2B in sales per year--much more than I would have thought--so their ongoing 20% could still be a nice chunk.

[vodou]

6 hours ago, Squeezy McSphincter said:

You're right: I looked it up and the rights sold again this year for $345M.

Interesting. A double in seven years, exclusive of whatever they extracted from those rights for seven years. Family retaining 20% was smart too. Pretty good deal for all involved I think.

[Nexus]

An article on comic art investing that was inspired by the podcast:

https://medium.com/@joshualeto/is-investing-in-comic-book-original-art-a-good-idea-e064274fa17b

It's quite comprehensive, in that the author has a lot to say. Agree with some points, disagree with others. Have a read and decide for yourselves!

[malvin]

3 hours ago, Nexus said:

An article on comic art investing that was inspired by the podcast:

https://medium.com/@joshualeto/is-investing-in-comic-book-original-art-a-good-idea-e064274fa17b

It's quite comprehensive, in that the author has a lot to say. Agree with some points, disagree with others. Have a read and decide for yourselves!

Thanks for the link.  Interesting read.  Nothing I really didn't already know in terms of comic art collecting concepts (since I do consider myself a seasoned collector).  Lots of artist I don't really follow, which is not surprising since I don't read comics anymore.  Its a great introduction into the hobby though!

Malvin

[Panelfan1]

thanks for the link Felix! cool article

it was a bit conflicting as in  - buy what you love as long as what you love is loved by other people too.   This is something that I personally have thought about. I know what is 'good' but I can't get myself to spend money on things other folks like.  I feel like if I want to invest in something, real estate, etc.. might be easier.

the other interesting argument was to buy stuff that has nostalgia for current batch of collectors -when they reach the magic age.

while this is fine advice for modern stuff - I would say that  it misses the point over time.   He states that most art that is over 50 years old won't appreciate more -but I totally disagree. that is if comic art continues to appreciate at all - that stuff will also go up.   collectors are not casual buyers.  great art from the past will be appreciated over time just as fine art from long dead artists has a chance to go up.  Liquidity may be affected though

one point he made was   "Do you want a great page from a top tier Marvel artist from before 2000? It’s too late to get a deal. You can’t go back to buy that Adam Kubert or Mark Bagley art when it hit the market, much less McFarlane or Frank Miller or Kirby. ".  if you use that argument, I would ask - was it a good idea to buy Miller or Mcfalane in 2000 vs 2017.  even though it was way more than Kubert or Bagely at that time?

 

[vodou]

1 hour ago, Panelfan1 said:

one point he made was   "Do you want a great page from a top tier Marvel artist from before 2000? It’s too late to get a deal. You can’t go back to buy that Adam Kubert or Mark Bagley art when it hit the market, much less McFarlane or Frank Miller or Kirby. ".  if you use that argument, I would ask - was it a good idea to buy Miller or Mcfalane in 2000 vs 2017.  even though it was way more than Kubert or Bagely at that time?

 

I thought that article was a complete mess. Maybe that's* what passes for "journalism" these days but UGH it sure wouldn't have when I was in college in my Intro course.

McFarlane (which book, which cover splash interior...ugh we can just guess or treat them as all equal...as if!) ASM was never cheap, well at least for twenty years. When the Goblin cover sold at All-Star early oughts for $16k and change (iirc)...that number really surprised a lot of people and the talk was...big mistake, he'll get stuck with it forever. Well... here we are fifteen years later, any takers for that same money? Sure. But then...it was (no bs) SIXTEEN EXCELLENT KIRBY CAP INTERIORS (from the late sixties too NOT the centennial return!) OR...how about x3 Kirby Cap covers from that centennial return, when they were circa $5k each...so change left over too. This guy has been around forever...but he lacks serious perspective imo...which tells me he was never a serious player, at art at least. Those of us that were serious know all this and you either bought in or you didn't (I did, but not McFarlane ASM covers!)

Kubert and Bagley...they were too expensive** out of the gate, only now look okay in hindsight.

 

*A sandwich of personal anecdotes and bold proclamations (often at odds with one another) without any supporting arguments of substance.

**Relative to what you could get for the same money in "vintage". Always the same, the new guys with their shiny new bristol boards try to price off the old guys and the hobby's decades of history and appreciation. Just like today.

[vodou]

A page purchased for $100 in 2000 only needs to be sold for $250 today to beat the Dow Jones for that time period. That is admittedly a huge profit for the average page, but this article is about improving your average.

Um. No. It's not. Anything I bought for $100 in 2000...lol...add at least a zero on the end. Tells me he wasn't really doing comic art in 2000.

c. A profit from selling something is often found in waiting until the right time to sell, but that starts with the right time to buy. If I had bought bitcoin when I considered it at $100 it is selling today (12/20/2017) at $17000, but I would have already taken my profit at $1000 or so and would now be kicking myself. Chances are you are not going to make money selling in volume unless you are a rep and that’s an entirely different business model. You are going to avoid losing money by being patient and following the market to find the right time to sell.

So how the hell do you buy low?

No comment. He should stick with comics

Instead of beating up on him, I'll share a bit of how I did it.

1. Like any serial entrepreneur I failed many times (the entire nineties) before I got it right (oughts forward). The key to lasting (keeping a roof over one's head) long enough to get it right was, aside from believing in myself when no one else did, stepping light enough to recognize a loser for what it was before committing heavily. Failing at losers so much meant I knew a winner when I ran into it and still had the means to go in heavy when the gettin' was good, really good.

2. I turned 40k into 70k my first two "big" years in the hobby (1999-2000). That's net of all transaction costs, taxes, and carry costs (if any). Not every transaction was a gainer either. I sold a Kirby 2001 cover and two Kirby Cap splashes for break even or less than $100/ea profit (uh huh!) There were plenty of losers too. I churned 250ish pieces, lot of work. (HUGE education!) But the winners blew away the evens and losers not just in ROI% but also in raw $ terms. Very important, not sure if Leto gets that, can't pay rent turning $1 into $30 once, even though it's hella ROI!!) Had I just held...300k today, maybe $500k? Instead of crying about that though, watching in dismay as the market kept running all the way up, I was encouraged to go deeper than ever and developed a keen sense for value (separate from price). Not only did that 70k go back in but just about everything else I could pull together too and then I put in all the OT at work and everything else I could throw at making more money any way I could to feed the beast. As long as the value was there, I was there to whatever extent my finances would allow (yes I did impoverish myself in many other ways that most take for granted, referencing Felix on his podcast). What many would see as a negative (selling too early) I turned into a very huge positive. Joshua Leto can keep his BTC example. I was paying attention but didn't do anything either when BTC was under $10   I don't buy/invest/speculate in things I don't understand. I'm not smart and I still don't get (or really care to either) "blockchain".

3. Now knowing both success and having developed a pretty keen eye for value, I also knew when it was time to stop buying comic art. The value was gone (and it still is). The really big gains were there for those that got in relatively early (say up to 2005 or so) and not so much since, but you did have to hold. Anyway, being "out" I shifted my attention and resources elsewhere, where value still exists. Now, I buy comic art occasionally for nostalgia and do bump into a deal here or there (or just good art for fair money, that's how Felix's folks got some of my money this year) but am no longer actively, in any way, digging deep and hoarding up. That decade is long, long gone. And it wouldn't matter if I made $10m a year...the value still wouldn't be there, plain and simple.

I think the hobby, any hobby, anybody could learn a lot from reading James Altucher on a regular basis

[Matches_Malone]

The "article" is all over the place. Its better serve if it was an opinion these boards. 

 

[BCarter27]

Episode 25, 35:00 ish mark... "You haven't gone through this kind of heartbreak before."

[jleto]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:43 PM, vodou said:

Maybe that's* what passes for "journalism" these days but UGH it sure wouldn't have when I was in college in my Intro course.

This guy has been around forever...but he lacks serious perspective imo...which tells me he was never a serious player, at art at least.

*A sandwich of personal anecdotes and bold proclamations (often at odds with one another) without any supporting arguments of substance.

 

Thanks for reading the article.

You're absolutely right on both these points. It was not intended to be journalism. I'm not sure how I gave the impression that it was. "Personal anecdotes and bold proclamations" is true. If it helps, I added an "opinion" tag to the article.

Also, I specifically said in the post that I was a "small time comics retailer and no-time art buyer," so I'd hoped it was clear that I was never a serious player at art. I was privileged enough to observe some of the serious retail players both through artists and collectors who were serious players.

I wrote this because I love thinking and talking about comic art, both as a collector and from a retail perspective. It's the reason I enjoy the podcast so deeply.

I also read your follow-up post. Your second point seems to specifically support many of the statements I made on behalf of the investing-is-useful-if-you're-smart-about-it side of the argument, including the fact that a lot of value has disappeared from art peaking in price due to the buyer's earning potential lining up with their nostalgia-driven passions. Thanks for expanding the conversation. 

[jleto]

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

A page purchased for $100 in 2000 only needs to be sold for $250 today to beat the Dow Jones for that time period. That is admittedly a huge profit for the average page, but this article is about improving your average.

Um. No. It's not. Anything I bought for $100 in 2000...lol...add at least a zero on the end. Tells me he wasn't really doing comic art in 2000.

 

I was talking about the average, i.e. if you could buy an average page from an average book in 2000. I stand by the statement, but admittedly don't want to run the numbers. For basic context, the top-selling book in July 2000 was Spawn #100. If you bought every page from this issue at the time and sold them today, I think it would provide a modest yearly return, which was what I said.

Also, you seem to agree with me, because later in this post, you said:

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

1. Like any serial entrepreneur I failed many times (the entire nineties) before I got it right (oughts forward). The key to lasting (keeping a roof over one's head) long enough to get it right was, aside from believing in myself when no one else did, stepping light enough to recognize a loser for what it was before committing heavily. Failing at losers so much meant I knew a winner when I ran into it and still had the means to go in heavy when the gettin' was good, really good.

1

Which supports my opinion that learning through losing is critical. As evidenced by your anecdote that you lost money for most of the 90s then bought wiser at the turn of the century.

 

Also, I'm not sure what paying the rent has to do with your approach when it sounds like you had a full time job (plus overtime) to invest in comic art. I was trying to point out the very difference between buying and selling art for a profession and buying and selling art as an "investment." Those who have to pay rent with the money are professionals. Those who invest and reinvest and take a profit from their art purchases are investors. It's the insularity and size of the comic art market that means that only a few people can be the former.

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

Very important, not sure if Leto gets that, can't pay rent turning $1 into $30 once, even though it's hella ROI!!) Had I just held...300k today, maybe $500k? Instead of crying about that though, watching in dismay as the market kept running all the way up, I was encouraged to go deeper than ever and developed a keen sense for value (separate from price). Not only did that 70k go back in but just about everything else I could pull together too and then I put in all the OT at work and everything else I could throw at making more money any way I could to feed the beast. As long as the value was there, I was there to whatever extent my finances would allow (yes I did impoverish myself in many other ways that most take for granted, referencing Felix on his podcast). 

 

Here is the last point we seem to agree on, but you say it like a disagreement, maybe because my point was unclear. Once the price has increased through sales and resales, the value decreases because a profit was taken out with each transaction. You and I don't need to pay rent from comic art sales, but Heritage and Moy and eBay, et al. definitely do. As the market price stabilizes, the opportunity for arbitrage (therefore profit) disappears. Which is why I listed some ways I believe a younger collector than you or I can buy for value while enjoying their hobby. Part of the reason I name-checked and noted Felix and his artists often in the article is that it is the closest you can get to buying directly from these artists when their newest art is released at a fair market price, with only one level of profit extracted. This is a much better time to buy if you love these artists than if the art gets resold later.

On 12/21/2017 at 6:19 PM, vodou said:

3. Now knowing both success and having developed a pretty keen eye for value, I also knew when it was time to stop buying comic art. The value was gone (and it still is). The really big gains were there for those that got in relatively early (say up to 2005 or so) and not so much since, but you did have to hold. Anyway, being "out" I shifted my attention and resources elsewhere, where value still exists. Now, I buy comic art occasionally for nostalgia and do bump into a deal here or there (or just good art for fair money, that's how Felix's folks got some of my money this year) but am no longer actively, in any way, digging deep and hoarding up. That decade is long, long gone. And it wouldn't matter if I made $10m a year...the value still wouldn't be there, plain and simple.

3

Thanks again for reading and adding to the conversation.

[jleto]

On 12/21/2017 at 4:19 PM, Panelfan1 said:

thanks for the link Felix! cool article

it was a bit conflicting as in  - buy what you love as long as what you love is loved by other people too. 

the other interesting argument was to buy stuff that has nostalgia for current batch of collectors -when they reach the magic age.

while this is fine advice for modern stuff - I would say that  it misses the point over time.   He states that most art that is over 50 years old won't appreciate more -but I totally disagree. that is if comic art continues to appreciate at all - that stuff will also go up.   collectors are not casual buyers.  great art from the past will be appreciated over time just as fine art from long dead artists has a chance to go up.  Liquidity may be affected though

one point he made was   "Do you want a great page from a top tier Marvel artist from before 2000? It’s too late to get a deal. You can’t go back to buy that Adam Kubert or Mark Bagley art when it hit the market, much less McFarlane or Frank Miller or Kirby. ".  if you use that argument, I would ask - was it a good idea to buy Miller or Mcfalane in 2000 vs 2017.  even though it was way more than Kubert or Bagely at that time?

 

5

Thank you for reading.

I agree that it was conflicting. I tried to communicate that, but I could have done better. I am not a professional writer, just a passionate fan.

I may not have supported my argument well for the pre-1960 argument. I know the argument is to be made, but I decided that the article was long enough without spending too many more words on it. Maybe I needed to expand it.

With your point about buying Miller or McFarlane in 2017, I agree that my thesis is poorly stated. I could have made clearer that all of those were a better deal in 2000 than today, with Kubert and Bagley art being lower in price than Miller and McFarlane. I picked those four artists because their first big titles were gently spread out over the 1980s and 90s, with Miller and McFarlane being bigger names and Kubert and Bagley being more journeymen. I was trying to identify that the next round of talent whether superstars or journeymen is working right now.

 

 

[Panelfan1]

38 minutes ago, jleto said:

Thank you for reading.

I agree that it was conflicting. I tried to communicate that, but I could have done better. I am not a professional writer, just a passionate fan.

I may not have supported my argument well for the pre-1960 argument. I know the argument is to be made, but I decided that the article was long enough without spending too many more words on it. Maybe I needed to expand it.

With your point about buying Miller or McFarlane in 2017, I agree that my thesis is poorly stated. I could have made clearer that all of those were a better deal in 2000 than today, with Kubert and Bagley art being lower in price than Miller and McFarlane. I picked those four artists because their first big titles were gently spread out over the 1980s and 90s, with Miller and McFarlane being bigger names and Kubert and Bagley being more journeymen. I was trying to identify that the next round of talent whether superstars or journeymen is working right now.

 

 

since you are on here - just wanted to say thanks for writing the article. I love to hear all opinions on comic art and you made some interesting points.   Thinking about  comic art as investment - I think the biggest factor in all of it - is good examples by top name artists.  I think you might have made this point in your article, but when it comes to new artists/comics - its really more like speculating than investing since there is no track record to prove the artist will be a top name or the book they are drawing now will be considered a great example of their work.

I hope you find time to write more. cheers and happy holidays!

[BCarter27]

2 hours ago, jleto said:

This is a much better time to buy if you love these artists than if the art gets resold later.

This is true much of the time and is still a pricing model I buy into, but I think we've all seen increasing examples where reps price up a hot book abusively only to have those pages drop when they hit the secondary market and the book has cooled. Bargains can be had for the patient.

This is a symptom of the "maturation" of the hobby with nearly all published artists selling through reps. After all, fixed price listings are designed to get you to stretch up to meet them (or make a close offer).

[vodou]

22 hours ago, jleto said:

I was talking about the average, i.e. if you could buy an average page from an average book in 2000. I stand by the statement, but admittedly don't want to run the numbers. For basic context, the top-selling book in July 2000 was Spawn #100. If you bought every page from this issue at the time and sold them today, I think it would provide a modest yearly return, which was what I said.

I was talking vintage, not new. New is (almost?) always overpriced relative to undervalued vintage. Anything mainstream vintage (80s and earlier) in 2000...generally add a full zero to the end. Or more, much, much more

22 hours ago, jleto said:

Thanks for reading the article...Thanks for expanding the conversation. 

I was pretty rough on you (imo). I stand by my criticism, but also appreciate you taking the high road to read it as constructive (or perhaps instructive?) versus viewing it as an opportunity to expand toward a flame war. Re-reading myself I can easily see how it could have justifiably been responded to that way, though with no further utility for anybody after that.

22 hours ago, jleto said:

Which supports my opinion that learning through losing is critical. As evidenced by your anecdote that you lost money for most of the 90s then bought wiser at the turn of the century.

Yes. It was other hobbies/investments (because that's what it is when you're spending more than Friday night date money every week) outside of comics/oa where I honed my sense of "value" judgement. And also the real overhead (in time) to enter and exit with a profit sizeable enough to warrant the complete investment made. Many of my endeavors would put food on the table for folks that would otherwise have a difficult time doing so (and thus be always "worth it" in absolute survival terms), but were not for me regarding opportunity cost (highest and best use of all my investable assets including time). For every college graduate that gets their first job post annualized income at 3-4x what they were making mowing lawns and flipping burgers prior...there should be an accounting of burning up four years "life" in the process of getting there, not just the "cost" of tuition, books, campus life, etc etc.

22 hours ago, jleto said:

I'm not sure what paying the rent has to do with your approach when it sounds like you had a full time job (plus overtime) to invest in comic art. I was trying to point out the very difference between buying and selling art for a profession and buying and selling art as an "investment." Those who have to pay rent with the money are professionals. Those who invest and reinvest and take a profit from their art purchases are investors. It's the insularity and size of the comic art market that means that only a few people can be the former.

"Paying rent" is a euphemism for the opportunity cost of where the rubber meets the road every month for everybody...basic food, shelter, etc. In the broad sense. But also in the specific sense that I used it relative to my situation then (and now too), that every loose dollar spent today is always...(some) tomorrow's rent. Anybody that's ever been surprise!! you're laid off knows exactly what the pull-forward of all of life's expenses looks like when the certainly of the bills continuing to come in remains but the certainty of matching/exceeding income is...gone for xx?? months out. (This happened to me twice and in both cases I was without work or steady income for over a year. This will change your outlook on life permanently.) So after paying this months bills, "splurging" on comics/oa/coins/stamps/eating out...is always spending tomorrow's rent (in the sense I meant). Now...I actually do, as I built my side-hobby/business into a full-time business (in 2010) and have been running that way ever since. Every month, after those bills are paid, I'm left with how to divvy up the excess: hold in cash for near-term life expenses or re-investment opportunities, hold in cash for longer-term reinvestment (next auction or estate sale season) or...have fun (eating out, vacation, all that). It's a choice applied to the revenue that follows every  sale, what to do with the proceeds.

22 hours ago, jleto said:

Here is the last point we seem to agree on, but you say it like a disagreement, maybe because my point was unclear. Once the price has increased through sales and resales, the value decreases because a profit was taken out with each transaction. You and I don't need to pay rent from comic art sales, but Heritage and Moy and eBay, et al. definitely do. As the market price stabilizes, the opportunity for arbitrage (therefore profit) disappears. Which is why I listed some ways I believe a younger collector than you or I can buy for value while enjoying their hobby. Part of the reason I name-checked and noted Felix and his artists often in the article is that it is the closest you can get to buying directly from these artists when their newest art is released at a fair market price, with only one level of profit extracted. This is a much better time to buy if you love these artists than if the art gets resold later.

My personal opinion is that there is no solid value opportunity in comic art anymore. But that opinion is balanced against the fact that I have much better value opportunities to compare it against, opportunities which others my not be aware of or interested in. One's personal assets/liabilities/disposable (and feeling of responsible stewardship) also comes into play too, and not everybody is where I am on that. So for others, comic art bought today for x and sold in ten years for 2x may be quite awesome, "it hung on my wall for ten years = priceless + I doubled nominally too!!" On the other hand, I need to double every year, typically and often double what stays "in", and that's not going to happen in comic/illustration art consistently enough for my time to be worth the trouble (full investment picture).

However, I also think that my observation that Felix's inventory can't be flipped (imo) but is roughly break-even at secondary is an extraction more from the artists he reps than his customers. He's retailing at full-retail and his % comes out of the wholesale he passes back to his artists. They get less than 100%. Other guys (only referring to those I follow/do business with) that is not the case...the art is x and the flip/re-sale is .5x or even less. That's hype pricing at source that doesn't prove itself out in secondary. The customer pays more than 100% and the split between rep and artists is probably closer to 100% and 25% (or whatever the markup over fmv is). That markup is extracted from the customer. Two very different cases there.

[ESeffinga]

I just anted to say thanks to Felix and DWJ for their fun little giveaway for Christmas day yesterday. It was such a lovely gesture, and congrats to the winners. And if you don't know what I'm talkinga bout, sign up for Felix's mailing list so you don't miss out on fun stuff like this. He and his artists always manage to find fun little ways to expose his artists to new audiences and make things fun and keep their audience engaged as well. Looking forward to seeing what they cook up in the New Year, and what the podcast brings us!