Are comics gaining more respect as a valid investment outside of the comic collecting community? 8 8

[eddly]

Back in 2009 I purchased an Incredible Hulk 181 CGC 9.4 for ~$2850. I mentioned it to a few people where I worked at the time (as part of a conversation of investments we were having) and they were clearly bewildered. As time progressed they really couldn't get over it and it continued as a joke for them.

Unfortunately I sold it long ago, but I'm just curious, do you think graded comics are becoming more respected as an investment over the past 15 years outside of the comic collecting community? Especially interested in hearing feedback from dealers, have your customers changed much over time?

If you meet with a financial advisor I'm guessing they are still not recommending you to have 10% of your portfolio in graded comics...

 

[Mercury Man]

48 minutes ago, eddly said:

If you meet with a financial advisor I'm guessing they are still not recommending you to have 10% of your portfolio in graded comics...

Or any percent for that matter.   Pretty sure if you try to get a loan and they ask what your assets are, you holding an IH #181 in 9.8 will not get you approved, but if you sold that and had that cash in your Savings Account, that's different.

[1Cool]

Naw - I'd think a investment banker would be cool with 10 - 20% in liquid collectibles.  Now if you said 70-80% they may frown a bit.

Edited June 17, 2018 by 1Cool

[FSF]

I would never use the word "investment" with comics and no real financial advisor is going to recommend 10% of an investor's asset be allocated toward comics, and if they did, they should have their license revoked.  Having said that, a lot of people use to consider "stamps" as a quasi legitimate investment and rare coins, even to this day.  Because of the sheer market force that the Baby Boomers were, and because spending a lot of money on stamps and coins preceded cards and comics, those collectibles have traditionally not been sneered at in the way comics and sports cards have.  But that older generation is becoming more of a dinosaur and the folks in their prime earning years today, and moving forward for a decade or two, grew up on comics and cards.  Which is why we've seen multiple million dollar plus auctions for individual cards and comics  Having said that, I think comics have a shelf life in terms of its value and long-term investing in them would be near the equivalent of investing in beanie babies.

[1950's war comics]

5 minutes ago, FSF said:

I think comics have a shelf life in terms of its value and long-term investing in them would be near the equivalent of investing in beanie babies.

solid advice on "investing" in comics

[fastballspecial]

Its not bad to have a small % of your retirement in commodities, but make sure they are long term investments. 

For years I took my meager profits and rolled them into Roth IRAs and College funds for my kids. Flash forward my son 
graduates this year and depending on what school he chooses I have it all covered unless he goes away and then he 
will have to cover some of it.

 

[VintageComics]

3 hours ago, 1950's war comics said:

3 hours ago, FSF said:

I think comics have a shelf life in terms of its value and long-term investing in them would be near the equivalent of investing in beanie babies.

solid advice on "investing" in comics

Really?

Comics have an 80 year track record. How long did Beanie Babies last? A couple of years.

Like anything, it depends on what you choose. If you're investing in something pedestrian or manufactured, it's not going to turn out so well. But people who have gravitated towards quality pieces have not been disappointed.

Investing in assets has always been a viable investment choice. Again, it all comes down to how well you choose. There is risk in almost any investment.

 

 

[FSF]

33 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

Really?

Comics have an 80 year track record. How long did Beanie Babies last? A couple of years.

Like anything, it depends on what you choose. If you're investing in something pedestrian or manufactured, it's not going to turn out so well. But people who have gravitated towards quality pieces have not been disappointed.

Investing in assets has always been a viable investment choice. Again, it all comes down to how well you choose. There is risk in almost any investment.

 

 

Yes, really.

It would be obfuscation at best to state that comics were truly considered an "investment" by a wide margin of even comic collectors let alone the wider public as far back as 80 years ago or anything close to that.  Heck, even today there isn't that awareness among the wider public concerning comics that coins and stamps, and arguably even sports cards, have. As for beanie babies, since they are in the stuffed animal category, they've been around a CENTURIES longer than comics.

What you consider "manufactured" or "pedestrian" is just your opinion.  Those items very well could be the only thing worth much in the comic world in the distant future for all we know.  If you have to sit thee and talk about owning "quality pieces" (which is highly subjective to begin with), you're already significantly diluting the notion of it being an investment  vehicle.  Even a washed out hobby/"investment" like stamps has it's highly priced items.  But no one, even most stamp collectors, think of stamps as an investment today.  And the fact that stamps were considered an "investment" by a good portion of the population and that notion has died off (due to the aging curve of those that bought into for money reasons) should clearly explain to you the blueprint from which I am reciting when I speak of the FUTURE value of comics.

No one is arguing that investing in "assets" isn't a viable investment choice.  Atop that would be stocks and real estate, though they are both overpriced today, though not as much as comics IMO.  Everything in life comes down to how well you choose.  But I would be 99.9999999% more confident in the returns of the S&P 100 or 500 or the entire stock market than whatever list of "quality" pieces you can come up with.

That is not to suggest that people shouldn't buy comics, just don't do it with an investment theme in mind.  This country spends a TON on hobbies, and that's the prism through which one should be looking at this.  If they make money, or can at least recoup a good portion, than fantastic.  But it will never come close to beating traditional assets like stocks and real estate over the long term.  The fundamental reason is this.  Nobody NEEDS comics. Virtually EVERYONE needs shelter and the products/services provided by businesses.

[shadroch]

Nobody needs gold. Nobody needs Silver. You'd be surprised how little most people need. So would they. 

[FSF]

Just now, shadroch said:

Nobody needs gold. Nobody needs Silver. You'd be surprised how little most people need. So would they. 

Yes, and I've made that very same argument concerning gold on many a PM forum.  Silver is an industrial metal and most all of it gets used up so you'd be wrong concerning the white metals.

 

 

[VintageComics]

24 minutes ago, FSF said:

Yes, really.

It would be obfuscation at best to state that comics were truly considered an "investment" by a wide margin of even comic collectors let alone the wider public as far back as 80 years ago or anything close to that.  Heck, even today there isn't that awareness among the wider public concerning comics that coins and stamps, and arguably even sports cards, have. As for beanie babies, since they are in the stuffed animal category, they've been around a CENTURIES longer than comics.

Now you're moving goal posts to win a discussion.

My post was throwing comics into the same investment risk as beanie babies. I twas not talking about the history of stuffed toys.

26 minutes ago, FSF said:

What you consider "manufactured" or "pedestrian" is just your opinion.  Those items very well could be the only thing worth much in the comic world in the distant future for all we know.  If you have to sit thee and talk about owning "quality pieces" (which is highly subjective to begin with), you're already significantly diluting the notion of it being an investment  vehicle.  Even a washed out hobby/"investment" like stamps has it's highly priced items.  But no one, even most stamp collectors, think of stamps as an investment today.  And the fact that stamps were considered an "investment" by a good portion of the population and that notion has died off (due to the aging curve of those that bought into for money reasons) should clearly explain to you the blueprint from which I am reciting when I speak of the FUTURE value of comics.

Disagree. I think very few people would argue parking their money into an Action #1 compared to a zillion Harbinger #1's. Certain books will 'always' have value and appeal. I put always in quotes because that obviously only holds true for as long as people value popular culture.

It's no different than the way certain corporations or stocks have value based on how relative they are to the real world.

I'm in no way implying that comics should be universally accepted investments. I'm just saying that they are not a flash in the pan like beanie babies were.

30 minutes ago, FSF said:

No one is arguing that investing in "assets" isn't a viable investment choice.  Atop that would be stocks and real estate, though they are both overpriced today, though not as much as comics IMO.  Everything in life comes down to how well you choose.  But I would be 99.9999999% more confident in the returns of the S&P 100 or 500 or the entire stock market than whatever list of "quality" pieces you can come up with.

Overpriced relative to what? You say they are overpriced but the only way to know that is to see where prices go in the future.

And now you are saying exactly what I did. It all comes down to how well you choose.

31 minutes ago, FSF said:

That is not to suggest that people shouldn't buy comics, just don't do it with an investment theme in mind.  This country spends a TON on hobbies, and that's the prism through which one should be looking at this.  If they make money, or can at least recoup a good portion, than fantastic.  But it will never come close to beating traditional assets like stocks and real estate over the long term.  The fundamental reason is this.  Nobody NEEDS comics. Virtually EVERYONE needs shelter and the products/services provided by businesses.

Nobody needs a Caravaggio or a Pollok either but many people invest in them.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone should invest in comics. I'm saying there are worse things with less stability than many blue chip books.

And I also want to qualify...I hate talking about books as investments. I was always a collector first, but I can't deny the fact that many people do invest in them.

 

 

[eddly]

I suspect there is worry that when comics are perceived as an investment by non comic collectors, a crash will be imminent.

 

[FSF]

Just now, VintageComics said:

Now you're moving goal posts to win a discussion.

My post was throwing comics into the same investment risk as beanie babies. I twas not talking about the history of stuffed toys.

Disagree. I think very few people would argue parking their money into an Action #1 compared to a zillion Harbinger #1's. Certain books will 'always' have value and appeal. I put always in quotes because that obviously only holds true for as long as people value popular culture.

It's no different than the way certain corporations or stocks have value based on how relative they are to the real world.

I'm in no way implying that comics should be universally accepted investments. I'm just saying that they are not a flash in the pan like beanie babies were.

Overpriced relative to what? You say they are overpriced but the only way to know that is to see where prices go in the future.

And now you are saying exactly what I did. It all comes down to how well you choose.

Nobody needs a Caravaggio or a Pollok either but many people invest in them.

Again, I'm not saying that everyone should invest in comics. I'm saying there are worse things with less stability than many blue chip books.

And I also want to qualify...I hate talking about books as investments. I was always a collector first, but I can't deny the fact that many people do invest in them.

 

 

First off, beanie babies are stuffed animals.  They very much carry the same attributes as stuffed animals made over a hundred years ago.  At least with beanie beanies, the investment is a couple bucks per so it's possible one might actually make a decent return on them.  I do agree wholeheartedly that beanie babies in and of themselves were a "flash in the pan" but my original post was never meant to really compare the two as my flippant response was meant to indicate.

I do agree that iconic books like Action 1, Tec 27, AF15 will very likely hold an iconic status with enough people over the next many decades that it will hold some high value though I don't believe that they are remotely good investments and will probably not hold up its value from an inflation adjusted perspective.  Very few other books, if any, will do so IMO.  I do NOT believe Hulk 181 will be in that group.

Corporations don't have value because of how relative they are to the real world.  It eventually ALWAYS comes down to what they can ultimately earn, and the growth rate at which it can do so.  It's ALL numbers at the end of the day.  Investor wouldn't give a about Google or Apple, no matter how relative they were unless it either made a ton of money (as they do) or showed a very strong promise that it can do so soon enough (as with Amazon or Netflix).

Overpriced relative to where I think they would and should be if their wasn't an asset bubble created globally by central bank and governments.  Overpriced because I don't see organic natural demand as much as speculation holds.  When "collectors" buy up dozens of copies of Hulk 181 hoping for financial returns, to me, that isn't natural demand.  But more than anything, overpriced because I don't see that future generation of kids buying books.  When dealers buy and hold for higher prices, that isn't natural demand.  And yes, the "future" is exactly what I expect will bear all that out.  I apologize that I can't show you the GPA data from 2025. 

For my part, I don't agree that people don't need art.  And comics are a subculture of that but its clearly different from a Van Gogh or a Picasso.  But the important thing here is that art has been around since civilized society first began and it's universal in it's appeal. 

This is the conversation that always comes up in coin forums, card forums, and right here about comics.  The "doom and gloom" vs. "the future is bright" crowd.  For me, I don't care which way it goes. It won't affect me financially either way.  I'm just giving my honest assessment (right or wrong) of what I see coming down the pike.

If you want to buy "collectibles" with real promise, probably sealed and mint first generations of iPods, Nanos, iPhones and the like are probably the way to go.

 

 

 

[1950's war comics]

3 minutes ago, FSF said:

If you want to buy "collectibles" with real promise, probably sealed and mint first generations of iPods, Nanos, iPhones and the like are probably the way to go.

thank you for posts full of insightful analysis which are otherwise sorely lacking in this thread  

[ComicConnoisseur]

6 hours ago, eddly said:

Back in 2009 I purchased an Incredible Hulk 181 CGC 9.4 for ~$2850.

It has what almost tripled in price since then?

Most collectibles lose value. For comics like Hulk 181 and AF 15 I think they are getting respect. I know it sounds boring,but they both are as safe as you can get post 1960 comics.

 

[Mercury Man]

22 minutes ago, VintageComics said:

I think very few people would argue parking their money into an Action #1 compared to a zillion Harbinger #1's. Certain books will 'always' have value and appeal.

I think a few books like Action #1 or Tec #27 are an animal unto themselves, and only a very small percentage of people can be on the playing field for owning a comic like that.   Perhaps the word 'investment' for those may have a place, since these books seem to be a cornerstone for superhero pop culture, and many copies were destroyed in WWII paper drives. 

But 1950's and beyond....meh....'investment' is an irresponsible word. 

[Kevin76]

Comics are just another commodity like rare sports cards, coins, gold, silver, paintings, classic cars ect... 10% is recommended to play it safe. Comics were never meant to be "Collectible"  which is part of the reason why they are so expensive now. Beanie Babies were manufactured to be collectible just like people are buying statues from Sideshow/XM/Prime 1 ect... 

 

[divad]

 

Are comics gaining more respect as a valid investment outside of the comic collecting community?

No.

[FSF]

8 minutes ago, Kevin76 said:

Comics are just another commodity like rare sports cards, coins, gold, silver, paintings, classic cars ect... 10% is recommended to play it safe. Comics were never meant to be "Collectible"  which is part of the reason why they are so expensive now. Beanie Babies were manufactured to be collectible just like people are buying statues from Sideshow/XM/Prime 1 ect... 

 

I don't believe most people who own precious metals or art or classic cars shares that opinion of comics.  It's easy enough for a comic person to think that and feel that they belong (and maybe they do), but once again, neither the public nor the people involved heavily in those areas would likely agree.  As the OP clearly articulated, the wider public scoffs at the notion of comic values.  That might change, but I doubt it.  They don't do so with classic cars or truly great art or precious metals. 

And for all of those constantly ripping on beanie babies, are you folks aware that there are beanie babies that sell for thousands TODAY.  Almost two decades after the bubble burst.  You folks are comparing the best of the comic world (like Action 1 and Hulk 181 or whatever) to the mass of beanie babies that are common and overproduced.  Well, what about the THOUSANDS of comic titles printed since the 1980s comprising hundreds of million and maybe billions of books produced?  The vast majority of them have at best mediocre art and writing and like 99%+ of those books would go begging in a $1.00 box.  Wouldn't that be the apples to apples comparison?  For my part, I'd way rather have a nice looking beanie bear baby (they're cute as hell) rather than 99% of comic books ever produced.  And I collect comics and don't own one beanie baby.

[VintageComics]

11 minutes ago, FSF said:

I don't believe most people who own precious metals or art or classic cars shares that opinion of comics.  It's easy enough for a comic person to think that and feel that they belong (and maybe they do), but once again, neither the public nor the people involved heavily in those areas would likely agree.  As the OP clearly articulated, the wider public scoffs at the notion of comic values.  That might change, but I doubt it.  They don't do so with classic cars or truly great art or precious metals. 

I disagree.

I think comics have turned a corner over the last decade (due in no small part to the Marvel Cinematic Universe).

The average Joe that I speak to is always amazed at my profession (I sell comics for a living) and then immediately goes on to talk about how much they are worth.

Comics were a funny thing to people in the past. They no longer are.

And that is because people realize they have value and hold their value.