What percent of existing copies of Action 1, Detective 27, Superman 1, and Batman 1 are already CGC graded? 1 1

[Crowzilla]

2 hours ago, circumstances said:

As of now I have slabbed zero books in my collection, and I have two of the four books this thread is discussing (among others, of course).

I remember sitting in the store with you trying to convince you to buy one of the two you don't have for $11,000 when I had it with me.

You should have bought it, and I should have kept it.

[circumstances]

15 minutes ago, Crowzilla said:

I remember sitting in the store with you trying to convince you to buy one of the two you don't have for $11,000 when I had it with me.

You should have bought it, and I should have kept it.

That's for sure!

[lou_fine]

3 hours ago, circumstances said:

4 hours ago, Chicago Boy said:

Which two ?  The “good ones” ?

No! Superman 1 and Batman 1, lol.

Bah, who cares about all these boring common DC books. 

Especially in your case when you have all of those beautiful HTF truly rare Centaurs in your collection.  

[pemart1966]

14 hours ago, N e r V said:

Maybe you or someone else could start a thread about what percentage of us plan on never selling but taking it with us. 

Options include buying a massive plot to ensure the entire collection will fit or a more budget option with a smaller plot to include only the books named in our will or the el cheap option of having your entire collection burned with you during creamation...

 

 

This is sounding like the ancient Egyptian and Viking models...

Edited August 1, 2018 by pemart1966

[Chicago Boy]

Im just going to take more Airborne

[Sqeggs]

On 7/29/2018 at 3:56 PM, sfcityduck said:

On 7/29/2018 at 2:21 PM, Sqeggs said:

Putting $1 million to $2 million or more into an Action 1 or Detective 27 strikes me as an investment whose expected return is too low to offset the risk you are taking on, unless you truly are very wealthy, so you can ignore the risk.  But that's the investment you are making if you hold on to these books rather than sell them.

Uh ... no.  If you bought an Action 1 in 1980, to use my example, for $6,000.  You have zero risk.  What my friend paid $6,000 for was the opportunity to and joy of ultimately being able to complete his Action run.  The joy of owning the most important comic.  For less than the average price for a car that year (slightly more than an El Camino, $500 less than an F150 truck).  There is no risk.  No matter what you do, that Action 1 will garner you a big profit.  Five years ago, you might have thought that profit would be $500K.  Today, you might think it is $1M+.  So what?  Especially, if you derive more joy from the book than the money.  

Here's the thing, the guys who started collecting in the 60s were able to buy a lot of what newer collectors view as out of our range comics for cheap.  They did it because they were fanatics about comics.  They hold on to those books because they are still fanatics about comics.  For them, its about the comics, not return on investment.  Mainly because they really don't have significant money invested.  Bangzoom once said the most he ever paid for a comic was $75.  

Uh ... yes.  Of course there's risk if you are holding a $1 million to $2 million asset.  The risk is entirely independent of what you paid for it.  When you decide not to sell an asset for $1 million, you have, in effect, paid $1 million for it (we're ignoring capital gains taxes here).  The risk is that next year, or whenever, your $1 million asset becomes a $500,000 asset.  

But that could never happen to Action 1!, you say.  People have made similar statements about an awful lot of investments over the years.  Every investment can fall in price no matter how rock solid it may appear now.  People ignore that obvious fact at their (financial) peril.

Think of it in terms of a stock.  If you are holding Tesla at $300, in economic terms by declining to sell at that price, $300 is what you are paying to hold the stock now.  Doesn't matter whether you bought it a few years ago for $20 or last year at its high of $380.  If you bought at $20 and the price falls from $300 back to $20 (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), you have lost $280 per share on your position as it is today.  Your loss isn't zero (except for tax purposes).

All of this is apart from the issue of whether you simply don't care what happens to the price of your Action 1.  You've got an Action 1 and you ain't selling it -- not no way, not no how.  Nothing wrong with that.  

[sfcityduck]

41 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

 When you decide not to sell an asset for $1 million, you have, in effect, paid $1 million for it (we're ignoring capital gains taxes here).  

I don't know anyone who views financial risk this way.  As you acknowledge, certainly not the IRS or accounting firms.  

Look, if I paid $6,000 for an Action 1 that fluctuates in value, what I paid for it is, nonetheless, $6,000.  That it may have a paper value at times of $1M or declines to $800K or then increases to $1.2M is immaterial to the amount of cash I actually have it risk.  It remains $6,000.  What is fluctuating is the potential gain, not the risk.  And gain is not risk.

[Chicago Boy]

5 minutes ago, sfcityduck said:

I don't know anyone who views financial risk this way.  As you acknowledge, certainly not the IRS or accounting firms.  

Look, if I paid $6,000 for an Action 1 that fluctuates in value, what I paid for it is, nonetheless, $6,000.  That it may have a paper value at times of $1M or declines to $800K or then increases to $1.2M is immaterial to the amount of cash I actually have it risk.  It remains $6,000.  What is fluctuating is the potential gain, not the risk.  And gain is not risk.

I was told there’d be no math , Duck. 

[sfcityduck]

37 minutes ago, Chicago Boy said:

I was told there’d be no math , Duck. 

Just counting money.  

[rob_react]

[rob_react]

[N e r V]

I believe there are a fair number of collectors (which I count myself in) that started collecting comics as a hobby and any value was a side point. We thought of investments as our 401k or similar retirement plan or our investments in the stock market or our various profit sharing from who we worked for at the time or our purchases in homes or property over the years or any number of items from gold coins to classic cars to antiques of some sort in your home.

Everyone was aware that prices moved up but I nor I’m guessing many others thought of including their comic collections as part of their retirement packages. My point being that many already have their retirement (when it comes) covered by a variety of other sources so tapping into their comics is certainly an option but maybe not really needed. I suppose if you never thought about your retirement and had comics of value that would be an option.

Seriously the way prices have moved just in the last few years anyone could have made good profits with the right choices. 

 

 

[fishbone]

Seriously the way prices have moved just in the last few years anyone could have made good profits with the right choices.

 

100% correct   

[G.A.tor]

16 hours ago, Crowzilla said:

I remember sitting in the store with you trying to convince you to buy one of the two you don't have for $11,000 when I had it with me.

You should have bought it, and I should have kept it.

North Miami store?

[circumstances]

6 minutes ago, G.A.tor said:

North Miami store?

I'm thinking it was Plantation.

[lou_fine]

9 hours ago, Sqeggs said:

Uh ... yes.  Of course there's risk if you are holding a $1 million to $2 million asset.  The risk is entirely independent of what you paid for it.  When you decide not to sell an asset for $1 million, you have, in effect, paid $1 million for it (we're ignoring capital gains taxes here).  The risk is that next year, or whenever, your $1 million asset becomes a $500,000 asset.  

Think of it in terms of a stock.  If you are holding Tesla at $300, in economic terms by declining to sell at that price, $300 is what you are paying to hold the stock now.  Doesn't matter whether you bought it a few years ago for $20 or last year at its high of $380.  If you bought at $20 and the price falls from $300 back to $20 (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), you have lost $280 per share on your position as it is today.  Your loss isn't zero (except for tax purposes).

 

From a financial and opportunity cost point of view, you are 100% correct as the only relevant price is the price going forward.

But to these collectors that brought them decades ago at relatively dirt cheap rock bottom prices as compared to now, they most likely do not view their original purchase as a financial investment.  They probably viewed it much more as purchase to satiate their collecting appetite at the time and to fill a big hole in their want list.

Basically, they most likely follow the mantra which we tell all comic book collectors nowadays.  That is.......to buy what you love and if it happens to go up in value, that's just an extra bonus.  I guess in their case, their particular books just happened to go up a lot in value over the decades.  But they probably still love them as much as the day they first purchase them all those many years ago.  

[ender]

9 hours ago, sfcityduck said:

Just counting money.  

I thought that was a different duck?

[Sqeggs]

On 8/1/2018 at 11:26 AM, sfcityduck said:

On 8/1/2018 at 10:42 AM, Sqeggs said:

 When you decide not to sell an asset for $1 million, you have, in effect, paid $1 million for it (we're ignoring capital gains taxes here).  

I don't know anyone who views financial risk this way.  As you acknowledge, certainly not the IRS or accounting firms.  

Look, if I paid $6,000 for an Action 1 that fluctuates in value, what I paid for it is, nonetheless, $6,000.  That it may have a paper value at times of $1M or declines to $800K or then increases to $1.2M is immaterial to the amount of cash I actually have it risk.  It remains $6,000.  What is fluctuating is the potential gain, not the risk.  And gain is not risk.

I don't want to beat this to death, but everybody on Wall Street (or Main Street or 3rd Street) views financial risk this way.  

The expected return, the risk, the liquidity, and every other aspect of your portfolio depends on prices (and other factors) right now, not prices yesterday or a year ago or 20 years ago.

If you have a $1 million asset and decline to sell it, the whole $1 million is at risk.  In the financial world, there is no such thing as "paper value."  If you could sell a copy of Action 1 for $1 million today, that is its value.  The $6,000 you paid for it has zero relevance in calculating the risk (although, obviously, it is relevant in calculating your capital gain should you decide to sell).  Risk is the standard deviation of the distribution of expected returns, calculated using the current price of the asset. 

A fundamental rule of investing is that by not selling, you are buying everything in your portfolio at current prices.  If you wouldn't buy an asset at its current price, then you should sell it.

I wouldn't hold a $1 million comic because of the financial risk.  Of course, it's perfectly rational for someone to disagree (as obviously some people do since they are holding these books!) and accept the risk.  What's not rational, from an investing point of view, is to allow the price you paid for an asset to play any role in your willingness to sell it (again, leaving aside taxes). 

 

[Sqeggs]

On 8/1/2018 at 8:47 PM, lou_fine said:

On 8/1/2018 at 10:42 AM, Sqeggs said:

Uh ... yes.  Of course there's risk if you are holding a $1 million to $2 million asset.  The risk is entirely independent of what you paid for it.  When you decide not to sell an asset for $1 million, you have, in effect, paid $1 million for it (we're ignoring capital gains taxes here).  The risk is that next year, or whenever, your $1 million asset becomes a $500,000 asset.  

Think of it in terms of a stock.  If you are holding Tesla at $300, in economic terms by declining to sell at that price, $300 is what you are paying to hold the stock now.  Doesn't matter whether you bought it a few years ago for $20 or last year at its high of $380.  If you bought at $20 and the price falls from $300 back to $20 (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), you have lost $280 per share on your position as it is today.  Your loss isn't zero (except for tax purposes).

 

From a financial and opportunity cost point of view, you are 100% correct as the only relevant price is the price going forward.

But to these collectors that brought them decades ago at relatively dirt cheap rock bottom prices as compared to now, they most likely do not view their original purchase as a financial investment.  They probably viewed it much more as purchase to satiate their collecting appetite at the time and to fill a big hole in their want list.

Basically, they most likely follow the mantra which we tell all comic book collectors nowadays.  That is.......to buy what you love and if it happens to go up in value, that's just an extra bonus.  I guess in their case, their particular books just happened to go up a lot in value over the decades.  But they probably still love them as much as the day they first purchase them all those many years ago.  

Absolutely.  Somebody who loves his copy of Action 1 enough to accept the risk that someday it may sell for much less than it does today is being perfectly rational.  Somebody who tells himself, "I only paid a few thousand for the book 40 years ago, so there's no financial risk in my keeping it" isn't being rational. 

[sfcityduck]

9 minutes ago, Sqeggs said:

I don't want to beat this to death, but everybody on Wall Street (or Main Street or 3rd Street) views financial risk this way.  

The expected return, the risk, the liquidity, and every other aspect of your portfolio depends on prices (and other factors) right now, not prices yesterday or a year ago or 20 years ago.

If you have a $1 million asset and decline to sell it, the whole $1 million is at risk.  In the financial world, there is no such thing as "paper value."  If you could sell a copy of Action 1 for $1 million today, that is its value.  The $6,000 you paid for it has zero relevance in calculating the risk (although, obviously, it is relevant in calculating your capital gain should you decide to sell).  Risk is the standard deviation of the distribution of expected returns, calculated using the current price of the asset. 

A fundamental rule of investing is that by not selling, you are buying everything in your portfolio at current prices.  If you wouldn't buy an asset at its current price, then you should sell it.

I wouldn't hold a $1 million comic because of the financial risk.  Of course, it's perfectly rational for someone to disagree (as obviously some people do since they are holding these books!) and accept the risk.  What's not rational, from an investing point of view, is to allow the price you paid for an asset to play any role in your willingness to sell it (again, leaving aside taxes). 

 

You are defining financial risk the way a day trader does, not the way a collector does.  Because you are ignoring what is being purchased.

When you purchase stock, all you are purchasing is an expected return in the form of increased value (or increase plus dividends).  The purpose of the purchase is to maximise return, consequently those who purchase stock stress over the timing of the decision to sell.  Sell too early or too late, and you don't maximise return.  The sole purpose is to maximise return. That appears to be your mentality.  

BUT, when you buy a piece of art or a comic, you are buying far far more if you are a collector. You are paying for the benefits of owning the collectable:  The ability to appreciate and display the piece, the enhanced reputation that can come from ownership, the joy of reading, the entertainment value, the emotional uplift, etc. etc.  All of these benefits are "returns" that you enjoy commencing the moment you purchase the piece.  Heck, some collectors even make money off displaying their collections.

So.  If you pay $6,000 for a piece in 1980, what you bought was all of the above identified benefits (plus the prospect of a future return - an uncertain benefit).  When, in 2018, 34 years later, your Action 1 is worth $1M, you've already received benefits that probably far exceed the measly $6,000 original purchase price.  You have received full value for your purchase price.  You will lose absolutely nothing if you don't sell because you still have all of the above identified benefits (plus the prospect of a future return).  The amount of the return is not the driving benefit because the purpose of the purchase was not to maximise return.  If the return, which is a paper gain or loss until the date the piece is sold, fluctuates ... so what?  You haven't lost that you will get a return of some sort.  

Which is why your "fundamental rule" that "if you wouldn't buy an asset at its current price, they you should sell it" is a fundamentally flawed view of art and comics.  You are ignoring the daily returns the purchase provides the owner and the fact that the owner has zero opportunity cost at all in holding on to the piece.  They aren't re-buying the piece each day.  They bought it 38 years ago (in my example), so the question of whether they'd pay the present value to buy the piece is entirely irrelevant (and most could not afford to do so anyway).

In short, it is your attitude towards the piece which defines the nature of the financial risk.  And most old collectors don't share your attitude.  If they did, they'd have sold many many many years ago (like Mitch Mehdy did) and missed out on the paper gain which is causing you so much stress at the prospect of losing it.  Your day trader attitude is the opposite of the buy and hold (and most importantly enjoy) attitude which motivates collectors.