Forbes article 2 2

[Bronty]

40 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

The choice is not between home ownership and AirBnb, it's between home ownership and renting, the latter of which this couple could only afford to do in an expensive market like Vancouver.  Many families "make their nest" by renting, especially if they don't have the option like this couple to move to a cheaper location to buy; there is no inevitability of home ownership just because a couple decides to start a family.  In the bigger picture, though, it's not solely about preferring experiences to things, it's that experiences are quite often less expensive (and take up less space!), which matters to the younger generations that, in the U.S. at least, are often saddled with horrific amounts of student loan debt and bleak economic prospects.

 

I've always agreed with the long term conclusion.   50 years from now the comic market will look more like the coin market.   A lot of disinterest and a few ultra high end items.

The plainest way to guess what a comic market that has aged out will look like is to look at older markets that have themselves aged out.   Coins, stamps, antiques.

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[Bronty]

2 minutes ago, vodou said:

Maybe lifetime renters cite the appeal of mobility never being more than 30 days out. For some that's likely a justification masking embarassment over lack of finances

ding ding ding

[vodou]

3 minutes ago, Bronty said:

ownership is what people are going to prefer at child rearing stage of life, polls and lies 20 year olds tell themselves notwithstanding).

Birth rates in the West (and Japan) ain't what they used to be either. Less mothers overall, less mothers of "more than one" = no/smaller nests required (assuming this is what mothers really want to begin with, not really proven in this discussion to date).

[vodou]

1 minute ago, Bronty said:

ding ding ding

"Some". My first word quoted was a typo, s/d "many" not "maybe"

[Bronty]

That's fine.     These are macro discussions; generalizations by nature.

[delekkerste]

21 hours ago, vodou said:

I absolutely could not. Quick math, I could -maybe- do 10% replacement (value, not piece count) at current prices, over say, the next ten years time. Being approximately middle-aged (actually MA+), it took me thirty years to get here (most of the action was compressed into a fifteen year period though) and it would take another fifty to seventy years -assuming frozen present values and income- to do it again. That's due more to being early than it all being "obvious". Not so different than single-family housing in the early 90s v the early oughts.

Yup. It is mind-boggling that people can't see it. For the market to keep rising indefinitely, every subsequent generation must take out the previous generation's collections at ever-higher prices. At this point, it is a virtual mathematical impossibility for this to happen for the overall market - the best that can be hoped for (if you're bullish) is that what pool of money that will be there will prop up what you own, while other things fall by the wayside.  

I sometimes wonder what the fine art world would have looked like if so much of the best stuff hadn't been donated to museums - donations have taken countless billions of dollars of supply out of the market that otherwise would have had to find buyers at ever-rising prices.  We don't have this dynamic to any meaningful extent in OA or comics - everything out there will eventually find new owners*,  and there is just no way for the market to clear without prices dropping on the majority of material over the long-term.  Like I said - it's a virtual mathematical impossibility at this point.  

 

* Again, this could take a decade or two or three, I'm not talking about the short-term, where the market has never been stronger. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by delekkerste

[delekkerste]

7 minutes ago, vodou said:

Maybe lifetime renters cite the appeal of mobility never being more than 30 days out. For some that's likely a justification masking embarassment over lack of finances, but it's also reflective of a scattered job/opportunity market now too. 

There are plenty of people who choose to rent for convenience*, lifestyle*, variety, mobility, etc.  I have a friend who has a list of big-name hedge funds on his resume that has been living in the same rent-stabilized 1-bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village since 1993!  And that's another reason - a lot of times, renting is just a better deal, especially given how overpriced the purchase market is.  I stayed in an admittedly terrible 2-bedroom apartment in the Village for far longer than I should have (12 years) because it was such an incredible bargain (except for the opportunity cost ), having signed the lease in 1993 (NYC real estate was in a bear market from 1987 to 1995, people forget).  

 

 

* Many rental buildings here offer all kinds of amenities; some of the top NYC-based collectors in our hobby actually rent apartments in nice buildings. 

[vodou]

11 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

Like I said - it's a virtual mathematical impossibility at this point. 

MMT will save the day

[vodou]

3 minutes ago, delekkerste said:

(NYC real estate was in a bear market from 1987 to 1995, people forget).  

The human psychology of price stickiness is terrifically interesting to me. Similarly the ignorance of essential laws of (human) nature

 

 

[delekkerste]

21 hours ago, vodou said:

Birth rates in the West (and Japan) ain't what they used to be either. Less mothers overall, less mothers of "more than one" = no/smaller nests required (assuming this is what mothers really want to begin with, not really proven in this discussion to date).

I read a fantastic research report this week that argued that pretty much everything most people think they know about how the economy works (based on what they've observed and experienced in their lifetimes) is actually based on just two things:

1.  Long-term population growth/demographics

2.  Long-term debt cycle

Pretty much all of the outsized growth we've seen since 1900 can be traced back to these two factors*.  The global population boomed from 1 billion to 5 billion between 1900 and 2000 (previously, it had grown very slowly over time).  Why?  The advent of germ theory in the late 19th century and the invention of antibiotics in 1928.  BOOM!  Suddenly people are living longer and having more babies and population growth does a big parabolic hockey stick OUT OF NOWHERE. That said, as you point out, this trend is fading...global population growth peaked at 2.1% in 1968 and is now at 1%. The UN projects it will go down to 0% growth in the next 80 years (and that may be optimistic - we might actually hit an inflection point and see global population contraction at some point this century).  So, the first major driver of growth is fading.

The long-term debt cycle which kicked off in the early 1980s is similarly in the late stages of the game.  If you are not an economist or financial practitioner and don't see what that has to do with the price of OA in Chicago, just know that more debt leads to higher asset prices leads to more debt required to participate in the economy leads to financialization of the economy leads to the authorities manipulating interest rates lower and lower as the system gets more fragile.  At some point, though, debt maxes out, rates bottom out (though, probably not before we try the failed negative interest rates experiment in this country), and consumption and spending power contract.  Eventually, the cycle busts and asset prices fall too.  

Again, we're talking about multi-decade, even multi-generational cycles here.  That said, it's not really a stretch to see that we're closer to the end than the beginning, and that most of us will live long enough to see the turn in these long cycles.  People extrapolating out the experience of the past 30 or 40 years into the future and expecting collectibles prices to keep rising indefinitely are going to be in for a shock.  

 

* "B-b-b-b-b-ut technological innovation!" I hear some of you saying.  Well, the fact is, we've always had great technological breakthroughs - railroads, automobiles, radio, the assembly line, antibiotics, TV, robotics, computers...a lot more useful and productivity enhancing than 280 characters on Twitter, fake meat and dog walking apps, I'd say.  The fact is, both stock market returns and economic growth in the West have been below historical norms if you start measuring things from the start of the Clinton presidency, right on the eve of the Tech Revolution really taking off.  So, sorry, but no. 

Edited July 6, 2019 by delekkerste

[comix4fun]

On 7/3/2019 at 12:49 PM, delekkerste said:

I see the logic, though, I'm personally skeptical about props.  Why?  Because there's just SO MUCH content being produced nowadays that it's hard to keep up or to have the time to go back and discover or re-discover things.  Are people really forming enduring attachments to these franchises when they binge through seasons and don't have time to re-watch them?  Meanwhile, I think back to growing up in the '80s and '90s and having all the time in the world to read my favorite comic book runs over and over (or to watch movies over and over) while getting one part of an ongoing story every month kept me engaged, excited and full of anticipation in a way that I do not feel with any form of media nowadays, because who has the time???  

I saw that Profiles in History is having an auction of props from the Marvel Netflix series.  Is anyone going to care about any of this stuff even a few years from now?  Is anyone really lusting after Iron Fist props RIGHT NOW?  It's like when the TV show "Lost" came to an end and PIH did a huge auction with props from the show.  I thought it was obvious at the time that these items would fade into irrelevancy very quickly (which they largely have).  Since then, the content congestion has gotten even worse; aside from a handful of iconic pieces, I think most props from this era will probably just reach their highest value in close proximity to the date the content was most popular and then largely fade away.  I think people buying these things are going to wake up 30 years from now and realize that nobody GAF about the 30-year old junk that they own.  As if anyone is even going to care to stream Iron Fist in 2049 as opposed to the literally thousands of TV shows that will have been created between 2019 and 2049 and all the content produced before 2019 (probably 98% of which is/will be better than the rather poor Iron Fist series). 

I think so much pop culture being produced, even the quality material, has a definite sell-by date in this new content/media reality we find ourselves in; I would not be holding any of it for any other reason than passion, love and/or appreciation of the art and objects, as I wouldn't count on them holding their appeal (or value) in the coming decades.   

 

I remember going relatively hard (for what it was) at Obidiah Stane's pinky ring from the first Iron Man film, when the props were auctioned in Chicago almost 10 years ago.  Why? Because I love Jeff Bridges as an actor. He wore that damn ring in every scene. Waved it around like crazy. I thought it would have been the perfect, relatively inexpensive, keepsake from that first Iron Man film. It didn't go for much, in retrospect, but it was probably double what it should have been, and I had already bid about 25% above my "Hey, what a fun novelty" bid comfort level when I stopped...and when it hammered. 

[Bronty]

2 hours ago, comix4fun said:

 

I remember going relatively hard (for what it was) at Obidiah Stane's pinky ring from the first Iron Man film, when the props were auctioned in Chicago almost 10 years ago.  Why? Because I love Jeff Bridges as an actor. He wore that damn ring in every scene. Waved it around like crazy. I thought it would have been the perfect, relatively inexpensive, keepsake from that first Iron Man film. It didn't go for much, in retrospect, but it was probably double what it should have been, and I had already bid about 25% above my "Hey, what a fun novelty" bid comfort level when I stopped...and when it hammered. 

I see movies as being a little bit like sports cards.   The material is rarely as hot as it is right at release.    Players retire.   Movies are one (or maybe 2-3) and done.   Nothing new to perk up the interest in the old.

You need the new issue of Captain America coming out every month to keep the value of the #1 up.

Which reminds me, that's a good way to dumb this all down.    When they stop printing these characters/titles as physical comics... no bueno...

 

Edited July 5, 2019 by Bronty

[Rick2you2]

I’m beginning to think we should try and move this thread to a chat board on The Economist.

[exitmusicblue]

I can just about guarantee that in 50 years, three things will have *at least* retained their value:

A first edition copy of The Great Gatsby.

Letters written by Napoleon (with provenance).

AF15.

I'll be 85 years old then, so hopefully I'll be around to bump this thread and bellow heartily.

[Rick2you2]

2 hours ago, delekkerste said:

There are plenty of people who choose to rent for convenience*, lifestyle*, variety, mobility, etc.  I have a friend who has a list of big-name hedge funds on his resume that has been living in the same rent-stabilized 1-bedroom apartment in Greenwich Village since 1993!  And that's another reason - a lot of times, renting is just a better deal, especially given how overpriced the purchase market is.  I stayed in an admittedly terrible 2-bedroom apartment in the Village for far longer than I should have (12 years) because it was such an incredible bargain (except for the opportunity cost ), having signed the lease in 1993 (NYC real estate was in a bear market from 1987 to 1995, people forget).  

 

 

* Many rental buildings here offer all kinds of amenities; some of the top NYC-based collectors in our hobby actually rent apartments in nice buildings. 

There is a difference between lifetime renting and renting at a different stage in life. Ownership is also a function of biological nest building, not just raw value. I happily rent these days, but when I was married, with young children, it was different. I don't want the work that comes with home ownership or subject myself to increases in maintenance charges and special assessments in a condo.

On the economic end, so many people and businesses have gotten into the real estate game, that unless you are redeveloping a property, it isn’t likely a house will still be a “good” investment that beats a more liquid investment (besides Scotch).

[Rick2you2]

5 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

I can just about guarantee that in 50 years, three things will have *at least* retained their value:

A first edition copy of The Great Gatsby.

Letters written by Napoleon (with provenance).

AF15.

I'll be 85 years old then, so hopefully I'll be around to bump this thread and bellow heartily.

In 50 years, the dollar is going to have a real value which is much less than today. Since 1970, as I recall, inflation has been around 250%. So, the more pertinent question is whether they will beat both inflation and the opportunity cost of investing the money elsewhere. 

[exitmusicblue]

3 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

In 50 years, the dollar is going to have a real value which is much less than today. Since 1970, as I recall, inflation has been around 250%. So, the more pertinent question is whether they will beat both inflation and the opportunity cost of investing the money elsewhere. 

Of course adjusted for inflation.

As a former attorney, I'm going to lay off the boilerplate.

[exitmusicblue]

I can also guarantee that the percentage of AF15 collectors (and economists) back in the early 60s who could predict the book's valuation today was very, very very meager.

Economic modeling obviously works well for certain markets.  Not so much with collectibles.

Much of collectibles evolution we can hardly predict or even imagine (e.g., AR's looming impact), but I do know the incentives are heavy. Lore, history are prized beyond reasons of nostalgia due to their legitimization effects. Louis Vuitton isn't Louis Vuitton without it.  If you think a frayed key comic's value is or will be ridiculous, check out the luxury industry... that damned label's value.

Edited July 5, 2019 by exitmusicblue

[delekkerste]

11 minutes ago, exitmusicblue said:

I can also guarantee that the percentage of AF15 collectors (and economists) back in the early 60s who could predict the book's valuation today was very, very very meager.

Economic modeling obviously works well for certain markets.  Not so much with collectibles.

The first paragraph is a throwaway statement.  Just because no one could see how things would play out in 1962, right at the beginnings of the Marvel Universe, doesn't mean that we are equally as clueless about the future in 2019 with almost 60 years of development in the market behind it.  

The second statement is off-base as well.  It's just as much about long-term demographics and the impact of structural changes in society due to globalization, technology, communications, etc. I think it is dangerous to assume that, just because there is an emotional/passion component to collectibles, they are somehow impervious to analysis.  Even the most casual observer can see that various hobbies and genres have fallen out of favor over time. 

It may be that The Great Gatsby, AF 15 and Napoleon's letters are rare and desirable enough to maintain their real (i.e., adjusted for inflation) 2019 values for the next 50 years.  Or, maybe they won't.  I certainly wouldn't bet my life or my money on it.   

Edited July 5, 2019 by delekkerste

[exitmusicblue]

1 minute ago, delekkerste said:

The first paragraph is a throwaway statement.  Just because no one could see how things would play out in 1962, right at the beginnings of the Marvel Universe, doesn't mean that we are equally as clueless about the future in 2019 with almost 60 years of development in the market behind it.  

The second statement is off-base as well.  It's just as much about long-term demographics and the impact of structural changes in society due to globalization, technology, communications, etc. I think it is dangerous to assume that, just because there is an emotional/passion component to collectibles, they are somehow impervious to analysis.  Even the most casual observer can see that various hobbies and genres have fallen out of favor over time. 

It may be that The Great Gatsby, AF 15 and Napoleon's letters are rare and desirable enough to maintain their real (i.e., adjusted for inflation) 2019 values for the next 50 years.  Or, maybe they won't.  I certainly wouldn't bet my life or my money on it.   

I won't go line by line vs. your own logical fallacies, because that's not why I'm on here. I prefer to be bombastic on the boards because it's enjoyable.  

Let's touch base again in 50 years.  : )