Jump to content
IGNORED

Heritage Auctions Thread


Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Alder said:

Holy cow, I take a day off and have nearly 30 pages to go through? This is looking more like a chatroom, lol.

It's in the mail, any day now...

Crazy seeing so many familiar faces, hope you're doing well, and I hope some of you guys stick around or pop back in once in a while 🙂 

I may, but between work, Second Dimension, and my son, my time is fairly limited. 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AdamW said:

well, that sort of thing happens all the time too. And all the banks' analyst divisions rate the stocks of their competitors. It's difficult to just pick one example 😛

Show me the credit rating agencies telling people to buy bonds instead of other investments. Moody’s and the other credit ratings agencies have been fined multiple times for conflicts of interest. In your bank analyst example it’s really not the same. Sure, they have a conflict of interest, but their industry is competitive and they need to be reasonably accurate or they’ll be negatively impacted by it. I’m sorry, they have some similarities, but it’s really not the same as something like a credit rating or collectible grading. The government, and possibly the investment community, expect more independence in the latter situations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know it's bad when people no longer try to deny obvious conflicts of interest and instead try to spin it as if it's something we should openly accept.

"If anything, Jim Halperin has a wealth of experience in conflicts of interest and manipulation.  If you think about it, this is more of a positive than a negative."

Bananaland.

Edited by MrMark0673
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 3
  • Wow! 1
  • Love 1
  • Haha 4
  • Agree 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ICrappedMyPants said:

Show me the credit rating agencies telling people to buy bonds instead of other investments. Moody’s and the other credit ratings agencies have been fined multiple times for conflicts of interest. In your bank analyst example it’s really not the same. Sure, they have a conflict of interest, but their industry is competitive and they need to be reasonably accurate or they’ll be negatively impacted by it. I’m sorry, they have some similarities, but it’s really not the same as something like a credit rating or collectible grading. The government, and possibly the investment community, expect more independence in the latter situations.

I didn't say it was a direct comparison, I said it was an example of a case where an obvious conflict of interest is not really considered to be a problem by anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing but love for all of you. Truly. I miss the community that a lot of us built together. 
 

I was very disheartened to see my name dragged into the Wata/HA market manipulation article. 
 

Those of you who know me personally know I always do my best to act with integrity and have built my reputation over 20+ years in this hobby. I hope my contributions speak for themselves. 
 

The only thing I’ll say on the matter is this.  At no time did I try to manipulate the market, never, I wrote an article that Wata published about the state of the sealed and graded video game market. It was my opinion and at no time did Wata try to direct me in any one place. I simply shared my collecting journey and gave an update as to how things have changed and where we are. Now those words are being used against me to try and paint a picture of me being one of the manipulators. It’s sad to be honest with you all. 
 

I dedicated thousands of hours of my life into this hobby. Thousands. I’ve always tried to help others. I created the sealed collecting guide. I did my best to always act with integrity and professionalism and help others with their collecting journeys. I’ve worked with many of you on projects and had the absolute pleasure of calling some of you friends. 
 

Seth tried to sell sales data, and while 100% valuable information, and quite honestly well worth the $5, it wasn’t what he marketed it as, a population report. Historical sales data is just that, a record of past sales, it is nothing like a population report.

 

I confronted him and told him to stop calling it that. For whatever reason he refused and that digressed to me being accused of “bilking” buyers because I sell video games. I said I welcome a true pop report because it will confirm what WE know. In relation to all other collectibles sealed video games are far and away rarer. In turn with the pop reports my games would increase in value, meaning my collection. He took that as me saying I’m making tons of money and labeled me a money grubber. 
 

He continued to peddle his data as a pop report. I again asked him to stop. He blocked me. Then two days ago included me in his article. 

I can’t really explain how disheartened I was, and still am. It seems all the work I’ve done in the hobby was for nothing. I’d like to think I had a part in bringing sealed and graded collecting to where it is today. I’m not talking about the money,  I’m talking about it being recognized as a legitimate collectible hobby. I poured over 2 decades into this. 
 

I just wanted you all to hear this directly from me. Again, I love you all, and hope you all see the truth

It was always for the love of the hobby.  

 

Peace ✌🏽 

MinusWorlds

 

 

Edited by MinusWorlds
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Wow! 1
  • Love 3
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AdamW said:

I didn't say it was a direct comparison, I said it was an example of a case where an obvious conflict of interest is not really considered to be a problem by anyone.

Let's bring it back to the primary topic - by your comparison are you suggesting that Wata / HA's conflicts of interest are/were not clearly problematic?

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, arch_8ngel said:

Let's bring it back to the primary topic - by your comparison are you suggesting that Wata / HA's conflicts of interest are/were not clearly problematic?

 

 

I already gave my opinion on that, so you can go back and read it. I'm not interested in going round the same circle again. Today I posted an illustration of a different point that I made in passing before.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Eyeroll 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MinusWorlds said:

He took that as me saying I’m making tons of money and labeled me a money grubber. 
 

I can't help but a get a chuckle out of this kind of comment coming from an "internet famous" "journalist".

It makes me sad to see people in the hobby, that are separate from WATA/HA as companies, that meant well and acted in good faith get lumped in and dragged through the mud.

I am sure it is unpleasant and unfortunate to become a sort of poster child for the damage that those companies being founded on conflicts of interest can cause.

I hope you come through all of this without suffering much harassment.

  • Love 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AdamW said:

I already gave my opinion on that, so you can go back and read it. I'm not interested in going round the same circle again. Today I posted an illustration of a different point that I made in passing before.

 

We're on page 118 -- if someone wants to say "go back and read it" then they owe a link 😛😉 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, ICrappedMyPants said:

Show me the credit rating agencies telling people to buy bonds instead of other investments. Moody’s and the other credit ratings agencies have been fined multiple times for conflicts of interest.

Just like Jim Halperin has paid to settle a case with the FTC. And yet reputable newspapers still quote Moody's analysts all the time, but nobody bats an eye at that. Should somebody tell Seth it's a NATIONAL SCANDAL? 😛

(tbh, I actually do tend to find it weird the extent to which the whole financial journalism industry is riddled with this sort of thing, and yet it's treated as an entirely reputable and serious enterprise and when - as you correctly point out - people are constantly found to be behaving unethically or outright illegally, it just gets sort of brushed off and the circus goes back around again. But that's what happens, and just about everybody in the US or Canada with some money has a chunk of it invested in that circus, whether directly or through a pension fund. And it doesn't get called a big scandal, except by a small number of people who are seen as being radical socialists or something. Weird, isn't it?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AdamW said:

I didn't say it was a direct comparison, I said it was an example of a case where an obvious conflict of interest is not really considered to be a problem by anyone.

And I’m saying that the comparison is essentially worthless as they are remotely similar at best. Please don’t take this as a personal attack. I’m speaking solely of the comparison.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, arch_8ngel said:

Look, I'm not into the YouTube video scene, so I don't know you from Adam.  But evidently (reading this thread, and other commentary) quite a few people actually do care about your opinion and the fact that you covered this topic.  Whether you want the responsibility, or not, of being an apparently trusted source of information, you seem to have stumbled into it.

 

I have no interest in creating "videos with a narrative I want to express", so it isn't particularly hampering to me to expect to be truthful and accurate.

So my main disagreement with your posts, that you seem to want to wave away as "pedantic", is that while you claimed to go to great lengths to supply factual information, you then chose to make statements that weren't accurate (and just wave them away as "well a 'reasonable person' would have jumped to that conclusion anyway").

Just didn't see a reason for it, personally.

 

My original responses contained a lot of annoyance because I didn't come here to argue with people about my interpretation of a 1989 FTC ruling. I came here to answer questions and learn things from the people here that would help me in the future. Apologies for that.

Just letting you know I'm going to be doing a follow up video in September and all of the known inaccuracies (including this) will be corrected. 

Edited by karljobst
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
  • Love 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, AdamW said:

Just like Jim Halperin has paid to settle a case with the FTC. And yet reputable newspapers still quote Moody's analysts all the time, but nobody bats an eye at that. Should somebody tell Seth it's a NATIONAL SCANDAL? 😛

(tbh, I actually do tend to find it weird the extent to which the whole financial journalism industry is riddled with this sort of thing, and yet it's treated as an entirely reputable and serious enterprise and when - as you correctly point out - people are constantly found to be behaving unethically or outright illegally, it just gets sort of brushed off and the circus goes back around again. But that's what happens, and just about everybody in the US or Canada with some money has a chunk of it invested in that circus, whether directly or through a pension fund. And it doesn't get called a big scandal, except by a small number of people who are seen as being radical socialists or something. Weird, isn't it?)

Give me examples of Moody’s quotes about the value of the bonds being worth a certain amount for bonds that they are rating.

Edited by ICrappedMyPants
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AdamW said:

Just like Jim Halperin has paid to settle a case with the FTC. And yet reputable newspapers still quote Moody's analysts all the time, but nobody bats an eye at that. Should somebody tell Seth it's a NATIONAL SCANDAL? 😛

(tbh, I actually do tend to find it weird the extent to which the whole financial journalism industry is riddled with this sort of thing, and yet it's treated as an entirely reputable and serious enterprise and when - as you correctly point out - people are constantly found to be behaving unethically or outright illegally, it just gets sort of brushed off and the circus goes back around again. But that's what happens, and just about everybody in the US or Canada with some money has a chunk of it invested in that circus, whether directly or through a pension fund. And it doesn't get called a big scandal, except by a small number of people who are seen as being radical socialists or something. Weird, isn't it?)

The real question isn't whether newspapers quote Moody's analysts, though.

For a closer comparison -- are individual analysis held individually responsible for Halperin-like antics -- and THEN are they still treated as reputable and quoted in papers?  (genuinely don't have an answer for you, so not asking rhetorically)

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, karljobst said:

My original responses contained a lot of annoyance because I didn't come here to argue with people about my interpretation of a 1989 FTC ruling. I came here to answer questions and learn things from the people here that would help me in the future. Apologies for that.

Just letting you know I'm going to be doing a follow up video in September and all of the known inaccuracies (including this) will be corrected. 

Thanks for the update.

I'm sure it felt like you were taking slings-and-arrows from all directions.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ICrappedMyPants said:

Give me examples of Moody’s quotes about the value of the bonds that they are rating.

Um. I'm not sure where you think you have standing to demand that of me, since I never claimed they did?

But, anyway. Moody's doesn't do price targets, but other analysts certainly do. All the big banks have stock analysis divisions, and those post price targets for everything they analyze. All the big banks post price targets for the other big banks. All the big banks also have investment arms which will sell you the securities that their analysis divisions analyze and post price targets for...or funds that invest in those securities. They will offer you personal advice, by advisors who are very clear caught up in a whole ton of conflicts of interest, on which of those funds and securities you should buy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AdamW said:

Um. I'm not sure where you think you have standing to demand that of me, since I never claimed they did?

But, anyway. Moody's doesn't do price targets, but other analysts certainly do. All the big banks have stock analysis divisions, and those post price targets for everything they analyze. All the big banks post price targets for the other big banks. All the big banks also have investment arms which will sell you the securities that their analysis divisions analyze and post price targets for...or funds that invest in those securities. They will offer you personal advice, by advisors who are very clear caught up in a whole ton of conflicts of interest, on which of those funds and securities you should buy...

You’re making a comparison and I’ve pointed out that it’s not really comparable. I’ve provided a more comparable example and you made a vague comment in response. I’m asking for you to prove your response. It’s apparent to me that you cannot support your position and the discussion is over. I’ll move on.

  • Like 1
  • Eyeroll 1
  • Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In what way did wata or any of the sealed hype legitimize the hobby? I really don’t understand that argument. It’s always been legitimate. It’s brought joy and community to those that desire to collect. Isn’t that legitimate enough? What are the requirements to legitimize? Bringing in outside money hungry speculators? Having news articles talk about sealed prices? I really don’t get the legitimize argument. 
 

I’ve long ago stopped letting what other people think of me imprison me mentally. It’s exhausting. I don’t need others to “validate” collecting in some superficial way. It doesn’t make any sense. 

Edited by WalterWhiteJr.
  • Like 7
  • Love 3
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, WalterWhiteJr. said:

In what way did wata or any of the sealed hype legitimize the hobby? I really don’t understand that argument. It’s always been legitimate. It’s brought joy and community to those that desire to collect. Isn’t that legitimate enough? What are the requirements to legitimize? Bringing in outside money hungry speculators? Having news articles talk about sealed prices? I really don’t get the legitimize argument. 

The obvious assumption is that they meant legitimize high-end sealed items as investment-grade collectibles. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...