Has Slice Investing in Collectibles Increased Prices?

Charlie

I been digging into why it seems the prices of collectibles (posters, prints, comics, etc) have been increasing. Today I was with a group of friends and one of them was discussing how he was invested in “slice” investing of collectibles.

Basically, it is crowd-sourced funding of collectibles purchases. They purchase the collectible using the slice funds and resell it - if there is a price increase, each slice gets a profit.

This is very scary almost like shill bidding. Setup up one fund and buy a poster on one site with crowd sourced money. Setup second fund. Fund one sells it on another site and fund two rebuys at a higher price with more crowd-sourced funds. Fund one shows a profit and price is artificially raised shifting market in upward direction. Fund one has made the money. Sell all slices of fund two, three, so on. If it ever loses money they cover it under “nothing guaranteed”...

It also brings in more money to the market and stretches collectors with more cash to bid higher.

Thoughts?

Mark

I wouldn't know, but doesn't sound very scientific in the way you have explained it.
How do the slicees decide what poster to buy and for how much? If there was one educated investor, why would he/she dice up their own pie?

Charlie

https://www.audacy.com/wfan/sports/yankees/new-app-collectable-offers-fractional-memorabilia-ownership

Charlie

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportico.com/business/commerce/2020/rally-sports-collectibles-fractional-ownership-1234615000/amp/

Charlie

https://www.mythicmarkets.com/

Charlie

They turn each collectible into shares. 

Even if it doesn’t get as complicated as I suggest above, it bring more available money and buyers to the market.

Charlie

I’ve been messing around all morning but can find any publicly traded movie posters on these sites.

Bruce

1) I don't believe it has spread to movie posters
2) It is not "shill bidding", but it IS a way to artificially raise prices that can't be sustained in the long run.

Early investors win big, later investors lose big

CSM_2_Point_0

This sounds just like a Ponzi scheme

Mark

There is so much money being pumped into economies, people have to spend it somewhere. That's probably what the top of pyramid guys are counting on.
Not sure many serious investors really go for movie posters. I don't think they are very reliable and we don't have the grading services etc like other collectibles. Is more of a hobby where people tend to buy for nostalgia.

darolo

No one has to buy posters or any collectible (some addicts will disagree) - collecting is a luxury. Even if posters were involved, this will all fall apart when collectors will think something is overpriced and a lot of those that are at risk of being invested in - Star Wars, 007 etc. those posters are everywhere, and really most collectors should have 'em by now! 

theartofmovieposters

So I read in one of the articles that the company retains 60% ownership of the item...then further down it says:

"Once a user has bought shares in an asset and it becomes fully funded, they now own equity in that item"

Does this mean if I buy shares but the full remaining 40% is not picked up, what?  I lose my money????

Agree with Mark, I can kinda see how this works for highly regulated/graded collectibles, but not movie posters...

What the feck is the world coming too...

Pancho

Some of the hottest baseball / basketball / football stars have got cards that are only a few years old but are already past the reach of the average person, but if you're a "collector" then you're not going to take part as you'd actually want the item in your hand. This is purely in the same world as the Mondo posters - investors with no love for the hobby, just looking to make some coin.