NonSports Forum

Net54baseball.com
Welcome to Net54baseball.com. These forums are devoted to both Pre- and Post- war baseball cards and vintage memorabilia, as well as other sports. There is a separate section for Buying, Selling and Trading - the B/S/T area!! If you write anything concerning a person or company your full name needs to be in your post or obtainable from it. . Contact the moderator at leon@net54baseball.com should you have any questions or concerns. When you click on links to eBay on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network. Enjoy!
Net54baseball.com
Net54baseball.com
ebay GSB
T206s on eBay
Babe Ruth Cards on eBay
t206 Ty Cobb on eBay
Ty Cobb Cards on eBay
Lou Gehrig Cards on eBay
Baseball T201-T217 on eBay
Baseball E90-E107 on eBay
T205 Cards on eBay
Baseball Postcards on eBay
Goudey Cards on eBay
Baseball Memorabilia on eBay
Baseball Exhibit Cards on eBay
Baseball Strip Cards on eBay
Baseball Baking Cards on eBay
Sporting News Cards on eBay
Play Ball Cards on eBay
Joe DiMaggio Cards on eBay
Mickey Mantle Cards on eBay
Bowman 1951-1955 on eBay
Football Cards on eBay

Go Back   Net54baseball.com Forums > Net54baseball Main Forum - WWII & Older Baseball Cards > Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2009, 10:53 AM
Touch'EmAll Touch'EmAll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,034
Default Crossover's and PSA

Most of us have been there before - new email reads, "grades have been posted" - heartrate increases - you hit the link - hold your breath - grades displayed - SOB you damn PSA just not so!

I have other PSA 7's of the same year that do not stack up to the one I just submitted for crossover - I thought it was a 100% certain good crossover (otherwise I would not have wasted my time/money).

To promote their crossover service, PSA should state in writing one or two sentances why it did not meet the minimum grade. That way, collectors will not feel cheated as they have some specific reason why the no go. If PSA gave reasons, I am sure they would see a significant increase in crossover submittals = more income for PSA.

Er, does PSA not want more income?

steve
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-17-2009, 10:57 AM
Matt Matt is offline
Matt Wieder
member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 2,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 100backstroke View Post
If PSA gave reasons, I am sure they would see a significant increase in crossover submittals = more income for PSA.
steve
I don't follow. Why would an explanation of why our card didn't cross over motivate you to submit more cards for cross-over? Now, if they approved all cards and even gave some bumps, then I could understand why you'd be excited about submitting others.
__________________
To send me a Private Message, click here.
Please check out my albums.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2009, 11:01 AM
smtjoy's Avatar
smtjoy smtjoy is offline
Scott Mt. Joy
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,020
Default

Sorry for your bad results. Were the cards still in slabs for CO or raw?

The only way to get a fair shake from PSA is to send them in raw. I have had 5 times (3 GAI and 2 SGC) where I sent in cards in slabs to be rejected for many reason only to crack and resubmit and they got the grade expected. From now on I only send them raw cards, what a scam.

One more reason SGC is tops, they are very fair on crossovers, they grade the card not the holder.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-18-2009, 08:48 AM
Touch'EmAll Touch'EmAll is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,034
Default follow up

Matt - if PSA gave legit reasons (albeit with a crossover rejection), collectors could then accept their reasoning as such and know they were true and honest about their grading standards and why they downgrade for any given flaw. Without reasons, lots of folks wonder if PSA decision is legit or not?

steve

edited - with legit reasons stated, I would send in more cards knowing I was getting a fair shake.

Last edited by Touch'EmAll; 06-18-2009 at 08:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-18-2009, 08:59 AM
Donavon Donavon is offline
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 43
Default Slabbed vs. Raw

I cannot agree more with Scott. If you want a fair shake with PSA, crack them & resubmit. Seeking a bump in a holder is almost always setting yourself up for disappointment when it comes to PSA.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:07 AM
wolterse's Avatar
wolterse wolterse is offline
Erich W
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 347
Default cross over results

I just got some results from PSA:

I broke these out of their SGC slab and submitted raw:
SGC 20 Shag graded a PSA 2 (yipee)
SGC 30 Dahlen (brooklyn) graded a PSA 2
PSA 3 Keeler (portrait) graded a PSA 4 (yippee!!)

I kept this one in the case and submitted:
SGC 60 n2 indian chief crossed to a PSA 5

I was pretty happy with these results!!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-18-2009, 02:00 PM
Jantz's Avatar
Jantz Jantz is offline
Archive
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,737
Default

Steve - 100backstroke


Is this the first time PSA has done this to you?


Jantz
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-18-2009, 03:13 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolterse View Post
I just got some results from PSA:

I broke these out of their SGC slab and submitted raw:
SGC 20 Shag graded a PSA 2 (yipee)
SGC 30 Dahlen (brooklyn) graded a PSA 2
PSA 3 Keeler (portrait) graded a PSA 4 (yippee!!)

I kept this one in the case and submitted:
SGC 60 n2 indian chief crossed to a PSA 5

I was pretty happy with these results!!
It seems easier to get upgrades from PSA now. Possibly a revenue enhancer to make folks happy. But it is diluting the product and is the main reason why PSA sells for less $ than SGC for vintage cards.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-18-2009, 07:47 PM
wolterse's Avatar
wolterse wolterse is offline
Erich W
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Indiana
Posts: 347
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbeachley View Post
It seems easier to get upgrades from PSA now. Possibly a revenue enhancer to make folks happy. But it is diluting the product and is the main reason why PSA sells for less $ than SGC for vintage cards.
It is easy to knock PSA given the small success I had 'crossing' over my T cards, but you wonder what would have happened if roles had been reversed. You can only speculate.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:45 PM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by egbeachley View Post
It seems easier to get upgrades from PSA now. Possibly a revenue enhancer to make folks happy. But it is diluting the product and is the main reason why PSA sells for less $ than SGC for vintage cards.
I see scant evidence that PSA cards sell for less money, in fact due to the set registry they can sometimes sell for considerably more. Unfortunately we have a poster here, egbeachley, who likes to slander PSA and spread false rumors about their "going out of business" which is entirely fictitious, as well as mistruths about SGC cards selling for more money. One can prefer one grading company over the other without spreading lies and conjecture about the other one. This poster has a personal agenda to try to ruin PSA's reputation, perhaps due to an experience he had with them that he found to his disliking. That he would choose to compromise his personal integrity to spread lies and falsehood speaks far more about the legitimacy of the poster than the company he attempts to disparage.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:13 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

There have been a couple recent comparisons between the 2 companies where SGC is beating PSA 2-1 on the same grades for the same cards (meaning when 30 cards of the same grade are compared, 20 SGC cards went for more and 10 PSA cards went for more). Same thing on the non-sports side. This is in direct contrast to a couple years ago when it was the other way around and seems to be relevant based on the sample sizes. And yes, I've said that in certain cases (T206 in grade 9), they sell for considerably more. But not for the average card. I'm trying to find the posts to link.

This is an observation based on observable events, not an opinion. My posts on PSA going out of business is an opinion based on many factors such as their cessation of dividends, recording a deferred tax valuation allowance, stock market price below repurchase plan agreements, executive poison plan implementation disagreed upon by major shareholders, lack of integrity on violation of the service agreements, etc.

As a third-party service provider they are following the direction of Arthur Anderson, not Price Waterhouse Coopers.

Last edited by egbeachley; 06-18-2009 at 10:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:28 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

Here is a short post from last year from a thread call "Grading Companys" from the non-sports side on similar N224 cards sold the same week and the results. Not statistically definitive though.


..........Just waited to see how the SGC Kinney Military cards graded 80 (which they also call a 6) compared to the PSA Kinney Military cards graded 6.
Same grade, different companies. PSA got $14 on average while SGC got $18 on average..........

But what is interesting is a post on the thread from a PSA customer where he said he has submitted between 50-100 SGC cards (broken out) and NEVER has received a higher grade from PSA. I believe him. That was a year or more ago. That is not the case anymore (see a few posts above). It is apparent that PSA has loosened grading standards and that is what I am basing my opinions on, along with their financial results. Again, see the Arthur Anderson comparison.

Now looking for the other comparison threads.

And Jamie, no lies or falsehoods in anything I've written.

Eric

Last edited by egbeachley; 06-18-2009 at 10:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:32 PM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

PSA posted a profit last quarter. Can you recall a time when a company that was posting profits went out of business? Also, their share price has increased 60% over the last few months. They hold $10 million in cash. There has been massive insider buying. It is one thing to be a "bear" on their stock, but there is little to support their going out of business. Also, your claims, as you know, may effect the opinions and actions of those on this board, which I still suspise is your true agenda.

As for the pricing, it does appear that SGC cards are increasing in value, but there are thousands of cards on the market. Simply because you found "a couple" examples, of which you fail to mention any particulars, is scant evidence that the conventional wisdom of PSA cards going for more should be overturned. PSA cards definitely go for more in all high grades, not only 9's. I do not follow the prices of lower grade cards, but I see no concensus that SGC cards deliver higher prices as you suggest, and no evidence either, which would mean that your both your arguments, that a) PSA is going out of business, b) that SGC cards sell for more - is complete speculation and conjecture. You also failed to deny that you have had a personal experience with PSA that you have found less than satisfactory, and my speculation is that that is truly the case.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:42 PM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

Eric,

I had not read your second post, but I hardly think that price results from a set of obscure Kinney Military cards is an accurate indicator of the total market for SGC vs. PSA prices.

Also, just because one or two posters has suggested that they have recently received higher grades from PSA, that again, a sample of one or two people, is hardly a significant sample size in which to judge the strictness of an entire companies that grades hundreds of thousands of cards.

I am not thrilled myself with the stories about PSA that have come off this board, especially the one where PSA bumped two cards based on a customer complaint of not having a report that explained the grades. It is not that I believe that all PSA does it angelic - hardly. But I do believe that, in spite of a few widely written cases, they are a respectable, and highly credible grading company. To suggest that PSA may be going out of business, when in fact they are turning a profit, in my opinion, is simply irresponsible and slanderous. And again, I wish I knew more about Kinney Military cards, but I hardly think that one strange subset of non-sports cards is an accurate indicator for the entire pre-war market.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:45 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyseymour View Post
PSA posted a profit last quarter. Can you recall a time when a company that was posting profits went out of business? Also, their share price has increased 60% over the last few months. They hold $10 million in cash. There has been massive insider buying. It is one thing to be a "bear" on their stock, but there is little to support their going out of business. Also, your claims, as you know, may effect the opinions and actions of those on this board, which I still suspise is your true agenda.
Their small quarterly profit was their first in 3 years and consists of 1 profitable division (coins) and the rest losses. Their 60% price gain was unusual in that the low price was below book value. Their $10M is about to become $5M after the stock purchase. Their insider buyers are the only buyers and a large shareholder thinks they can be broken up (sold) for $7 per share.

As far as my objectives...none really since I don't grade cards. Except as an Accountant I don't like some of the things they have done. I just read financial statements and make predictions. But predictions don't count unless they are in writing. This is my writing.

I wasn't going to make a Part 3 post except that the stock purchase plan was very unusual and needed to be mentioned.

I should mention that I don't have any financial stake in any grading company either.

And yes I agree that that sample is too small. But it is the first I found.

Last edited by egbeachley; 06-18-2009 at 10:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:59 PM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

If you own cards that are graded by one of the companies at hand, then you inherently have a financial stake in the grading companies. I am not an accountant, but I do not see stock purchase plans as unusual when share prices are low. Apple Computer announced a buyback plan when their shareprice was low, and they are hardly going out of business. Exxon Mobil buys back shares almost every year. These types of actions are very common for value stocks such as CLCT. They are a publicly traded stock and have many more buyers than just the insiders, so that statement of yours is false. I do not know many accountants who would think that a small company with $10 million in cash that is making a $700,000 profit and buying back shares is going out of business, so that is a new one to me. But apparently you have read "some of the things" in a financial statement that you "don't like" - and then made an EXTREMELY one-sided thread about how they were going out of business.

In ten years, when you are creating a thread called "Part 17 - PSA going out of business?", I will roll my eyes and think, the hate goes on.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-19-2009, 07:43 AM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

The significant and unusual part is not that they announced an open-ended buyback plan which is common as you mentioned, but that they announced a dutch-auction type plan where they committed 1/2 their cash to paying a minimum of $5.00 per share. Yet the price is at $4.80. People are selling for lower than what they would get in the plan.

I have about 40 graded cards. I expect they will still be there no matter what happens to the company that graded them.

In 10 years I'll be on part 44, one post per quarter
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-19-2009, 08:08 AM
barrysloate barrysloate is offline
Barry Sloate
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 8,293
Default

When you compare prices realized among PSA and SGC cards, you need to divide them into two categories: set registry cards, and collector cards.

PSA cards achieve higher prices when they fall into the high end, highly competitive set registry market. But at lower grades, more the collector market, SGC cards generally do better simply because they are more strictly and accurately graded.

You can look at the set registry as an almost distinct hobby from the one most of us indulge in.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-19-2009, 08:14 AM
Potomac Yank Potomac Yank is offline
Joe P.
Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 624
Default This thread started my day off with a smile :)

It's better than todays Wall Street Journal.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-19-2009, 10:06 AM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

Eric,

It's not necessarily irregular that the share price is slightly lower than the price PSA promises to buy shares at. Now, if it was trading at $2.80 when PSA promised to buyback at $5, that would be remarkable. But at $4.80, you are talking about a 4 percent discount - hardly worth worrying about. It may be that people believe that after PSA purchases the shares, the price will again fall. I do not know, but with these micro-cap types of stocks, there are often share prices that are either volatile or temporarily inexplicable. The stock being off four percent is hardly cause for concern.

As far as whether the cards themselves will be there, of course they will, but the values of the cards will be effected if a company goes out of business. Look what happened with GAI cards. So your spreading false rumors, I think, is intended to scare people into worrying about of PSA cards and scare them away from submitting to PSA. I am not fooled. Is anyone? Anyway, you can click the link on my signature to see exactly what I own. I am not hiding anything. I am not spreading half-truths and false rumors. You have failed to disclose what I suspise - that you are a disgruntled former PSA customer with a personal vendetta towards the company. Those who participate on this board should keep that in mind when they read your posts.

It seems like PSA spends considerably less time worrying about the accuracy of the grading of low-priced, low-grade cards, as reflected by their fee structure. I do not closely follow the mid-grade market, but I gather PSA might outperform SGC there as well.

Anyways, this is my last post on this topic for now, as I will be gone for a week and the subject has become tiresome. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will see that I am right. Yes, this board has a lot of SGC groupies, so you have a good forum to spread your half-truths and rumors. Maybe you did not expect someone to stand up to you about it. It may not be the popular thing to do, but I believe it was the ethical action. Good luck with your collection.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-19-2009, 11:37 AM
Tcards-Please's Avatar
Tcards-Please Tcards-Please is offline
Fr@nk Jenn!ngs
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 647
Default

I just got the results back of my recent submission to SGC. Out of the 27 (T205) cards I submitted, I cracked out 8 cards from PSA, BVG & SGC. The results were 3 stayed the same, 3 went down and 2 went up. The grades of both PSA & SGC are pretty much the same with SGC bumping up one a .5. I must have had two different SGC graders as the only SGC card that I submitted went down a complete point. The biggest grading difference took place between BVG and SGC with two going down and one going up. With that, grading is really subjective, but the top two companies are pretty much using the same standards grading raw cards (still scratching my head over the SGC to SGC). I haven't tried submitting cards in their holder, but would imagine both would still apply the same standards regardless. I don't think you can go wrong with either company and it boils down to your own personal preference. Here were my results:
PSA to SGC
1 to 20
3 to 40
3 to 40
3 to 40

SGC to SGC
40 to 30

BVG to SGC
4 to 3
3.5 to 3
2 to 3

r/
Frank
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-19-2009, 03:10 PM
BobC BobC is offline
Bob C.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,275
Default

Jamie,

I don't personally know you or Ed Beachley but, you've accused him of basically being a slanderer and a liar and having some kind of agenda against PSA. I almost never post on this forum but, do follow and read a lot of the threads. You've accused him of making untrue statements and of specifically trying to tell people PSA is going out of business. That is not the case from what I can see. He titled his thread regarding PSA going out of business with a question mark (?) at the end. In other words, he was bringing to the attention of the people on this board information he had seen about PSA and coupled that with his own perceptions of how PSA prices seemed to trending against cards from other grading companies and was making some observations and seeing what others thought and to get feedback. Truth be told, his points and observations are all very valid. He was basically quoting information from PSA's parent company's financial statements. They are a publicly traded company that is required by the SEC to make their financial statements and certain records and data available for public inspection. Unless you are suggesting he made up the figures and such that he was quoting, the parties responsible for putting forth false statements and mistruths would be PSA, their parent company, and their auditors.

As I already said, I don't know Ed, I really don't care about PSA, SGC or any other grading companies, I have no financial interest in any of them and actually, I don't really care for the slabbing of cards. What I do know is I've been a CPA in practice for 30 years and have done my fair share of financial statements and been involved in enough business valuations and merger and acquisition deals to understand and appreciate exactly what Ed was saying. I haven't independently verified his comments and figures but, assuming he is accurately quoting information put out by PSA themselves regarding their financial history and statements, it is painting a very distrurbing picture for them and an experienced financial person would be foolish to not take heed of that information if they were looking into the business.

Ed noted the continuous recent decline in monthly subbmissions to PSA, along with the fact that the card grading division itself has been consistently losing money for quite some time now. He agreed with your observation that the company did make a profit in a recent quarter but, as he then pointed out, that profit came from another division, coin grading I believe. That means the card grading division of PSA was still losing money. The owners of PSA are not into it for the hobby. They're business people looking only to make a profit. How much longer do you think they'll continue to operate a division at a loss before they make major changes, sell it or just close it up?The fact that the parent company, as reported by Ed, has already sold off some other divisions means that PSA's share of the corporate overhead is now going to be higher than it previously was, making it even harder to be profitable going forward. Now, when Ed speculated on their ability to stay in business, I don't think he referred solely to the option of them closing up and going away, akin to what transpired with GAI. I believe he was also inferring that the PSA division may be sold to someone else or spun off on their own. Still, given their individual division earnings and profit/loss history, it could be tough for someone to take them over and suddenly make them profitable. Also, a change of ownership could significantly change the way they do business, and possibly not to the liking of the majority of their current customers. No one knows for certain but, why wouldn't this germaine, factual information possibly be of importance to some on this board.

You said they had something like $10 million dollars in the bank and they recently turned a profit on their consolidated corporate financials. You then asked what accountant ever heard of a company like that going under. Hmmm, I don't know, ever hear of Enron (and I think they had a lot more than just $10 million in the bank and a $700K profit for a one quarter)??? Now, where did the $10 million in cash on hand come from? Was it from invested capital, retained earnings from prior years or, maybe, proceeds from debt? Regardless, given the history of the company generating mostly consistent losses (the recent profitable quarter appearing to be the exception and not the rule), why would a business owner continue it and spend all the money they had till they ran out? That is not a good business decision. As with a lot of my clients that I talk with and advise in this current economic crisis, you try to assess the current situation, begin cutting whatever costs you can and try to maximize your revenue and profitablility. You also have to be realistic and look at your revenue sources and be objective in determining if there is a true ability to turn a company around and then sustain that business/growth. If not, the smartest move is to cut your losses and either sell or close the business as quickly and efficiently as possible (unless you're a bank, insurance company or automotive maker and then you just wait for the government to bail you out). Face it, in the current economic market, spending money to slab cards, coins, stamps and so on is not going to be a top priority on a majority of people's to do lists. Further, as you've stated, PSA has at least in the past appeared to be considered the premier company to have vintage baseball cards slabbed with. Well, given the fact that they don't print new T-206s or other vintage cards anymore, there's a finite population of them to be slabbed out there and as time goes by, there will be less and less vintage cards to be slabbed. Of course there is the new shiny stuff but, I've always heard that Beckett seems to be the preferred medium to slab those cards in, not PSA or SGC. And in any event, I think that with the economy being what it is, and the bashing that all the investors/speculators who bought 1980's and 1990's wax and cards in hopes of making big profits that didn't materialize have experienced, I don't anticipate the level of slabbing new cards to continue at such a high level anyway. All in all, this doesn't bode well for PSA being able to generate additional revenue. Heck, they already tried the half-grade bump trick to generate more submissions and even then, it didn't apparently help them to get profitable. What's next for them, to go to a 100 point scale like SGC and try to get submissions in to bump from a 6.5 to a 66 or 67 grade? That gimmick was a one trick pony that they've already played.

If they do try to cut costs, that probably means nothing good for the hobby. Fewer people and services likely means longer delays in getting items back, probably less emphasis on accuracy and increased possibilities of altered, trimmed or unauthentic items getting slabbed. All things that are not good. As you even pointed out yourself, you had a concern about the one poster that complained about not getting explanations from PSA as to why his submitted cards didn't grade as he thought they would and when he returned them, PSA bumped him up a grade on two of the cards. I agree it is terrible but, given the economy and a business fighting for every dollar and customer it can get, does it surprise you? And what makes you think it is an isolated incident that won't be repeated more and more as we continue through the current financial crisis. And that is not to say the same thing doesn't/can't happen at SGC. Face it, they are competitors, not friends. Don't think for an instance they really care one bit about you or I. I've seen enough business owners faced with losing their companies and I am shocked to the lengths and extent that some of them are willing to go to just to get revenue, market share or merely to keep the company afloat. Just look at Bernie Madoff as a prime example of what someone can do to their so-called friends.

Jamie, you also bashed Ed for his attemp to provide facts and figures concerning his question of whether or not the trend in PSA slabbed cards garnering prices higher than comparable SGC slabbed cards was turning the other way. He didn't definitively state it as a fact. He merely presented some examples he thought would illustrate his theory and referred to other comments in threads he'd read on this forum. He acknowledged that the high-end PSA graded cards still seem to command the top prices but, as I think Barry Sloate pointed out in a later thread, that is likely due to the PSA registry guys throwing their testosterone (as well as their money) around and is not indicative of the vintage card market as a whole. Ed agreed with you basically but, when he picked an example that involved some recent non-sports card transactions to try to illustrate his point and question on whether PSA or SGC would generate better prices, and gave factual reults to support that premise, you then shot him down saying his example was some obscure issue and that the sample size was too small to be relevant. OK, but at least he presented some factual information and data. What did you present? Nothing, just some comments to try and diminish what he presented as immaterial and irrelevant. So why don't you tell us what would be relevant or material. Or better yet, why not present some factual data yourself to disprove what you think Ed is suggesting.

You also argued about Ed's points regarding the insider trading issues and the upcoming stock repurchase as not being indicative of a potential problem at PSA. Maybe and maybe not. You have to look at all the facts and issues, along with taking the state of the economy and business trends into consideration, before arriving at an opinion as to how a business may be doing. Ed's points are once again well taken. I agree with your comment that there are more than just insiders currently trading in the company's stock but, what I think Ed meant was that in looking at the reported insider transactions involving the parent company's stock, the majority of all the stock's recent activity has been with insider purchases. Since information on insider (ie: company officers, directors, major shareholder) trading activity in a company's stock is also required to be reported and made public record, the general public will often watch what those supposedly "in the know" are doing with their stock holdings to determine where the company's business may be headed. Obviously, if the officers and directors start dumping all their stock it panics the general shareholders and gets people thinking something is wrong and thereby normally weakens the stock price. Coming up with a stock repurchase plan may be one avenue whereby officers and directors who own significant interests in the company may be able to cash out some of their shares in the mandated buyback and thereby take some of their money off the table without selling their shares directly and possibly causing the stock price to drop lower than it is. Depending on what shares are bought back, this could also be a way to reduce shares owned by the general public, thereby solidifying the officers and directors control of the company and making it more difficult for an outside firm to come in and take them over. Also, taking the cash out of the company would make them less desirable to others as a takeover target too. Or, as Ed alluded to in a story or rumour he heard about how someone thought/said the breakup value of the entire enterprise was about $7.00/SH, this could be the insiders attempt to gain more control/share of the business just prior to a sell off, and hopefully a quick turnaround profit at about $2/SH. I agree, buying their stock now at about $4.90/SH when the likelihood of it quickly being redeemed by the company for $5.00/SH makes little sense. By the time you factor in transaction costs for your purchase you don't make anything. Which is exactly why a smart analyst/accountant would wonder what is going on and what do they have up their sleeves. Which is exactly what Ed was pointing out to everyone......something seems to be going on. Wall Street analysts do this for a living. Heck, you can turn Jim Cramer's Mad Money TV show on any night and hear him talking about this kind of stuff on all kinds of companies every day. So if he happened to talk about PSA and Collector's Universe on one of his shows and mentioned the same facts that Ed did, would you call the show and claim he was a disgruntled ex-employee with an axe to grind also?

Think about it, you accused Ed of putting forth false statements and mistruths and make an accusation that he has an agenda or is a former PSA employee done wrong, or that he had some other bad experience with them that now forces him to go after them in this manner. The only one I can see that is guilty of false statements and mistruths is you in the way you've attacked Ed.

The fact is, to my knowledge PSA is the only grading company that is publicly traded and therefore has its financial statements and results available for scrutiny. I'll bet you my last dollar that if we had been able to see GAI's financial statements and records leading up to their demise (assuming they were accurate and timely) it would pretty clear they were headed down a bad path. Now, if you were looking to get a card slabbed and had knowledge that GAI was in difficult financial straits, would you be as quick to send it to them knowing they may not last long? Probably not. And if you were contemplating sending something off to them just before they went under, wouldn't you have been appreciative of someone letting you know their financial position so you could make your own, better informed opinion, as to whether or not to submit a card to them? We don't have access to SGC data, or so I believe. Because we do have access to public records and data for PSA though, are you saying it's not fair to bring it up for people here to know unless it's favorable?

I have never sent any card to any company to be slabbed. Still, Ed's info and insights are exactly why I think people follow this forum and read these threads. Jamie, you are reading the wrong things into what he was reporting. How can more information, knowledge and facts (especially when most of it is public information) about a company that collectors on this forum use quite a bit be a bad thing? I'm not at all bashing PSA. In fact, for all any of us know, SGC could be in worse shape than that and collapsing next week. Jamie, I wish you well in your collecting efforts.

Bob Casmer
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-19-2009, 03:22 PM
Tcards-Please's Avatar
Tcards-Please Tcards-Please is offline
Fr@nk Jenn!ngs
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 647
Default Wow

and I thought the Bible was long. To post something that long, I would have had to start yesterday
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-19-2009, 04:51 PM
egbeachley's Avatar
egbeachley egbeachley is offline
Eric Bea.chley
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 920
Default

Here is a link I was looking for. It doesn't seem to have crossed over into this forum. The first entry was in error, the SGC price was actually $4025.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/15365...t+their+value-

Also, since it has been brought up 3 times, I have submitted 6 cards to PSA in my lifetime. I was very pleased with the grade of the best one, an N29 (Ewing I think) with paper loss on the front. It came back a PSA 4 and I sold it for more than I thought I'd get with that damage. I've never submitted to SGC. I currently own 30 PSA graded cards. 2 N224's and 28 T128 Contentnea Indians (all different). I own about 5 SGC graded cards.

Eric (I get called Ed a lot)

PS. FWIW, the stock price of CLCT is at $4.70, even though you are guaranteed between $5.00 and $5.40 on the repurchase on July 2nd (2 weeks from now)

Last edited by egbeachley; 06-19-2009 at 04:55 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-27-2009, 01:40 AM
cyseymour's Avatar
cyseymour cyseymour is offline
Ja,mie B.
member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 662
Default

Having returned from vacation I would like to answer this thread:

Frank,

I think that comparing PSA to Enron and Bernie Madoff is a little over the top. I wouldn't take Jim Cramer's opinion very seriously, either, but I don't think that even he spreads rumors about companies going out of business.

Another thing that ought to be clarified: the difference between Collector's Universe and PSA, and the profitability of each. PSA was not profitable this past quarter due to the global economic crises, hardly an uncommon phenomenon. Collector's Universe had not been profitable for the past three years, due to a poorly-advised foray into the jewelry business - yet PSA had indeed been profitable. With 264,000 submissions, of course it is possible for PSA to be profitable, but maybe they weren't last quarter simply because they had expected more, causing greater expense. A simple downsizing is all that is needed. Anyways, I imagine that within a year PSA will post a profit, and this whole thread will seem absurd.

As far as the limitation in the number of cards to enslab, that would appear to be a much greater threat to a company such as SGC since they primarily grade vintage material. Yet it has to be something that anyone in the business must consider.

No one knows what the future holds. Yet Eric's arguments were one-sided and deceptive, for the many reasons I have already listed. Still he continues to root for a drop in the share price, which is now up to $4.90. Well that itself is the equivalent of $5 because to buy a penny stock like CLCT there is a spread of about ten cents. There is just not enough volume on a small stock like that to take a ten, twenty or thirty cent discrepancy seriously. It does not mean that CLCT is the next Enron.

We don't know who is selling at the share buyback, but notice that it says "up to", not a guarantee that it will buy back all the stock. Furthermore, even if an insider were to cash out, the company is still profitable, which means it has value. I am not saying that everyone should run out and buy the stock. I have no clue what the stock price is going to do, but neither does Eric. But spreading rumors of its demise (question mark or no question mark, it is still planting a HIGHLY BIASED seed in readers minds) is simply reckless in this situation. There is a name for it; it is called fearmongering. Eric is merely presenting one side of a poorly-graded coin (forgive the pun).

As for Eric's attempt to justify his statements by using an obscure non-sports issue as proof, anyone can see that that is ludicrous. It is almost evidence in itself against the very point he was trying to make. A far superior measure would be t206's or something like that. I will not take the time to tabulate sale prices of t206's because I have a life. However, the general consensus is that PSA graded cards go for more, especially in the high grades.

As far as the gentleman on this board who had his cards bumped, there are other possible explanations for the bumping. It is possible that since he complained, his cards were then reviewed by PSA's most expert graders. Those graders may have had a subjective opinion different than those who previously graded the cards.

Collector's Universe is not a scam. It is not the next Enron. It is not run by Bernie Madoff. Not only isn't it going out of business, it is indeed profitable. There is nothing more I can really say.

Kind regards,

Jamie
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:28 PM.


ebay GSB