Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[botn]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I have communicated with PWCC about this. Brent informs me that he has three rules in place to address what clearly is happening in today's market. One, a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. Two, a bidder cannot retract if he does cross the threshold and become the high bidder. Three, a winning bidder must pay.

Brent needs to define what he means by a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. How is he able to discourage that or even stop it? What about a bidder's BFF? So I have my doubts id rule one is adhered to. As to rule 2 only he would know if the massive volume of retractions are being done by the consignor (see question as to rule #1). As to rule 3, only Brent would know if items are all actually being paid for.

With that said, the government made their whole case against Mastro Auctions based on the sheer volume of shill bids permitted to be placed by consignors or consignors friends and families. It was not so much that the house was doing it but that they permitted "artificial" bids to be placed. Bill is in prison for this. Doug is going shortly and possibly Mark and countless others dropped considerable amount of cash having to lawyer up so they did not end up in the same place.

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.

[ezez420]

When they read or when they act on what they read. Good post Peter.


QUOTE=botn;1554461]Brent needs to define what he means by a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. How is he able to discourage that or even stop it? What about a bidder's BFF? So I have my doubts id rule one is adhered to. As to rule 2 only he would know if the massive volume of retractions are being done by the consignor (see question as to rule #1). As to rule 3, only Brent would know if items are all actually being paid for.

With that said, the government made their whole case against Mastro Auctions based on the sheer volume of shill bids permitted to be placed by consignors or consignors friends and families. It was not so much that the house was doing it but that they permitted "artificial" bids to be placed. Bill is in prison for this. Doug is going shortly and possibly Mark and countless others dropped considerable amount of cash having to lawyer up so they did not end up in the same place.

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.[/QUOTE]

[Gradedcardman]

Originally Posted by botn

Brent needs to define what he means by a bidder cannot bid on items he has consigned. How is he able to discourage that or even stop it? What about a bidder's BFF? So I have my doubts id rule one is adhered to. As to rule 2 only he would know if the massive volume of retractions are being done by the consignor (see question as to rule #1). As to rule 3, only Brent would know if items are all actually being paid for.

With that said, the government made their whole case against Mastro Auctions based on the sheer volume of shill bids permitted to be placed by consignors or consignors friends and families. It was not so much that the house was doing it but that they permitted "artificial" bids to be placed. Bill is in prison for this. Doug is going shortly and possibly Mark and countless others dropped considerable amount of cash having to lawyer up so they did not end up in the same place.

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.

I had to point out a bidder bidding on their own item to Brent. He has so many items on at a time I am sure he does not review bid history on every item. When I did point out to him that the item was bought by bidder A, then Brent put it up for sale for bidder A and bidder A was now high bid on his own item he retracted his bids. It was blatant but he did take it down.

[ullmandds]

Pete...I totally with your argument so far.

And this is very similar to what Brent told me via email when I questioned one of his auctions building activity. He said while the one bidders activity was quite suspicious he knew for sure that the higher bid was legitimate. So my argument is that in the absence of the suspicious bitter the winning bid would not be nearly as high.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by ullmandds

Pete...I totally with your argument so far.

And this is very similar to what Brent told me via email when I questioned one of his auctions building activity. He said while the one bitters activity was quite suspicious he knew for sure that the higher bid was legitimate. So my argument is that in the absence of the suspicious better be legitimate it would not be nearly as high.

It is very difficult to deal with a bitter, better bidder.

[ullmandds]

thats what happens Frank when I talk into the phone at the pool!!!!

[glynparson]

The Bruces were ahead of the curve would love for Mr. Dorskind to be around to hear his perspective on this current situation. He loved his cards but also viewed them as investment commodities. As for Peter's question seems immoral but if they are willing to pay should they win I am not sure it can be considered illegal. I mean there have been times billionaires have proped up their stocks and millionaire artists bought tons of their albums or tickets to their movies to prop up numbers. IF the transactions go thru I see that it is immoral but I would have real problem legally punishing people for this type of behavior. After all it seems like they are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I deliberately framed the question as one of ethics not legality because, with due respect, there are few things less productive than a lot of non-lawyers giving opinions about what the law should be. See Kevin Quinn pontificating on class actions for example.

I think my feelings about it would be the same whether or not it's illegal. To me, it's artificially and intentionally driving up prices. And it's happening every day, which means it can have an enormous impact.

[MW1]

Originally Posted by botn

I would say Brent is in a pretty dangerous spot should the feds read this and decide to take a look around. This might be a great time to lose one's hard drives and back ups.

Based on the volume of sales and the detail of the records kept by eBay, it has certainly got to be a concern.

[MW1]

To differentiate "market pushing" from normal auction activity, one would have to discern the intent of the bidder, which is not generally something that can be known with any certainty. To wit, that makes this a nearly pointless discussion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MW1

To differentiate "market pushing" from normal auction activity, one would have to discern the intent of the bidder, which is not generally something that can be known with any certainty. To wit, that makes this a nearly pointless discussion.

Brent knows very well what his bidders are up to. "Market pushing" is his term.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by MW1

To differentiate "market pushing" from normal auction activity, one would have to discern the intent of the bidder, which is not generally something that can be known with any certainty. To wit, that makes this a nearly pointless discussion.

Juries every day are called upon to discern intent from the evidence. It's an issue in every criminal case and every fraud case, to start with. Of course you can make judgments about intent much of the time. More concretely, in this instance, I am confident that what Brent has told me about certain people's intent is accurate.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

Based on the volume of sales and the detail of the records kept by eBay, it has certainly got to be a concern.

Doubt it from what I know. A crazy plan to corner the market on Rose rookies (or whatever card) probably isn't going to get Feds involved. That being said, my guess is that if someone brought something to them that was specifically a Federal Crime, and had their ducks in a row, I am confident they would look at it. Just my 1/2 cent.

ps...and I agree with your last post/statement too!!

[MW1]

Originally Posted by Leon

Doubt it from what I know. A crazy plan to corner the market on Rose rookies (or whatever card) probably isn't going to get Feds involved. That being said, my guess is that if someone brought something to them that was specifically a Federal Crime, and had their ducks in a row, I am confident they would look at it. Just my 1/2 cent.

ps...and I agree with your last post/statement too!!

The reference was to PWCC, not Pete Rose rookie cards, per se.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by MW1

The reference was to PWCC, not Pete Rose rookie cards, per se.

Sorry, I guess I got off track. My reference was to the bidders.