ebay finds that PWCC engaged in shill bidding?

[Fuddjcal]

Originally Posted by bobbyw8469

Now PWCC seems to be proactively closing listings out too!! Darn it!!! I was trying to get that Bird rookie PSA 9 for $50k!

You done good...They would have bid you up to 100K Private shill bidding you the trimmed card anyway. You were lucky

[Golf History]

https://www.ecommercebytes.com/C/blo...ePfPjaqu0zxCXY

[Snowman]

Wow! Pretty crazy turn of events today. I've read a lot of conspiracy theories so far, some rather comical. I think a few observations are probably worth noting though, if trying to figure out what's actually happening behind the scenes. I'm just speculating and exercising my critical thinking skills though here, so take this with a grain of salt. I don't know anyone on the inside at either company who is in charge of making these decisions.

A few observations:

1 - PWCC has been working on their own separate platform to compete against eBay. Their Premier Auction in July was the first launch of part of their new independent platform. This is just the tip of the iceburg. As they've stated in their response to the eBay letter, they have much bigger ambitions that are soon to launch.

2 - Thus far, eBay has only banned PWCC. They didn't ban Probstein, which has gotten just as much heat on the forums as PWCC regarding this topic.

3 - PWCC's definition of "shill bidding" is perhaps peculiarly worded on their website. "Shill bidding is a bid placed without the intention to honor it - regardless of who placed the bid." https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/faq

4 - I believe it is rather common for many auction houses to expressly allow shill bidding in their TOS (or so I've read)

5 - In the past, eBay has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't care less about shill bidding (I recently created a thread on this topic).

6 - Historically, eBay has not taken well to competition over the years, nor criticism. They have bought out numerous start-up auction sites over the years in an effort to maintain their monopoly, and I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the recent news articles about former eBay employees who were recently sentenced to prison for cyberstalking a couple from Massachusetts who published articles criticizing eBay.


What does this all mean? What's actually going on here?

I don't buy for a second that this is eBay's attempt at cracking down on shill bidding. That's bullshit. If eBay wanted to crack down on this, they would have done so a long time ago, and they would have done it from the inside. They are the ones with all of the relevant bidding behavior and user data. Not the sellers. They can easily crack down on shill bidding, but they've chosen not to, likely because it's a project that would take money out of their pockets.

To me, this smells like it's one of two things.
1) The most likely scenario to me is that eBay is pissed off at PWCC because PWCC basically built their brand on eBay's platform and now they think they are big enough that they can just create their own platform to compete against eBay, taking hundreds of millions of dollars of business along with them, so eBay decided to tarnish their brand on their way out the door. Sort of the "you can't quit, you're fired!" approach.
2) The not-so-recent FBI investigation into the sports card market has begun to finally shown its teeth after dragging along for many years in silence, and they are somehow just now knocking on eBay's door, asking for records on PWCC's bidding activity. I find this to be a rather low likelihood though for a multitude of reasons, the least of which is eBay's otherwise couldn't-care-less approach to shill bidding in general. If eBay were feeling heat from the FBI, they would have tightened up shill bidding long before now.

Also note that eBay's wording is rather suspect to me. "Individuals associated with PWCC"... Really? That's the best they could do? Notice what they didn't say. "PWCC is engaged in shill bidding." or "PWCC personnel is engaged with shill bidding." or "PWCC employees have engaged in shill bidding". This email was without question, carefully crafted by eBay's legal team and likely signed off on by the CEO prior to being sent out. This is a strategically worded email. "Individuals associated with PWCC" to me reads as "people who consigned with PWCC", not PWCC employees. It's reads like a cleverly worded lawyer trick that has the intention of misleading its audience into believing that PWCC employees are shill bidding their eBay listings, but is worded just soft enough that if challenged in court (which it will be) they can simply say that they meant the people who consigned with PWCC were doing the shill bidding, not PWCC themselves.

Based on PWCC's response, this came out of left field. If eBay were truly just concerned about shill bidding, they wouldn't have just blindsided one of their top sellers on the entire platform. PWCC sold hundreds of millions of dollars last year alone on eBay. They would have had a meeting with Brentsy to discuss how serious they are about preventing shill bidding at the very least. They would have coordinated on this effort if preventing shill bidding was the goal. And if they had done that already, then this wouldn't have come out of left field for PWCC (which appears to be clearly the case here).

And as far as preventing shill bidding goes, PWCC has actually done far more than eBay or any other consigner I've encountered to combat this. They send you emails warning you to confirm that you intend to actually purchase an item after placing a bid if you haven't bought from them previously (I have this very email in my inbox somewhere). Otherwise they will cancel your bid. You must be vetted by thier finance team in order to participate in their Premier Auctions (I've been through this too), and if you win an item in any of their auctions but don't pay for it, they will ban your account and you won't be able to bid on their aucitons again. These are all steps to prevent shill bidding. What more can you really expect them to do? They are a consignment company. They're not eBay themselves. They don't have access to all the user data and bid history of everyone like eBay does. There's only so much they can actually do to prevent shill bidding. Most of what can be done is and should be eBay's responsibility, not PWCC's.

That said, if it were to come out that PWCC has some top-secret operation in place to where they've hired an army of North Korean hackers to create thousands of fake eBay accounts who shill bid all of their auctions for them, or Brentsy and crew have shill bidding sessions themselves at the office, then that'd be something rather extraordinary, but I highly doubt this is the case. At best, they might have a disagreement on what the definition of "shill bidding" is to begin with. Remember, Brentsy defines a shill bid as a bid with no intention of making payment if you win regardless of who you are or if you have any association with the consigner, whereas maybe eBay thinks it's a bid placed on behalf of the consigner regardless of whether or not they plan to proceed with payment, should they happen to win.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Wow! Pretty crazy turn of events today. I've read a lot of conspiracy theories so far, some rather comical. I think a few observations are probably worth noting though, if trying to figure out what's actually happening behind the scenes. I'm just speculating and exercising my critical thinking skills though here, so take this with a grain of salt. I don't know anyone on the inside at either company who is in charge of making these decisions.

A few observations:

1 - PWCC has been working on their own separate platform to compete against eBay. Their Premier Auction in July was the first launch of part of their new independent platform. This is just the tip of the iceburg. As they've stated in their response to the eBay letter, they have much bigger ambitions that are soon to launch.

2 - Thus far, eBay has only banned PWCC. They didn't ban Probstein, which has gotten just as much heat on the forums as PWCC regarding this topic.

3 - PWCC's definition of "shill bidding" is perhaps peculiarly worded on their website. "Shill bidding is a bid placed without the intention to honor it - regardless of who placed the bid." https://www.pwccmarketplace.com/faq

4 - I believe it is rather common for many auction houses to expressly allow shill bidding in their TOS (or so I've read)

5 - In the past, eBay has repeatedly demonstrated that they couldn't care less about shill bidding (I recently created a thread on this topic).

6 - Historically, eBay has not taken well to competition over the years, nor criticism. They have bought out numerous start-up auction sites over the years in an effort to maintain their monopoly, and I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the recent news articles about former eBay employees who were recently sentenced to prison for cyberstalking a couple from Massachusetts who published articles criticizing eBay.


What does this all mean? What's actually going on here?

I don't buy for a second that this is eBay's attempt at cracking down on shill bidding. That's bullshit. If eBay wanted to crack down on this, they would have done so a long time ago, and they would have done it from the inside. They are the ones with all of the relevant bidding behavior and user data. Not the sellers. They can easily crack down on shill bidding, but they've chosen not to, likely because it's a project that would take money out of their pockets.

To me, this smells like it's one of two things.
1) The most likely scenario to me is that eBay is pissed off at PWCC because PWCC basically built their brand on eBay's platform and now they think they are big enough that they can just create their own platform to compete against eBay, taking hundreds of millions of dollars of business along with them, so eBay decided to tarnish their brand on their way out the door. Sort of the "you can't quit, you're fired!" approach.
2) The not-so-recent FBI investigation into the sports card market has begun to finally shown its teeth after dragging along for many years in silence, and they are somehow just now knocking on eBay's door, asking for records on PWCC's bidding activity. I find this to be a rather low likelihood though for a multitude of reasons, the least of which is eBay's otherwise couldn't-care-less approach to shill bidding in general. If eBay were feeling heat from the FBI, they would have tightened up shill bidding long before now.

Also note that eBay's wording is rather suspect to me. "Individuals associated with PWCC"... Really? That's the best they could do? Notice what they didn't say. "PWCC is engaged in shill bidding." or "PWCC personnel is engaged with shill bidding." or "PWCC employees have engaged in shill bidding". This email was without question, carefully crafted by eBay's legal team and likely signed off on by the CEO prior to being sent out. This is a strategically worded email. "Individuals associated with PWCC" to me reads as "people who consigned with PWCC", not PWCC employees. It's reads like a cleverly worded lawyer trick that has the intention of misleading its audience into believing that PWCC employees are shill bidding their eBay listings, but is worded just soft enough that if challenged in court (which it will be) they can simply say that they meant the people who consigned with PWCC were doing the shill bidding, not PWCC themselves.

Based on PWCC's response, this came out of left field. If eBay were truly just concerned about shill bidding, they wouldn't have just blindsided one of their top sellers on the entire platform. PWCC sold hundreds of millions of dollars last year alone on eBay. They would have had a meeting with Brentsy to discuss how serious they are about preventing shill bidding at the very least. They would have coordinated on this effort if preventing shill bidding was the goal. And if they had done that already, then this wouldn't have come out of left field for PWCC (which appears to be clearly the case here).

And as far as preventing shill bidding goes, PWCC has actually done far more than eBay or any other consigner I've encountered to combat this. They send you emails warning you to confirm that you intend to actually purchase an item after placing a bid if you haven't bought from them previously (I have this very email in my inbox somewhere). Otherwise they will cancel your bid. You must be vetted by thier finance team in order to participate in their Premier Auctions (I've been through this too), and if you win an item in any of their auctions but don't pay for it, they will ban your account and you won't be able to bid on their aucitons again. These are all steps to prevent shill bidding. What more can you really expect them to do? They are a consignment company. They're not eBay themselves. They don't have access to all the user data and bid history of everyone like eBay does. There's only so much they can actually do to prevent shill bidding. Most of what can be done is and should be eBay's responsibility, not PWCC's.

That said, if it were to come out that PWCC has some top-secret operation in place to where they've hired an army of North Korean hackers to create thousands of fake eBay accounts who shill bid all of their auctions for them, or Brentsy and crew have shill bidding sessions themselves at the office, then that'd be something rather extraordinary, but I highly doubt this is the case. At best, they might have a disagreement on what the definition of "shill bidding" is to begin with. Remember, Brentsy defines a shill bid as a bid with no intention of making payment if you win regardless of who you are or if you have any association with the consigner, whereas maybe eBay thinks it's a bid placed on behalf of the consigner regardless of whether or not they plan to proceed with payment, should they happen to win.

Pretty much agree with all of this.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

[JeremyW]

To quote Snowman:

"1 - PWCC has been working on their own separate platform to compete against eBay."

Seems to me, they will now be competing against many reputable, trusted, & established online auction houses.

Time will tell, I guess.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by conor912

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

And, if they show low prices, the reason to consign to them goes away.

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by conor912

Good point. If their prices fall off a cliff on their own site, they’ll have (even more) ‘splaining to do.

How so? Why would this not be the expectation given that fewer buyers would be seeing these auctions now?

Originally Posted by conor912

I find it interesting that 3 things have converged here…Ebay booting PWCC, PWCC launching their own platform, and an FBI investigation heating up. That’s a potent cocktail with a lot of money and potential legal problems at stake.

The FBI investigation is "heating up"? I was unaware of this. Do you have any evidence to support this claim or is this purely conjecture based on the fact that ebay claims to have cut ties with PWCC over "shill bidding"?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Here's a thought -- PWCC now has more incentive than ever to show high auction prices.

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by Snowman

I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

See the screen shot in post 197. I encourage you to find and read the whole thread whence it came.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Do you believe this incentive would outweigh the competing incentive to avoid shill bidding to whatever extent possible since they are/were under an FBI investigation with a sizeable portion of the community constantly breathing fire down their backs, waiting to catch them for any and every misstep?

To me it seems incomprehensible that PWCC themselves would be actively engaged in any shill bidding activity at any point since the FBI came knocking on their doors. Yes, of course random ebay users and their consignors engage in this activity all the time, but this isn't PWCC's problem to solve. It's ebay's responsibility. I just don't buy for one second that PWCC employees or its owners are actively shill bidding on their auctions. Same with Probstein and other consignment companies. Their consignors shill bid constantly, but that doesn't make them guilty of it too.

Perhaps worth discussing as well though is what defines "shill bidding" to begin with? Is it shill bidding if you have every intention of paying for the item and all the fees that go along with it should you win? PWCC doesn't consider that to be shill bidding, and neither do many/most? other auction houses.

Got to have your name in your post brutha! Read rules at the top regarding opinions

[darwinbulldog]

So what'll happen over the next few months to popular heavily traded pre-war cards, let's say T206s in the $500-$5000 range? Predictions?

A) prices rise because eBay buyers stay on eBay and the supply diminishes while the demand remains
B) prices drop because they were artificially inflated by business practices (legitimate or otherwise) of PWCC
C) nothing much as people continue to set their bids based on recent sales
D) other (?)

I'm thinking maybe the prices were so volatile for the past year it'll be hard to discern the specific effect of PWCC's departure from eBay, but it's gotta have some effect whether or not we can discern what it will have been with any confidence.

[marzoumanian]

At the just-held National I bumped into Rob Gough, who as we all know until very recently was the owner of the most expensive baseball card ever sold when he paid $5.2 million for a PSA 9 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle. I found him to be pleasant and very cordial and we talked for about 10 minutes.
If you read the July 2021 SI article about this Mantle card, he is featured VERY prominently. Like the first 10 paragraphs. What I found "weird" is that PWCC, who served as the broker in the sale (it wasn't an auction) and whose vault the card now sits in, wasn't mentioned by name. I wonder why.
This article makes it clear that Gough dove in hard last summer and eBay was one of his sources as he spent millions of dollars on cards. Now this news breaks. Does he pull that Mantle from the vault? Where will he go to buy cards in the future? At the National I recommended to him (and real estate mogul Kurt Rappaport, who was with him), that REA is the best but of course REA isn't on eBay. I also told him to stay away from PWCC because of the ongoing (?) trimming scandal. I know, that advice was too late.
Why does it matter what this young man does going forward? I believe the hobby needs fresh, young faces if it is going to continue to grow. I also believe he has had a positive impact on the hobby and what he does now (in terms of buying more cards) matters. Just my opinion. I want the hobby to thrive long after I am dead and gone. Gough can help.
P.S. I did write a blog about my pleasant encounter with Gough and Rappaport. If you want you can read it at www.markearzoumanian.com and then click on "My Love of the Hobby."