Is "market pushing" ethical or not?

[glchen]

As long as there is no shilling is going on, and the prices are "real," then I have no problem with market pushing. By "real," I am saying that the winning bidder did pay for the item (including BP, if there was one), and it wasn't some sort of fake scenario where one friend "bought" a card from another friend and "paid" him that winning bid, and then that card was "bought" back (e.g., shenanigans like that). If the market prices are genuine, then I have no problems with this market pushing. Sooner or later, those people who are trying to "protect" their investment will find out there are too many cards to buy, and then when they try to unload their investment, find out there are no buyers at the prices they want.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

As long as there is no shilling is going on, and the prices are "real," then I have no problem with market pushing. By "real," I am saying that the winning bidder did pay for the item (including BP, if there was one), and it wasn't some sort of fake scenario where one friend "bought" a card from another friend and "paid" him that winning bid, and then that card was "bought" back (e.g., shenanigans like that). If the market prices are genuine, then I have no problems with this market pushing. Sooner or later, those people who are trying to "protect" their investment will find out there are too many cards to buy, and then when they try to unload their investment, find out there are no buyers at the prices they want.

Define a "genuine" market price. In Mastro the government defined it as the price that would have prevailed in the absence of bids made for a purpose other than winning. Not the price one guy was willing to pay. At least that's my understanding.

[PM770]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Define a "genuine" market price. In Mastro the government defined it as the price that would have prevailed in the absence of bids made for a purpose other than winning. Not the price one guy was willing to pay. At least that's my understanding.

This seems like a great point. Its still shilling if your intention is to just drive up a price, even if it is not your specific card.

I'm assuming in the example provided, that the bid increment was $100 at that level so the underbidder knew he had pushed it to a max.

I'm also curious as to how PWCC can disallow bid retractions. Isn't that governed by ebay? Can a seller set up a listing that doesn't allow bid retractions?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by PM770

This seems like a great point. Its still shilling if your intention is to just drive up a price, even if it is not your specific card.

I'm assuming in the example provided, that the bid increment was $100 at that level so the underbidder knew he had pushed it to a max.

I'm also curious as to how PWCC can disallow bid retractions. Isn't that governed by ebay? Can a seller set up a listing that doesn't allow bid retractions?

I don't speak for Brent, but my understanding is that he will suspend bidders who retract without a good explanation.

[glchen]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Define a "genuine" market price. In Mastro the government defined it as the price that would have prevailed in the absence of bids made for a purpose other than winning. Not the price one guy was willing to pay. At least that's my understanding.

Peter, for my definition, a "genuine" market price was obtain in the absence of any shill bids. So as in the government's definition, even if the high bidder's max bid was legitimate, that is not a genuine market price if he were shilled up.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Peter, for my definition, a "genuine" market price was obtain in the absence of any shill bids. So as in the government's definition, even if the high bidder's max bid was legitimate, that is not a genuine market price if he were shilled up.

So why is it legitimate here, where bids are placed with the intent only of driving up the price? I am missing your point. In both situations the price seems manipulated to me, in one case by the consignor, in the other case by someone trying to protect their investments/push prices higher but not with the goal of winning the auction at the lowest possible price. which is of course what legitimate bidders do.

[glchen]

Peter, to me this is like a country trying to prop up its currency against hedge funds. You can keep buying and buying, but sooner or later, someone is going to blink. Usually the country. As long as the market is legitimate, it's all good to me.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by glchen

Peter, to me this is like a country trying to prop up its currency against hedge funds. You can keep buying and buying, but sooner or later, someone is going to blink. Usually the country. As long as the market is legitimate, it's all good to me.

Respectfully, that is a circular argument, assuming its conclusion that the market is legitimate. I say that if this is how prices are determined, it's not.

[glchen]

Ok different analogy. Say I have a LOT of money in my brokerage account. I am in no way affiliated with Microsoft. I place a limit order in my brokerage account where I will buy any and all Microsoft stock if the price is $50 or lower. Until all of the vast sums of money in my account run out. I am trying to protect my investment in Microsoft by trying to make sure it doesn't go below $50. Why is this not ethical? It however can be very stupid if everyone else thinks MSFT is worth less than $50 and would be happy to dump those shares on me.

If the 300 odd folks who hold Rose rookies in PSA 8 don't think that card is worth 5 figures, they should just dump those cards on whoever is willing to buy those cards at those prices. That's the free market.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Respectfully, that is a circular argument, assuming its conclusion that the market is legitimate. I say that if this is how prices are determined, it's not.

well that's the real trick right? Figuring out what is a legit buyer and what isn't? I mean, even if a shill pushes the price if the end buyer isn't an associate and buys the card with no malice than the price is legit. (and obviously the price is not legit if the buyer is a shill)

The hard part is knowing who is who, and aside from what you are doing with your research is difficult to ascertain.

A solution? IDK man, ebay isn't going to patrol it worth a darn, I guess it's up to the individuals self policing and pointing out stuff like you did in this thread,

[drcy]

I think if a "market protector" is bidding what he is honestly willing to pay if that is the winning bid (as opposed to a shiller who would retract a bid once he gets in the lead), that is okay. Though, if he is the regular winner, it is a bad investment strategy, akin to throwing good money after bad.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Let's suppose that a "market pusher" (not my term by the way) is successful 70 percent of the time in getting someone else to pay more than he would have, and 30 percent of the time ends up winning and paying. Those are probably conservative numbers based on looking at some bidding histories. I don't see why it's perfectly OK to drive up someone else's price deliberately on numerous transactions just because you're willing to pay if you guess the top wrong. And whether it's your own card you are bidding on or someone else's, if the result is the same -- another bidder pays more -- I don't see why that matters either. People who were bidding their own cards up in Mastro also were willing to, and did, pay if they won. But that was deemed irrelevant. Whatever.

[drcy]

If someone (collector, investor, someone buying a birthday present for his grandson) is not shilling, is not bidding on something he owns or for someone (shilling) and places a bid at an amount he's honestly willing to pay and knowing he may well end up being the winner-- it's hard to convince me that he did something wrong. In fact, that's what auctions are about.

[Leon]

It matters because the "pushers" have the risk associated with winning. Take away the risk (BP, fees etc...) and then I have a problem. I am with Adam on this too, as long as the sale is arm's length I am good with it.

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Let's suppose that a "market pusher" (not my term by the way) is successful 70 percent of the time in getting someone else to pay more than he would have, and 30 percent of the time ends up winning and paying. Those are probably conservative numbers based on looking at some bidding histories. I don't see why it's perfectly OK to drive up someone else's price deliberately on numerous transactions just because you're willing to pay if you guess the top wrong. And whether it's your own card you are bidding on or someone else's, if the result is the same -- another bidder pays more -- I don't see why that matters either. People who were bidding their own cards up in Mastro also were willing to, and did, pay if they won. But that was deemed irrelevant. Whatever.