Ethical Concerns Regarding Heritage?

[Snowman]

Originally Posted by yomass

Yes there are collectors and yes it is a real hobby. There are video game collector shows. Games trade on the internet all the time. The only oddity is the pace of price appreciation, especially for unopened "high grade" graded games. It's a bifurcated market, like comparing people who chase relatively common condition rarities in PSA 9 & 10 to those of us that chase PSA 3 T206s.
Two different mentalities. Two different objectives. But same hobby, generally.


Like anything, if you think the market is contrived or being manipulated, don't participate. Who is to say what the highest graded copy of the seminal NES video game is worth or will be worth in the future? What if five internet billionaires who played and collected the games as a kid decide they want it?
The intrinsic value of all this stuff is zero. Always remember that.

There are some bad facts in the documentary, and obvious conflicts of interest, but what is the difference between promotion and manipulation? It can't just be the magnitude of the price appreciation. How is any of this different than PSA putting a high grade on a trimmed Wagner back in the day?

Exactly.

Promoting a market is not equivalent to manipulation of that market. Neither is investing in a market that you believe is about to explode, even if you own an auction house. Neither is partnering with or investing in a grading company. Nat Turner is doing the exact same thing all out in the open. Buying CU and Goldin and promoting the market, pumping millions of dollars of his own money into collectibles as well. It might rub people the wrong way for the same reasons that someone dislikes sales people or marketing teams, but that doesn't make it criminal or "market manipulation". Perhaps there's a crime hidden somewhere in this web of accusations, but investing in and promoting a market are not crimes, even if you own a company with a vested interest in that market.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by Snowman

Perhaps there's a crime hidden somewhere in this web of accusations, but investing in and promoting a market are not crimes, even if you own a company with a vested interest in that market.

Investing in a market and promoting it are obviously completely legal.

What IS sketchy is publicly proclaiming policies and then not following them. Or lying about ownership of products. Or lying about association with other people. Or lying about the founders of a company. Especially when all of that information has implications toward the actual value of items being sold. If Heritage has - essentially - ownership in a grading company whose products they're selling but doesn't disclose it, that's a material fact being hidden in order to add/create value in the items they're selling. That seems to be, at the very least, highly unethical.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Investing in a market and promoting it are obviously completely legal.

What IS sketchy is publicly proclaiming policies and then not following them. Or lying about ownership of products. Or lying about association with other people. Or lying about the founders of a company. Especially when all of that information has implications toward the actual value of items being sold. If Heritage has - essentially - ownership in a grading company whose products they're selling but doesn't disclose it, that's a material fact being hidden in order to add/create value in the items they're selling. That seems to be, at the very least, highly unethical.

I haven't studied the particulars here and have no opinion, but generally speaking, intentionally making a false material representation, or intentionally failing to disclose material information needed to make a statement not misleading, in order to sell something or induce other action, is textbook fraud.

[perezfan]

Originally Posted by Tabe

Investing in a market and promoting it are obviously completely legal.

What IS sketchy is publicly proclaiming policies and then not following them. Or lying about ownership of products. Or lying about association with other people. Or lying about the founders of a company. Especially when all of that information has implications toward the actual value of items being sold. If Heritage has - essentially - ownership in a grading company whose products they're selling but doesn't disclose it, that's a material fact being hidden in order to add/create value in the items they're selling. That seems to be, at the very least, highly unethical.

Spot on.

You can easily tell which forum members here took the necessary time to watch the video and read the article vs. those who blindly spout self-serving rhetoric.