Group purchases in REA, Mastro

[Archive]

Posted By: MikePugeda

As the 2 big auctions are upon us, threads have been started discussing group purchases for certain lots. For example, one thread was started about purchasing the PC796 (Sepia postcard) lot. My question is, how are these group purchases structured? Are certain cards weighted so that, for my example,the person that wants the Wagner postcard pays a certain percentage, while others pay a lesser percent? Or does each person state the max they are willing to pay for the card they desire? If that is the case, how do they decide how much each is going to pay if the lot sells for less than the accumulative max limits set by each member of the purchasing group?

Just always been curious.

Thanks,

Mike

[Archive]

Posted By: Mark T

I have worked with Brian McQueen on a few and he is an expert in this. I am sure there are others but he is the only person i have teamed up with.

[Archive]

Posted By: robert a

Everyone in the group should agree on the percentages for each card and pick the cards they would like.

The unfortunate part is that one guy ends up doing most of the legwork...ie putting together the percentages, calculating, bidding, paying, receiving the lot, packaging, shipping. etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

The guy doing all the legwork should also be the first guy with dibs on any of the cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

The way the groups work is someone takes the lead and assigns percentage values on each card depending on the player and condition. He might, for example, assign 18% of the lot value for Wagner, 3% for each common in VG, 2% for each common in Good, etc. Then other members of the group will review those breakdowns and fine tune them a little. Once everyone is in agreement, they each pick out the cards they want. If two or more people want the same card, that have to be flexible and work that out themselves.

If the group wins the lot for say $10,000, then using the numbers above the guy who picked Wagner kicks in $1800, the commons sell for $200-300 a piece, and it progresses that way, with everybody of course including some extra postage. There will be a designated bidder who will pay for the lot and have to send each parcel to its respective group member.

These groups help keep the price of the lot down, which of course touches the question of whether it can be considered collusion. Most collectors feel these groups are okay, but there is some gray area.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"These groups help keep the price of the lot down, which of course touches the question of whether it can be considered collusion. Most collectors feel these groups are okay, but there is some gray area."

It could certainly be argued that these groups actually drive the lot price up; usually, such groups are formed when people either cannot afford the whole lot or don't want to sell off the cards they don't want. By forming the group, you including another bidder who wouldn't otherwise be in play.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

Matt- You are absolutely right. I have spearheaded 3 winning "group" lots of caramel cards and one losing effort and I can tell you that with the exception of one lot, all included bidders who would not have chased the lot themselves, they only wanted a card or two or three. The auction houses benefited as did the consignor. Now on one lot we won, one of the bidders was planning on going after the whole lot regardless so we included him and everyone was happy from our end. Hypothetically the lot might have gone for more if the rest of us were bidding against him, but generally the "group" efforts (or Net54 cabalists as we call each other) were able to secure cards we wouldn't have otherwise been able to get and the consignor and auction house benefited from our efforts, I believe.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

There are always those groups of 1 that we all know and love....I have yet to team up with a group of 1 though....
LL

ps...what Barry said is the way it's done usually....I teamed up years ago with 4 others on a group of D304's and got my Weber backed Collins for $160.....

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

I think in general these groups are fine, since some advanced collectors may only need a couple of cards, and others on a budget may only be able to afford a couple. So if it's done in good faith I am okay with it. However, I have spoken to people who have consigned some of these groups and often they are not happy with the results. Likewise, I have seen groups come on the board after an auction closes and congratulate each other on the great deal they got. I'm not sure I would put that in print.

I for one suggest to my consignors that I sell their cards one at a time (the exception might be to leave a complete set intact). It's a selling point that most of them appreciate.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Well Barry just said what I was about to, I can't understand why most of these sets and near sets are even auctioned off as such. A t206 set..you might get a bit of a premium on (maybe). If someone is auctioning off a set of D359's or the likes..I can't see any reason in the world to keep a group like that together. I really can't see a reason to even put them all in one auction individually, but thats another story.

As far as being on topic, I was in on a group of e98's last year and thought it was pretty fun and certainly Brian worked his tail off throughout the thing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

"I have spoken to people who have consigned some of these groups and often they are not happy with the results. Likewise, I have seen groups come on the board after an auction closes and congratulate each other on the great deal they got. I'm not sure I would put that in print."

Barry - I think it's true that individual cards would bring in more then if sold as part of a disparate group lot or partial set, but I don't think the reason has anything to do with the possibility that people teamed up on those lots. When you sell an individual card, then anyone who wants that card for any purpose (set building, player collection, type card, etc.) will be willing to pay prime value. When you sell a disparate group or a partial set, the only person willing to pay prime value for that is someone who wants every single card in that lot; a MUCH smaller bidder pool. Most people want just a few cards and will sell off the rest, which means they are less likely to pay top dollar for the cards they have to sell off.
I would argue further that by creating a "coalition" (word used as not to confuse the word group) you actually bring in another serious bidder to that lot since the coalition is "someone" who is interested in every card in the lot. That would only serve to bring the hammer price up.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob

Could you imagine if Mastro put every card in their current auction into a separate lot? It'd take us a month just to scroll the 80,000+ (no, i didn't count, i just know its alot) lots!

Rob

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt- I agree that it is possible for a group to actually create more interest in a big lot if they go in together. But you still need an agressive underbidder, who may not exist if he just happened to join that group.

Rob- Mastro and REA of course can not do all those cards individually. But sometimes a consignor sends them a large group of cards, only to find they have been grouped together without his approval. Then a dealer buys the lot, sells them one at a time on ebay, and makes a nice profit. Now of course it's done all the time, but I think some consignors would have preferred their cards were sold individually but did not communicate that to the auction house.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Here's a relevant question in game theory:

Hypothetically, before an auction someone comes to you and says, "a few of my buddies are interested in lot 123. Individually we all agree that we'd never go higher then $4,000. As a group, however, since we'd each get the cards we want, we're willing to go up to $6,000."

Would you prefer they bid separately or as a group?

(I don't think there is a correct answer to the question; it's just food for thought)

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

As evidence of my point, I would profer a recent large lot of caramel cards which sold in a major auction and which had no "groups" bidding on it. The winning bidder got a steal and ended up making money by breaking it up and selling the cards individually. Had there been a "group" bidding against the winning bidder, the auction house and consignor would have greatly benefited.

[Archive]

Posted By: shane leonard

These are some good points that Matt and Barry brought up. I think by forming a group like this actually helps the consignor and the auction house. The larger the group, the more cash is available to bid on that item. Which in turn pushes up the price of poker. The only way it is a bad thing like Barry said is when you know all the interested parties and you form a group with those people.

Shane

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt- I would prefer the group bid to $6000, but again, they may not have to without an aggressive underbidder.

What if a group decides to go to 20K on a lot, far more than any individual would be willing to pay, but in the end they get the lot for 14K, due partly to the fact that all the major players joined the group? I think it can go both ways.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Agreed. The question is how likely is the case where "all the major players joined the group?"

I don't think it's likely that would happen unless the item is incredible obscure. Otherwise there are just too many people out there that would either be interested in some of the cards or even if not incredibly interested, see it going for well under market, and would bid it just to flip.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

As Matt pointed out the pool of bidders is generally large enough to cover any poor results, but it can occasionally happen.

[Archive]

Posted By: Phil B

I could be wrong here- and maybe the good lawyers want to weigh in- but I think any discussion of bidding tactics between people who would otherwise be individual bidders would be considered under the law to be "conspiring to fix the bidding" in an auction. I think back several years to a group of bidders in New York real estate foreclosure auctions who were agreeing not to bid against each other in favor of "taking turns" being the successful bidder. To my recollection this practice was found to be illegal.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Phil - the example you cited does sound like collusion - the main difference being that the agreement was that one person remove his money from the bidding altogether. In the arrangements discussed above, no one is agreeing to duck out - in fact as we showed, it's just the opposite - more people are putting their money in.

[Archive]

Posted By: SC

As with any form of collusion (price fixing, bid fixing, etc.) - rarely is it clear cut. If I'm at an auction, especially a live one, I might employ tactics to get what I want. I can't tell the guy next to me "I won't bid on this one if you don't bid on the next", but I might decide not to bid on the first item, figuring he'll buy it and then there will be one less bidder for subsequent lots.

If it's someone I know at the auction bidding, I might decline to bid out of courtesy - it can be rude (and costly) to run up someone you know, who may think you're doing it out of spite. Equally, I'd expect the same. It's a fine line, and probably not illegal (at least could not be found guilty in a court of law) if there is no quid pro quo conversation. No different than seeing a buddy with a high bid on ebay (pre-user ID changes) and deciding not to bid out of courtesy, and hoping the same is returned).

One of the most obvious cases of collusion in this industry I've ever witnessed firsthand was when I was running vintage email auctions about 10 years ago. A group of collectors, many who bid in my auctions, decided to compile a list of their bidder numbers and distribute it amongst themselves, so they could avoid bidding each other up (I listed the high bidder number next to the current high bid in the listings.) I found this out when a friend of mine who was in the group forwarded the list to me.

The real kicker was when one of the collectors emailed me, asking if I could change the group's various bidder numbers into a single sequence that would be more identifiable to them at a glance. I've never seen such boldness before or since!

[Archive]

Posted By: timzcardz

I read here a lot, but seldom have anything to contribute because although I do find the vintage cards interesting I don’t collect them . . . yet, but here I can offer something that hasn’t been brought up.

Bidders grouping together in pursuit of auction lot together is not price fixing, bid fixing, collusion, or conspiring.

What is it? It is actually a joint venture, not unlike many joint ventures that are formed by bidders pursuing large public works projects.

In large public transportation projects, construction bidders will often join together in the pursuit of a single contract for various reasons, some of which are similar to bidders on a card lot.

- Cash Flow.
- Interest in part of the work/cards.
- Inability to undertake the magnitude of financial commitment on their own.

Division of work and percentage of contract is established prior to bidding, much the way the division of cards and percentage of bid is established when pursuing a lot of cards.

All perfectly legal reasons and practices, and the government agencies right up to the federal level recognize this.

This is far different though from groups agreeing up front to not bid on various items, such as A will pursue lot 1 without bidding competition from B and C, and B will pursue lot 2 without competition from A and C, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Zinn

Everyone who opines that group bidding benefits the consignor and the auction house is correct and here's why:

If someone is willing to join a group it means that it is unlikely that that person would be willing or able to bid on the lot by himself or herself. Therefore the group becomes another bidder that the consignor and auction house would not have had but for the group.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I agree that in a nationwide auction like Mastro or REA the group bidding will benefit the auction house and consignor - you will always have dealers who will not join in a group situation because they want the entire lot so they can split it and make money or there is a guy who wants to put a set together fast and doesn't want to share with others...you will always have that situation in a Mastro/REA type auction. In a local auction group bidding is collusion and hurts the consignor and auction company. I must admit that a lot of collusion goes on at the local level - most of it is unspoken. Everyone knows I collect baseball memorabilia and will stay away from it to some degree - I extend the courtesy on items I know other people collect. When you go to 50 auctions a year you get to know the other bidders quite well - some of them become friends and you know what they collect. The auction companies know it goes on, but what are they going to do? We're some of their best customers. Plus I know it goes both ways - I know who the "Rabbits" are....

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

I think the groups will have as much competition on lots as anyone else. I think there is a legal definition of what is permitted and not permitted but as Soloman said, it's a very slippery slope. regards

[Archive]

Posted By: Alan

I would imagine that if a lot went for $100,000 the auction house wouldn't care if it was one guy bidding (a loner) by himself or multiple guys working with one bidder (each putting in to total $100,000). Maybe I'm wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

There have been opinions on both sides and I'm not sure group bidding is always good for the consignor.

When I used to join the groups I did so because I didn't feel as a dealer I could outbid a bunch of collectors and still have enough room to make some money. So by joining, I figured walking away with a few cards would be better than ending up with nothing. So my intention was to benefit financially by partnering up instead of competing against collectors.

Ultimately, I decided not to join any more groups because as an auctioneer I put myself on the other side and realized one of the purposes was to keep the price down. Of course, whether or not it ends up that way depends on the underbidders. Usually there are enough to keep the lot honest, but sometimes there aren't. There is no clear answer as to what is correct and ethical.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

As long as everyone going in to the group would not have competitively bid on the lot otherwise I can't see any moral or ethical argument against it - would you agree?

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob

When you have a number of fellow collectors going in together and having one of their number doing the actual bidding for all of them, with a pre-conceived agreement as to how high to bid and which cards (should they win) each gets, I think the auction house and consignor win. Case in point is a lot in the Mastro auction which I feel sure none of the "group" would bid on individually, yet banding together they make a strong bidding interest. The group may not win but with a strong bidding interest, the ultimate winning bid would likely be higher than if just individuals would be bidding.
This is not collusion or price-fixing and I don't think the slope is slippery at all.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

I have never joined a bidding group, but if I did it would be because I needed only one or two cards in a lot and knew I couldn't bid on the whole lot otherwise because of the price. I think more often than not a group will help the consignor.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

I join a group when I know I cannot financially handle the entire lot or I don't need or want a majority of the items.

If I think I can handle the entire lot; can personally use most of the lot; and have a chance to win it I will not join a group.

I presume that most people who join a group think the same way and therefore the mere existence of a group benefits the consignor and auction house.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

As I see it:

Legal - A group of individuals band together to bid seriously on a lot. None of the members on their own could afford the lot. This scenario would be a win/win/win for all involved. The auction house and consigner would get serious bidding they otherwise would not get had the group not formed; and the members of the group would have a chance to share in a lot they otherwise would not be able to afford.

Illegal - A group of individuals, any one of which has the means and willingness to on his/her own bid seriously on a lot. Here, while the individual group members could benefit because they would avoid going head-to-head with their competition, the auction house and consigner would lose because formation of the group would lessen the competitive bidding for the lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Matt- I would have bid against the group, but the fact that some of the people were my friends and that I would have had to pay too much to outbid a group of collectors compelled me to join in. So by joining I took myself out of the competition. That couldn't be good for the consignor. That's the main reason why I stopped joining. I wouldn't want that to happen in my own auction, and it is one of the main reasons nearly every one of my lots is offered as individual cards.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

And I want to add that Corey understands exactly how I feel. It's a matter of intent. In many cases collectors only need, or only can afford, a couple of cards. That's fine.

But I have also heard the groups I was in pat themselves on the back about what a great deal they got as a result of banding together. That is the slippery slope I was not comfortable with.

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

The words moral and ethical have been tossed around here, and that's fine when you're speaking in a hypothetical sense. But consider this:

On the day that REA posted its auction I identified a card I really want that's part of a 10-card lot. If I win the lot, I will sell the other nine. I can afford the lot but would prefer to buy just the one card. A Net 54 post was made about this very lot and forming a group, and I expressed an interest in joining the group. Unfortunately, the card I want was spoken for. That's totally OK, no problem. Now I'll simply go back to Plan A, buying the entire lot and selling the cards I do not want.

Now, who, if anyone, was unethical? The folks forming the group? They had no idea of my intentions. Me? For wanting to save by money by joining a group I had no part of forming? The bottom line is if I had joined the group, the seller of this lot would have lost out on at least one bidder who would otherwise have bid very aggressively on the lot.

So even though in this case I don't think anyone could be accused of being unethical, the seller would have possibly lost out.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Barry - then I think we are in agreement - your earlier comments made it seem like you felt "teaming up" in all cases is ethically questionable. Your latest comments seem to be in line with what we are suggesting that if the intent was never to tackle the lot by oneself, then "teaming up" is fine.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

"Illegal - A group of individuals, any one of which has the means and willingness to on his/her own bid seriously on a lot. Here, while the individual group members could benefit because they would avoid going head-to-head with their competition, the auction house and consigner would lose because formation of the group would lessen the competitive bidding for the lot."


I completely disagree with this statement Corey - the only difference, in your opinion, between legal and illegal activity appears to be whether any one bidder in a group had the financial means to afford the lot as a whole? Sorry, but illegal activity is not determined by one's financial situation. A group comprised of individuals who could all afford the entire lot is no more illegal than one formed by a group of individuals without a member who could afford the entire lot. I will, however, agree that if the entire group could afford the lot individually AND would otherwise bid aggressively on the entire lot in the absence of the group, then there is likely to be a negative effect on the price realized. However, the fact that something might realize a lower price does not make the bidding activity illegal.

edited to spell Corey's name correctly

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Barry,

You state above: "I put myself on the other side and realized one of the purposes [of group bidding] was to keep the price down. Of course, whether or not it ends up that way depends on the underbidders. Usually there are enough to keep the lot honest, but sometimes there aren't. There is no clear answer as to what is correct and ethical."


I disagree with a couple of your comments - first, the purpose is not necessarily to keep the price down - its to pick up cards that you otherwise likely would not be able to pick up due to the manner in which the lot was formed/listed by the auction company. Second, everyone wants to pick lots up as cheaply as possible - even, Im willing to bet, you bidding as an individual - and will employ tactics that they believe will lower the final hammer price (snipe services on ebay, timing of bids, etc.). Third, there is simply no empirical evidence that groups result in lower prices. So what if you have been part of groups that congratulated themselves on the great price that they received - what actual evidence is there that the group was responsible for the low price? Had none of the group members bid at all, the lot could have gone even lower. Moreover, Ive heard plenty of individuals comment on the great prices that they won items for as well. Means nothing. Finally, even assuming that the primary objective of a group were to get the lowest price possible, how is that unethical? Isnt everyone's primary objective to win a lot for the lowest price possible?

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

This thread has discussed crossing two different lines - legal and ethical. I'm very interested to know, from a legal standpoint, what scenarios would be considered illegal collusion with regards to forming a group to bid on an auction lot.

Josh - or anyone else with that expertise?

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

Every time I've joined a group it has been because I really did not want to get stuck with the cards in the lot and the group as a whole has bid more than the individual members would have bid because each of us could put more in the pot knowing that we weren't going to get stuck with all the cards. I know that I would have either bid very low or not at all on the lot had there not been a group.

As long as auctioneers insist on lots of disparate items it makes sense for these groups to form. There are lots in the current auctions where I want literally 5%-10% of the cards. I am not going to bid anywhere near retail on those lots without partners.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Matt,

Though not exactly answering your question, I will say this:

The legality of groups is not debatable.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

So are you saying they are legal or illegal?

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Josh- you make valid points and I again think it is a matter of intent. There may not be empirical evidence to prove a group may keep the price of a lot down, and I agree it may in fact have no effect. However, let's say a group of caramel cards sells for 10K and everyone feels that is a fair price. But what if you knew that one of the members of the group would have gladly topped it and gone to 11K, but since he joined the group never had to execute the next bid. It would be an imperceptible difference if you were just checking the prices realized after the auction.

I do agree that most groups form simply because each member only needs a few cards. And that is the right reason to do it. And with regard to using snipe services to get the best possible price, there is no ethical issue at all. That is merely a resource available to all bidders equally.

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve Murray

Several here are concerned that groups may have a negative effect on consignors and/or auctioneers.

I'm sorry but that is the venue they have chosen to sell their product. If they were so concerned that group bidding may result in lower prices they should just open an ebay store and list the items for what they want.

This is America boys and girls. Free enterprise. Stop whinning.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Steve- one thing you are missing is some consigners may not be fully aware how their consignments will be grouped. I have heard stories of collectors being very disappointed when they discover that half their collection has become a single lot. Of course, that is the consignor's fault for not communicating his wishes, but my point is not every group lot is by mutual agreement.

[Archive]

Posted By: Matt

Steve - let's not go too far - there are laws against collusion; they may not apply here, but simply because a seller choses an open format to sell something doesn't give potential bidders carte blanche to act in any way they want just because we're in a free market society.

to wit: I believe (again, any legal experts should feel free to correct me) that if two potential bidders on a lot, who were both going to try and win it, compare notes beforehand, and decide that the one who was going to bid less drops out of the bidding altogether so as not to bid up the other party that is indeed illegal collusion.

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Barry, I know of one local collector who consigned his entire collection of vintage Husker football memorabilia to Mastro and they lotted up all of the programs into one lot...he was mad and tried to get them to withdraw the lot and they wouldn't. There were some very high dollar programs that should have been sold separately. I'm not sure that the guy should have consigned to Mastro anyway - he would have made a killing having a local auction. I doubt more than 50 people in the entire state of Nebraska have ever even heard of Mastro auctions.

[Archive]

Posted By: CoreyRS.hanus

I don't think anything I said is in disagreement with what you said.

I said illegal activity would be a group formed of "individuals, any one of which has the means and willingness to on his/her own bid seriously on a lot."

You said (I believe) illegal activity would be if "the entire group could afford the lot individually AND would otherwise bid aggressively on the entire lot in the absence of the group..."

It looks to me we're saying the same thing. I specifically said that financial means alone is not enough; the individual also must have the desire to bid on the lot and would in fact do so if he/she doesn't join a group.

Suppose, say, Bill Gates decides he is interested in only 1 or 2 cards in a 50-card lot, and he has no interest whatsoever in going to the trouble to sell the other 48 or 49 should he win the lot. Under that scenario, I would see nothing wrong with him joining a group to bid on the lot.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Leon - Legal.