MJ's pet wrote: ↑
14 Sep 2021 18:05
Why would a stamp that struggled to find a buyer at £6.5M in 2021 be worth say £13M in 2026?
Maybe today is MJ Pets epiphany day? I'll try to explain ....
N.B. Investment is best measured Cash to Cash, where you have no "value benefit of use" (a.k.a. "Joy of ownership")
The BG stamp, on 8th July 2021 was "worth" £4m (That's the sum Weissman received, nett of all charges).
Marketing costs and profits of Sothebys, (and a bit of VAT) meant that SG paid £6.2M for it.
The same stamp, seven years ago, was worth £3.8M ('ish)
Marketing costs and profits of Sothebys, meant that Weissman paid £5.6M for it.
The underlying stamp value actually crept up "a tiny bit", but the hefty charges from an auction house, totally dwarfed the increase in value occurring due to inflation, so he made A CASH LOSS.
Normally, this stamp only transacts about every 20 years, so auction house fees are just skimming off the increase in value due to inflation.
Here, the sales were too close together, and auction fees have gone up, meaning whilst Sothebys got rich, Weissman paid for their canapés (and plush offices).
What I gather SG is proposing : To sell it again, to punters, for a new set of fees, within a year.....
then to sell it again, within about five years, to add an extra set of commissions payable (to them, naturally).
The underlying stamp will be no rarer, no more desireable, and almost certainly slightly deteriorated further, by then, meaning the underlying asset value will probably still hover "around £4M".
All the reselling premiums are just "sucker scam money, unrelated to increase in underlying value".
And SG want to "double dip".
Is that clear enough?