The Holy Grail of Philatelic Investing

[stam...@aol.com]

The prospects for a system for rating stamps as investments is discussed at: http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html

[Victor Manta]

<stam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:222a99a6-64b8-4342...@googlegroups.com...

> The prospects for a system for rating stamps as investments is discussed
> at:
> http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html

"Finally, there would have to be an application of the stamp market's
version of the Heisenberg Principle - an incorporation of the effect of
investors, speculators, investment tips, and even the rating system itself,
on demand."
http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html

"In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of
mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit on the precision
with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as
position x and momentum p, can be simultaneously known. The more precisely
the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum
can be known, and vice versa."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

There ain't such a thing as "the stamp market's version of the Heisenberg
Principle." As for "the effect of investors, speculators, investment tips,
and even the rating system itself", the experience of the stock market could
be, eventually, more appropriate.

--
Victor Manta
SNA Physicist in Charge

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spanish North Africa: http://www.sna-on.postalstamps.biz/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sir F.A. Rien]

>The prospects for a system for rating stamps as investments is discussed at: http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html

If you get into stamps for 'investment', do read the past history and
see why, except for a very few items, it's a lose-lose proposition!

In particular, look at the debacle of the late 70's into the mid-80's!

[Victor Manta]

"Sir F.A. Rien" <xx...@lvdi.net> wrote in message
news:lt47s7511ismkqmbk...@4ax.com...

>>The prospects for a system for rating stamps as investments is discussed
>>at:
>>http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html
>
> If you get into stamps for 'investment', do read the past history and

> see why, except for a very few items, it's !
>

Can you provide links to pages on past history (that you invoke) and that
show that stamps as investments is "a lose-lose proposition"?

Based on my previous experience, I have my doubts, as well that you will do
it as that it is a lose-lose situation, but anyway TIA.

--
Victor Manta

[Billns]

On 5/28/2012 11:17 AM, Victor Manta wrote:
> "Sir F.A. Rien" <xx...@lvdi.net> wrote in message
> news:lt47s7511ismkqmbk...@4ax.com...
>>> The prospects for a system for rating stamps as investments is
>>> discussed at:
>>> http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html
>>>
>>
>> If you get into stamps for 'investment', do read the past history and
>> see why, except for a very few items, it's !
>>
>
> Can you provide links to pages on past history (that you invoke) and
> that show that stamps as investments is "a lose-lose proposition"?
>
> Based on my previous experience, I have my doubts, as well that you will
> do it as that it is a lose-lose situation, but anyway TIA.
>

I think I have to agree with Rien on this one, at least for United
States stamps.

Linn's Stamp News used to publish a market index every month covering
selected high-value US stamps. The index was set at 100 in 1970 and
increased to 900 by 1981, certainly an indication of investment value.
However that was the peak value of the index. It later declined to about
400 in 1991 and then increased to 760 in 2008. That's a 3.85% annual
gain over 17 years from the low point to the high point. Someone who
started investing in 1971 would have had an annual gain of 5.6% by 2008.
Anyone who invested in 1979 through 1982 would have had a loss.

Bill

[Victor Manta]

"Billns" <bil...@nsverizon.net> wrote in message
news:jq5re7$k8v$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

IMHO, your example doesn't support the assertion of Sir F.A. Rien but the
contrary of it.

You tell us that depending on when one bought some US stamps, it could have
made a profit or a loss. This is undeniable, and it applies in many other
markets too.

But Sir F.A. Rien writes: "If you get into stamps for 'investment', do read
the past history and see why, except for a very few items, it's a lose-lose
proposition!" This means that (excepting for a very few items, not
specified), one would have had a loss (and it will loose also money in the
future) by investing in stamps, and this independently of the buying moment,
and also of the stamp issuing country.

I would be glad to be in possession, for example, of a complete collection
of P.R. China stamps, issued during a certain period, that could be bought
quite cheaply then, and that are now very expensive...

Because you mentioned Linn's Stamp News, may I add that it continues
publishing as well the market index as stamps market tips for worldwide
stamps, thought to be undervalued in Scott. The last example is US 5c
Lincoln, Scott 315, $250 in unused hinged condition.

--
Victor Manta, PWO, AIJP

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philatelic Webmasters Organization: http://pwmo.org/
Art on Stamps: http://artonstamps.org/
Romania by Stamps: http://marci-postale.com/
Communism on Stamps: http://reds-on.postalstamps.biz/

[Billns]

Those rates of return that I mention may look pretty good in comparison
to today's bond interest rates, but they did not come close to keeping
up with inflation over the period from 1971 to 2011.

A few years ago a collector friend showed me some valuable stamps from
his collection. He had to get the stamps out of his safe deposit box at
the bank and of course return them later. That experience led me away
from even thinking about purchasing valuable stamps.

Bill

[Sir F.A. Rien]

>Those rates of return that I mention may look pretty good in comparison
>to today's bond interest rates, but they did not come close to keeping
>up with inflation over the period from 1971 to 2011.

Exactly the point!

Once again Manta chooses a -=FEW=- items to 'prove his general
contention.

In terms of VOLUME of stamps issued, buying for 'investment' is a
lose-lose proposition. Just ask anyone buying US sheets from about
1940 on!

Did Manta BUY his items? NO ... but if he was buying for investment
would he have known that -=SOME=- of the early PRC would go
skyrocketing? How much other 'umpster' material would he have had to
speculate upon?

So very, very easy to see in hind-sight!

Overall, for the past 50 years, other modes of investment have clearly
outperformed stamps as 'investment'.

BTW, today's bond rtes are low, but for those who bought carefully in
the early 2000's, the rate is very very good! But this is akin to
Manta's 'argument' selecting some small examples to prove 'general
statement'.

[Terry Reedy]

On 6/2/2012 1:10 PM, Sir F.A. Rien wrote:

> BTW, today's bond rtes are low, but for those who bought carefully in
> the early 2000's, the rate is very very good! But this is akin to
> Manta's 'argument' selecting some small examples to prove 'general
> statement'.

The world in which all investors get above-average returns is as
mythical as the town in which all kids get above-average grades
(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority )

On the other hand, the irony of index funds is that there would be no
index to track if not for the 'irrational' investors who try to beat the
market.

And the truth is that anyone who wants to buy mint US for the last 6
decades or so benefits from the foolishness of those who bought mint
sheets and socked them away in a closet.

tjr

[Sir F.A. Rien]

>And the truth is that anyone who wants to buy mint US for the last 6
>decades or so benefits from the foolishness of those who bought mint
>sheets and socked them away in a closet.

... and those that did sold them on for 70% or so of FACE! It's why,
with some exceptions [Victor!] 95% of all US MHN is so bloody low
compared to many other countries.

If you go to a show you can but packets of MNH commemoratives for
60-80% of face -=and=- that includes the dealer's effort in packing
the 'stuff'. Many shows have plate blocks at 5x FACE!

WOW, what an -=investment=-!

Anbody want inscription blocks of the UN? <G>

[Victor Manta]

"Sir F.A. Rien" <xx...@lvdi.net> wrote in message

news:4uhks75gha0ccop30...@4ax.com...

>
> Once again Manta chooses a -=FEW=- items to 'prove his general
> contention.
>
> In terms of VOLUME of stamps issued, buying for 'investment' is a
> lose-lose proposition. Just ask anyone buying US sheets from about
> 1940 on!
>

Whoops, Sir F.A. Rien seems to have forgotten in just a few days what is
this thread about (as posted by Alex):

http://stampselector.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-commentary-holy-grail-of.html

Now Sir F.A. Rien suddenly introduces the term "VOLUME" of issued stamps as
a base for his considerations. Actually, it is _largely_ known that those
"investors" who are just buying stamps in quantity from the PO will lose
their money. These persons are simply uninformed ones, and this despite of
the fact that they live in a world where the right information is not
difficult to get.

Focusing on them and on their expected losses means ignoring the subject of
this thread and what Alex writes about it, like: "Over the last 2+ years,
I've published over 400 StampSelector blog articles recommending various
stamps or souvenir sheets as investments." Please note that Alex doesn't
write about "VOLUME"s but concentrates on those "FEW" (I'm not crying here,
but just using Sir's particular notations...) that he sees as a potential
good investments. And so did I in what I posted in this thread, for example
when mentioning some rather few P.R. China stamps that are today (maybe not
tomorrow anymore ...) an example of a good previous investment.

BTW, the deviation from the topic at hand by introducing a separate argument
(in our case "VOLUME") which the speaker believes will be easier to speak to
is a logical fallacy currently named red herring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies