Death of Lego Investing? Rerelease of Taj Mahal

[LucyCol]

Thumbs up to Lego  I hope they continue this practice, when I think of all the sets I missed during my 'dark ages' which are now only available from scalpers at greatly inflated prices my heart sinks, the prospect of being able to (potentially) buy some of these at a future at a reasonable price can't be bad.

And if anyone from Lego should be reading this 10181 Eiffel Tower would be good 

[r5-j2]

22 hours ago, antp said:

That harms only those that want to make a profit.

For true AFOLs it is a good thing :p

As those that buy and store just for reselling later tend to raise prices, at the expense of AFOLs

Totally agree, those who do this and try to charge several times the original price aren`t real fans , just plain greed driven pond scum who`s actions go a long way to boosting the sales of knock off versions

Nice one Lego!!

[Sven F]

I don't care about misb sets or investing, but Taj Mahal is made of all pieces which are currently produced anyway. It was a minimal logistical investment.  The same can't be said about older modular buildings which are not only packed with out of production pieces, but also obsolete elements.

[Artanis I]

I don't think I have anything to add to this, I agree with most of what's been said and am glad that TLG is willing to rerelease sought after sets, especially ones that are scalped through the roof or heavily bootlegged. They really should be doing it actually. Instead of complaining about copyright infringements, cater to your customers so they have no reason to buy bootlegged old sets?

[Doom2099]

Thanks to everyone for their thoughts on this. I just really wish Lego would give us an indication of where they're going with this.

Lego fans now have no idea what could be next, if anything. Before, we got the Metroliner (Trains), Black Seas Barracuda (Pirates), Main Street (Town), Eagle Crest Fortress (Castle), even Model Team and the USS Constitution, so there was representation across all Lego lines except space sadly. Sets were on average around 10 years old.

Taj Mahal is following the same ~10 year pattern. But what's next? Will fans get a say? Is this a one off, and they'll judge things based on sales, and then do more, like the Eiffel Tower? Do themes like City and Castle have a chance of getting rereleases?

I wish Lego would let fans vote on which sets or themes get reissued. Or set goals online with preorders. Takara does this for Transformers, where they say if we get 2000 preorders we'll rerelease Grand Maximus. But Transformers now has decades of rereleases under their belt under various lines and labels. Transformers fans are used to it, and guessing what's coming back next is normal.

Lego buyers, and sellers, and investors right now are all stuck. Lego could provide a whole lot more information, but we may have to wait to see what their second rerelease is.

If anyone knows, is Lego releasing a town, castle, space set etc next year in the classic style? Could they be rereleases instead?

[NathanR]

4 hours ago, Doom2099 said:

Lego fans now have no idea what could be next, if anything. Before, we got the Metroliner (Trains), Black Seas Barracuda (Pirates), Main Street (Town), Eagle Crest Fortress (Castle), even Model Team and the USS Constitution, so there was representation across all Lego lines except space sadly. Sets were on average around 10 years old.

Actually there have been even more re-releases. 7142 X-Wing (2002) was a re-release of 7140 X-Wing (1999), I'm pretty sure there was another X-wing that got re-released with a few extra figures to spice it up (6212 and 9493? I could be wrong on this one).

Also, more recently, there was the Winter Village toy shop 10199 from 2009 that got re-released in 2015 as 10249 with a few minor differences.  That one really split the fans, some moaning about the waste of a production slot for something new, some complaining about how it destroyed the value of the original, some just glad for a chance to buy the set having missed out on it first time.

Lego have been re-releasing sets for years, and I really hope they continue. There are several sets I never managed to get as a child, and I'd welcome a new opportunity to buy them.  I think the shock at the moment is simply due to the surprise nature of the Taj Mahal announcement - this really came out of the blue, whereas the new Millennium Falcon (which isn't strictly a rerelease) wasn't just rumoured, but long expected.

4 hours ago, Doom2099 said:

Lego buyers, and sellers, and investors right now are all stuck. Lego could provide a whole lot more information, but we may have to wait to see what their second rerelease is.

No, I don't think so.  Sellers who bought Lego sets as an investment took a risk on the value going up over time, but there is always the chance the value will fall and they may lose money on it. I can sympathise with sellers who have lost money on their sealed original Taj Mahal models, but personally I just can't understand how anyone could resist ripping open a box of bricks and building the model within. Buyers who want to get a particular vintage set might be hesitant for a time, but Lego only re-release one set every couple of years (I don't count the Death Star re-release in my analysis, because that was an update to bring the minifigures to today's standards and retire some outdated parts).  If there's a vintage set you really want to own, just buy it.  Lego might rerelease it tomorrow at a much lower price, but they might never rerelease it and you could end up waiting forever on the hope.  

4 hours ago, Doom2099 said:

If anyone knows, is Lego releasing a town, castle, space set etc next year in the classic style? Could they be rereleases instead?

There are many rumours flying round at the moment, everything from modular building to the UCS Super Star Destroyer.  Lego is doing a "classic" range next year to celebrate their 50th anniversary, but the "classic" name is shared with the basic brick boxes so it could be anything.  

[Doom2099]

54 minutes ago, NathanR said:

Lego have been re-releasing sets for years, and I really hope they continue.

Thanks for the response, especially for the reminder about the X-Wing and news about the Classic range for next year.

I just have to disagree with one point, and that is I don't think you can say Lego has been re-releasing sets for years. That's why this is so shocking. They did for a very short period of time, in 2002 and 2003 with the Legends line and X-Wing. I forgot Century Skyway, and maybe people can find a few more, but there are only around a dozen examples. But after 2003, with the exception of the Winter Village Toy Shops, Lego hasn't be rereleasing sets. Even with the Toy Shops, they added in almost 100 pieces and a minifigure, and if I recall correctly it was controversial within Lego as well, as it was sell this "upgrade" again, or skip the Winter Village release for the year.

I'll bet most investors who only starting hoarding new large sets after watching GG and CC go up in price may not even be aware that at least Lego tried, and then gave up on rereleases at the beginning of the century. They were safe in hoarding anything from 2004 on, since Lego didn't resell sets.

Part of why I'm so excited about this, is now buyers can constantly guess (for better or worse) as to what's next! Could we get a Medieval Market Village again? Monster Fighters Haunted House? Lego took a swipe at Investors/Scalpers with this one, but how will the continue? They could just look up the sets that have the highest markup over the last decade and sell them all again. They could decimate investors. And buyers could fix all of our regrets from the last decade.

Or will they go focused like Legends? Spread it around a little in each theme? Resell the first large Friends set and some Town/Space/Castle representatives? Or is this just Lego going after their two largest and arguably most famous recent sets, with a timely and expected UCS Millenium Falcon, and the shocking Taj Mahal, to send a message to anyone buying or selling a set for $1000+?

[MAB]

On 31/10/2017 at 3:20 AM, Stash2Sixx said:

When I worked in the stores, Taj Mahal was the most frequently asked for set that had been retired.

1

Did you ever ask why they wanted it? It used to be (i) valuable and (ii) the biggest lego set. Now it is neither, so I wonder what the demand will be.

 

On 30/10/2017 at 5:17 PM, koalayummies said:

You still seem sympathetic towards the scalpers.

 

If anything, this will just increase scalping (that is, turning a fast profit) on lego sets. If the long term secondary market is lost due to the possibility of remakes, resellers will invest in other areas. One way is scalping - so buying up popular sets in October / November, making sure they are out of stock in December and turning a profit on them from parents that want current but OOS sets for Christmas presents.

 

On 30/10/2017 at 5:17 PM, koalayummies said:

Someone was saving up for those sets while they were still available, someone that couldn't afford them all at once like the scalpers can. Then Lego announces the retirement of that set that, that unlucky Lego builder never saved up enough to get it while all the scalpers at the very moment of 'retiring soon' announcement bought up as many as they could, swallowing, consuming and hoarding them all in hopes of turning a profit off of someone else who just wanted to build. Disgusting. I hope they re-release everything and bring the secondary slimy scalper market down on all of their heads. 

 

If that person didn't buy during the years the set was out, then chances are they still wouldn't have bought them when the set was no longer being produced and "retiring soon". If resellers hadn't bought them, then other builders would have bought them, especially if they went to clearance. Those sets would have been opened and removed from the market. The buyer who was saving up would then never get the opportunity to buy the set if LEGO don't sell it any more or the secondary market doesn't exist. The secondary market actually helps the late buyer get hold of the set (at a premium) rather than it going to someone else who would use it.

The alternative is that LEGO doesn't retire sets for much longer and so keeps a stock of maybe 7000 sets in inventory at once (10 years worth of different sets at 700 sets per year) - highly unlikely.

[kibosh]

7 hours ago, Doom2099 said:

Lego buyers, and sellers, and investors right now are all stuck. Lego could provide a whole lot more information, but we may have to wait to see what their second rerelease is.

TLG does not care, not even a little bit, about resellers and investors.  Nor should they.  Their business is to sell toys to kids.  Plain and simple.  They do not exist to supplement people's income.  They do not exist to create investment opportunities.  They make little plastic bricks that can be put together in an infinite amount of ways.

For the record, I don't care about those people either.  If they lose money speculating and and missed out on their opportunity to scalp sets, too bad.  I hope their losses are great enough that they move on to other things.

[MAB]

On 31/10/2017 at 7:54 AM, ElectroDiva said:

Now don't get me wrong- I think a healthy resale market is a very useful thing for AFOLs and I personally don't mind paying reasonable mark ups for sets I missed out on but when you are talking many multiples of the original sale price, it's just pure greed

1

If you had a set that cost you $300 and someone was willing to pay $2000 for it, would you sell it to them (or anyone else) for let's say $450? That would be a 50% markup and not too greedy.

I've sold things for 4-5x RRP before. I wasn't intending to. I bought them on clearance not sure whether I would use the parts for MOCs or sell them on, and I stored them for a few years before deciding to sell them (during which time they were selling for maybe 1.5-2x RRP). When I got round to selling them, the price was 4x RRP. I then have the choice - sell them for the market rate, what buyers are willing to pay, or sell them at 1.5 or 2x RRP, well under market rate.  What would most people do here? Is it greedy to sell at market rate? I could, of course, sell them to someone for 1.5-2x the RRP, but they would probably just sell them on at more than double what they paid to someone willing to pay market value.

3 minutes ago, kibosh said:

TLG does not care, not even a little bit, about resellers and investors.  Nor should they.  Their business is to sell toys to kids.  Plain and simple.  They do not exist to supplement people's income.  They do not exist to create investment opportunities.  They make little plastic bricks that can be put together in an infinite amount of ways.

For the record, I don't care about those people either.  If they lose money speculating and and missed out on their opportunity to scalp sets, too bad.  I hope their losses are great enough that they move on to other things.

Whereas I think that LEGO should care about all their customers. Whatever they do with the sets.

And as before, this won't stop scalping, it will stop long term investing. It will enhance the amount of scalping, that is the quick flipping of in demand current sets, if long term reselling is no longer an option.

 

[AFOLguy1970]

With the release and re release of a lot of large sets this year, I wonder how the Lego Stores are going to manage the variety of inventory.  Let's face it, there is only so much shelf space available.  The Dallas North Park store is not that big.  It could literally take you a few seconds to go from the entrance to the Pick a Brick Wall at the back, provided no one is blocking you from walking a straight line.  The whole Star Wars section for example cannot possibly accommodate every current model that Lego currently has for sale on the website, and this is in the absence of the huge MF set that everyone is after.  Re releases have to compete for that precious shelf space that is already filled to the max.  In order for them to maintain a variety of inventory, it is going to require a limited quantity of all sets, especially the really big ones.  This could lead to disappointment during the upcoming run up to Christmas when everyone floods the store and the online site.  It is not going to look good when all of the highly desired stuff is out of stock this side of New Year's because they can only make and stock so many of each set.  Announcing yet another big one is going to require factory time and materials at the expense of something else.  

What MAB describes above only exacerbates the situation when scalpers try to corner the market by emptying the shelves of some of these sets.  Honestly, I am beginning to think that Lego is all over the place with production and sets, which will lead to some upcoming shortages very soon.  My suggestion to those who are looking to purchase Lego as gifts is:  do it now.  

[ElectroDiva]

45 minutes ago, MAB said:

If you had a set that cost you $300 and someone was willing to pay $2000 for it, would you sell it to them (or anyone else) for let's say $450? That would be a 50% markup and not too greedy.

I've sold things for 4-5x RRP before. I wasn't intending to. I bought them on clearance not sure whether I would use the parts for MOCs or sell them on, and I stored them for a few years before deciding to sell them (during which time they were selling for maybe 1.5-2x RRP). When I got round to selling them, the price was 4x RRP. I then have the choice - sell them for the market rate, what buyers are willing to pay, or sell them at 1.5 or 2x RRP, well under market rate.  What would most people do here? Is it greedy to sell at market rate? I could, of course, sell them to someone for 1.5-2x the RRP, but they would probably just sell them on at more than double what they paid to someone willing to pay market value.

 

You make a reasonable case and to be honest I don't have a huge problem with your type of investing - i.e. picking up surplus inventory that no one else seems to want at the time (hence on clearance). Any returns you make from that - fair play to you - although you should accept that anyone on the buying side of a 4-5 x RRP equation is going to feel a bit salty regardless of the "market value" at the time.

 

I also don't particularly have an issue with small time investors who buy a couple of copies of a big set - one to build and one to sell at some point in the future to help fund the hobby.

 

What I do have an issue with is people who buy up huge stocks of popular/d2c/low volume sets (usually right at the beginning of their on sale period or a double/triple points events), hoarding them for *mad gainz* and denying genuine fans the opportunity to buy them for extended periods of time. People like that are never popular in any field of collecting (even though they would argue they are providing a "service")

[Doom2099]

I don't think this has anything to do with quick flippers, or scalpers as some people call them. Lego can work on that by just having more sets made before release date, limiting sales to a certain number per customer, and being ready to reprint in short order based on clicks and orders on shop.lego.

I really see this as a clear effort to shut down investors. Anyone who is keeping one large set to sell in a few years to pay for their first once the price gets to 2x.  Even more so the people buy 5 at the end of a life cycle. And definitely it will eliminate resellers who see something hit 2x a year after retirement, and stock up anticipating 5x the return or more in the future. Those days are gone with one simple Taj Mahal, which marks a huge sea change on Lego's end after ~15 years.

Anyone sitting on a closet or shelf of any large sets should now be very afraid. Imperial Flagship averages $700 new and $500 used on Bricklink now.  But it's in the perfect Black Seas Barracuda mold. Almost a decade on, everyone wants one. Now, why buy online when Lego is likely to pick out their best sets from the last ten or fifteen years and sell them again. No licenses to worry about especially.

What a great time to be a buyer!!

[koalayummies]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

If that person didn't buy during the years the set was out, then chances are they still wouldn't have bought them when the set was no longer being produced and "retiring soon". If resellers hadn't bought them, then other builders would have bought them, especially if they went to clearance. Those sets would have been opened and removed from the market. The buyer who was saving up would then never get the opportunity to buy the set if LEGO don't sell it any more or the secondary market doesn't exist. The secondary market actually helps the late buyer get hold of the set (at a premium) rather than it going to someone else who would use it.

The alternative is that LEGO doesn't retire sets for much longer and so keeps a stock of maybe 7000 sets in inventory at once (10 years worth of different sets at 700 sets per year) - highly unlikely.

The situation being responded to was based on the reading of numerous Eurobricks members personal accounts who were disappointed they missed out on many sets in scenarios almost identical to the one described and then would have purchased it on the secondary market but won't because they're being sold for outrageous (not premium) prices due to the scalpers. 

Another alternative is being discussed here and is in the thread title. 

3 hours ago, MAB said:

If you had a set that cost you $300 and someone was willing to pay $2000 for it, would you sell it to them (or anyone else) for let's say $450? That would be a 50% markup and not too greedy.

I've sold things for 4-5x RRP before. I wasn't intending to. I bought them on clearance not sure whether I would use the parts for MOCs or sell them on, and I stored them for a few years before deciding to sell them (during which time they were selling for maybe 1.5-2x RRP). When I got round to selling them, the price was 4x RRP. I then have the choice - sell them for the market rate, what buyers are willing to pay, or sell them at 1.5 or 2x RRP, well under market rate.  What would most people do here? Is it greedy to sell at market rate? I could, of course, sell them to someone for 1.5-2x the RRP, but they would probably just sell them on at more than double what they paid to someone willing to pay market value.

 

And that explains your stance. You know you could have quoted and responded to just about anyone else here but I guess my example must have hit some conscience. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by koalayummies

[MAB]

5 minutes ago, koalayummies said:

Another alternative is being discussed here and is in the thread title.

 

So how many people that missed out on buying the original Taj Mahal actually missed out on it due to resellers? I reckon a very, very tiny number. It was for sale for over two years. Anyone that wanted it could easily have bought it and had a long time to buy it. Then LEGO retired it. I reckon most people that wanted the Taj Mahal since 2010 were not into LEGO prior to that. The only place people could buy one was from resellers on the secondary market. LEGO didn't care about the "real fans" that wanted the set after 2010. They made their sets, they sold them, they moved on to other things. The only way "real fans" could buy the set was due to the foresight of the resellers that invested in it. They provided a service to the people that didn't buy it in the window when LEGO sold it. Of course, they profit from it, there is no doubting that - nobody would do this as an altruistic gesture. But that was the only way people could get hold of a new, sealed, genuine LEGO Taj Mahal. Not from LEGO, but from resellers.

It wasn't that long ago that LEGO customer service used to refer people to look at bricklink to get hold of sets when they wrote to LEGO asking why they cannot buy such and such a set any more.

 

15 minutes ago, koalayummies said:

And that explains your stance. You know you could have quoted and responded to just about anyone else here but I guess my example must have hit some conscience. 

 

I don't have any bad conscience when selling something to someone that wants to buy it at the price offered. I have never forced someone to buy something, they can always buy from somebody else or go without.

18 minutes ago, koalayummies said:

The situation being responded to was based on the reading of numerous Eurobricks members personal accounts who were disappointed they missed out on many sets in scenarios almost identical to the one described

 

If someone waits until a set either goes to clearance or goes to retiring soon, and then misses out, they are at fault as they had ample opportunity to purchase during the retail lifetime. It is not the fault of the person that bought the last remaining stock.

[koalayummies]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

If someone waits until a set either goes to clearance or goes to retiring soon, and then misses out, they are at fault as they had ample opportunity to purchase during the retail lifetime. It is not the fault of the person that bought the last remaining stock.

Not everyone can afford everything they would like. Really surprised that needs to be spelled out. Not everyone has the disposable income and capital to buy, room to store, hoard and sit on product in order to huck it for five times the MSRP later.

These are fellow Lego builders we are talking about here, fellow Eurobricks members who have mentioned in frequent threads how they have to balance their desired Lego set acquisitions and have missed out because the set was retired before they saved enough. This isn't something that's being made up, if need be the posts can be provided. Then they look to the secondary market and see unscrupulous people asking for five times the price they paid for it. So its their fault they're not as privileged as others to be able to obtain everything they want when they want it.

Edit: done with this discussion. One can defend greed however they want; if they didn't do it others would, everyone else is doing it, its their fault for not being born with silver spoons... whatever. 

Edited November 1, 2017 by koalayummies

[Steamdemon]

My take on this is...why aren't the collectors actually building their rare sets? The thing looks more impressive when they are built! btw, the Highest price Emerald night has got is roughly £2K on amazon. Ouch.

[Hinckley]

In other news, the sky is falling. I think it's a little bit alarmist to see two sets re–released and think that it's going to kill someone's investment. LEGO can't and won't re–release a large percentage of old sets. If you're an investor, you should have a diversified "portfolio." If you only bought the Taj Mahal and the Millenium Falcon, then that's a bad investment strategy.

I do agree with @Doom2099 that he should be able to express his opinion without being investor–shamed. Everyone, including the investor–shamers, have the right to express their opinion, but why be so negative? If someone can make money off of their hobby, why not? We spend a lot of time and money on this and it's smart to find a way to take the market you fully understand and try to use it as an investment. If you're an expert in something and can make money off of it, why not?

[DeanLearner]

I suspect there’s not an awful lot more to be added here, but I just wanted to address a point made (by MAB, and possibly others) about resale prices being determined by market forces.

The way in which much secondary market Lego is sold is fundamentally different to the way it is sold in shops.

In a regular toy shop, the retailer effectively loses money the longer stock remains unsold (because retail space is expensive and could be used for a better selling product), and hence discounts are often required to shift surplus stock. This would be an example of excess supply reducing prices.

However, there is little cost to maintaining perpetual fixed-price listings on eBay, BrickLink etc, and storage of Lego in an attic/spare room is far cheaper than on the shelves of Toys R’ Us. Consequently, there is no disincentive to listing a set a x2 its RRP, as if it doesn’t sell then there is no significant cost impact.

Before long, every seller comes to see this price (for example) as the going “market” rate, regardless of whether anyone ever actually sells an item at that markup, and you end up with effectively a cartel of people setting prices.

Now, to be honest, I don’t really have all that big a problem with resellers personally. No one is forcing people to pay such inflated prices, and it’s not like anyone’s dying due to lack of Lego. But I do think it’s a bit rich for people who are more than happy to benefit when things are going their way to start complaining when they loose out on an investment. There are much harder ways to earn a living after all!

 

[Brandon Miller]

Lego is a toy. If you're buying it for an investment, you're missing the whole point of Lego.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Brandon Miller

[x105Black]

This is good for the people who buy LEGO to build, a much more important segment of the LEGO economy than those who buy for resale.

This makes me happy, even if I'm not particularly interested in this specific model.

[LEGO Historian]

18 hours ago, NathanR said:

<SNIP>  

There are many rumours flying round at the moment, everything from modular building to the UCS Super Star Destroyer.  Lego is doing a "classic" range next year to celebrate their 50th anniversary, but the "classic" name is shared with the basic brick boxes so it could be anything.  

Did you mean 40 years (1978)?  Because 50 years would take us back to 1968... and I see nothing significant in that year milestone?

[kibosh]

23 hours ago, MAB said:

Whereas I think that LEGO should care about all their customers. Whatever they do with the sets.

And as before, this won't stop scalping, it will stop long term investing. It will enhance the amount of scalping, that is the quick flipping of in demand current sets, if long term reselling is no longer an option.

 

If people are buying from a reseller or a scalper, they are not a LEGO customer.  LEGO gets no additional revenue from that sale.

It will most certainly affect scalping.  Scalpers will be much less liking to sit on a pile of expensive sets if they think they might just get rereleased down the road.  And consumers will learn to be patient and wait for them to become available again.

12 hours ago, DeanLearner said:

I suspect there’s not an awful lot more to be added here, but I just wanted to address a point made (by MAB, and possibly others) about resale prices being determined by market forces.

The way in which much secondary market Lego is sold is fundamentally different to the way it is sold in shops.

In a regular toy shop, the retailer effectively loses money the longer stock remains unsold (because retail space is expensive and could be used for a better selling product), and hence discounts are often required to shift surplus stock. This would be an example of excess supply reducing prices.

However, there is little cost to maintaining perpetual fixed-price listings on eBay, BrickLink etc, and storage of Lego in an attic/spare room is far cheaper than on the shelves of Toys R’ Us. Consequently, there is no disincentive to listing a set a x2 its RRP, as if it doesn’t sell then there is no significant cost impact.

Before long, every seller comes to see this price (for example) as the going “market” rate, regardless of whether anyone ever actually sells an item at that markup, and you end up with effectively a cartel of people setting prices.

Now, to be honest, I don’t really have all that big a problem with resellers personally. No one is forcing people to pay such inflated prices, and it’s not like anyone’s dying due to lack of Lego. But I do think it’s a bit rich for people who are more than happy to benefit when things are going their way to start complaining when they loose out on an investment. There are much harder ways to earn a living after all!

 

The other principle people ignore is the missed opportunity cost.  The longer a seller sits on an investment, the more opportunities they miss out on because that cash is tied up.  They'd be smarter to buy up a much of less expensive, quicker moving sets.

[DeanLearner]

2 hours ago, kibosh said:

The other principle people ignore is the missed opportunity cost.  The longer a seller sits on an investment, the more opportunities they miss out on because that cash is tied up.  They'd be smarter to buy up a much of less expensive, quicker moving sets.

Hmmm, that’s an interesting point. I wonder whether that’s down to the emotional component of Lego investment. Perhaps people are happy keeping hold of an asset when there is a certain pleasure to simply owning it: an attachment people are never going to have toward shares or other more abstract investments.

[rodiziorobs]

I agree with @DeanLearner's posts above about the effect supply has on prices and such. Also, I see no problem with hoarders and scalpers and so forth: they saw an opportunity, took the risk, and are able to make a profit off of it. They didn't lie, cheat, or behave in any way unfair to anyone. You may not like it, but if that's the case don't buy it.

I am not a reseller. I have tried but I have no self-discipline when it comes to not opening boxes of Lego.

But, because I'm feeling long-winded, I'll share some stories here that I think are relevant. Feel free to skip if you're one of those TL;DR people (and if you quote any of this, please snip only what you need to spare others the chore):

When the Iron Man 3 sets were released, someone got a hold of the Malibu Mansion Attack set early and sold it in eBay. It was less than a week before the actual release and two people with too much money on their hands bid the thing up to about $2200. Yes, you read that right. Over two grand for a set that, if they waited a week, they could buy for $40. With shipping delays, they probably only got their hands on it two or three days before the general public.

Is this outrageous? Yes. I don't personally know anyone who would pay that, but there were two of them that day--the auction winner and the guy who only bid $2199. I think they are both idiots. On the other hand, I would have loved to have been the other guy, and would gladly have sold something at a 5000% mark-Up to an idiot if I could (and so would you)

The new ultra-huge MF is currently selling for over $1400 on eBay. Not merely listed, but selling. People would rather pay an extra mortgage payment, spend a large family's grocery budget for several weeks, or forego a decent vacation, all so they can have a toy (a toy!) this week rather than wait for LEGO to restock it.

I once talked to a lady who had bought tickets to see Wicked from a reseller--she paid $300 each for two tickets that were not good seats, while the venue was still selling general admission for $90 apiece. She claimed he ripped her off. I asked if the seller had told her where the seats were before she bought and she said he had. I didn't tell her this part (she was a client and I didn't want to offend her), but she didn't get ripped off by the guy. She knew what she was getting and she was willing to pay his price. It wasn't his fault she didn't check to see if there were still tickets available, or that she was too impatient to shop around.

That's what drives the secondary market prices to be so high: buyer impatience. Now, as Dean pointed out above, eBay sellers often have no cost to keep items listed at 2x or 3x the MSRP, so they can wait endlessly for some idiot to come along and buy it. And, it is precisely because some idiot somewhere did pay that high price that other sellers hope they can do the same.

LEGO is making a smart move here, by cashing in on all that pent up demand that overpriced listings have kept strong. If they choose to dabble in rereleases once in awhile, good for them.

As for resellers, this means that suddenly sitting on those high-prices listings has a cost: at some point, they could get nothing from their investment. It may prod them to drop their prices in order to secure a sale sooner rather than later (even at a lower return) since the likelihood of an idiot coming along in time has diminished.

TL;DR: Don't be an idiot and pay too much for stuff.