The Lunacy of Lego Investors

[feed]

Well I say, good luck to this investor, I think he will need it. I am pretty sure any increase in value will pretty much be eaten up by having an insurance policy running for that long and expenses for storage and the likes. And if your sales taxes are anything like DK, he will finance a whole lot of school books :) I would assume that somebody making that kind of investment for resell purpose would have to have his business registered, so he probably won't be able to make his way around taxes. And I just don't think SW value will increase so much that this size of investment will be worthwhile. But who knows :)

Well capital gains are taxed lower than income taxes here and the wealthy pretty much only pay the taxes they choose. It’s why we have so many oligarchs in London. But I agree storage and insurance will eat into any profits.. But I’m pulling the thread way off topic, so i'll leave it there....

Edited June 2, 2014 by feed

[Heppeng]

I never thought that I would ever buy lego soley as an investment. Until last week, all my lego was bought to be built and enjoyed, any increase in value of the sets I owned was a bonus. When looking to buy some extra track for my 60050, I discovered that lego were selling it at 0.05p each. Current price on bricklink around £1.20 upwards. Now thats a return on investment I just could not pass on so I bought 1200 pieces for a total outlay including postage of £70. Lego have now changed the price to 0.95p - which is still a bargain! I have yet to see any evidence of a price crash on bricklink, but even if there is I would expect it to be fairly short lived. It will take a little while to sell, but thats surely going to beat any of the other Lego investments talked about here!

[Darkoil]

I buy and sell lego, not really to make money but I've found that if I'm willing to pay 50-100 for a joblot of star wars figures I might get about 50 for say £2 each then I just take out the ones I want and then sell the rest in smaller lots, the profit is usually the minifigures I keep.

[Boulderer]

I buy and sell lego, not really to make money but I've found that if I'm willing to pay 50-100 for a joblot of star wars figures I might get about 50 for say £2 each then I just take out the ones I want and then sell the rest in smaller lots, the profit is usually the minifigures I keep.

I have a similar approach to this. I'll pick up job lots and get the sets, or pieces that I need, reselling the remainder. No real profit other than the Lego I wanted. And who doesn't enjoy sorting through a random lot of Lego to see what's there? :)

[CrazyDalton777]

I have a lot of respect for the resellers. Yes, you may have to wait a little longer or not being able to obtain a set from a shop because of people buying to resell but that is life. Think about it, the Indiana Jones sets were brilliant, I couldn't get them when they came out as I didn't have enough space or money but now I have bot, I bought from resellers and the prices were only £10 more than the normal prices in 2008/09 or whenever they came out. If nobody resold them then the set would not be accessible for anyone.

[ummester]

Reading this thread makes me doubt being an AFOL.

The re-seller's defense - 'they are toys, if you don't want to pay that much, don't buy them'.

That's all well and good - but 'they are toys'. Every set a re-seller hoards for profit stops a child somewhere from acquiring it for the same price the re-seller did. Why do sets get held for profit - because AFOL collectors will buy them, not the children that they were originally aimed at as toys.

There is something about profiting from a secondary toy market that just strikes me as worse than profiting from a secondary market of adult products - it's stealing candy from a baby.

I wonder how many LEGO investors are also parents? Not people who run secondary LEGO stores and support families with the income, but people who buy 10 sets cheap from a supermarket sale, hoard them and resell them a couple of years down the track for profit.

[MAB]

Every set a re-seller hoards for profit stops a child somewhere from acquiring it for the same price the re-seller did.

There is something about profiting from a secondary toy market that just strikes me as worse than profiting from a secondary market of adult products - it's stealing candy from a baby.

I wonder how many LEGO investors are also parents? Not people who run secondary LEGO stores and support families with the income, but people who buy 10 sets cheap from a supermarket sale, hoard them and resell them a couple of years down the track for profit.

The child or his family had exactly the same opportunity as the reseller to buy them. It is not stealing candy from a baby, it is buying something before someone else does.

Why do sets get held for profit - because AFOL collectors will buy them, not the children that they were originally aimed at as toys.

The AFOL that buys it might well be the child whose parents wouldn't buy him a certain set 10 years before.

[ummester]

The child or his family had exactly the same opportunity as the reseller to buy them. It is not stealing candy from a baby, it is buying something before someone else does.

Buying a toy before a child does is not the same as buying a car/house etc before another adult does, in my eyes, which are those of a parent on this topic. This is why I wondered how many re-sellers were parents.

For instance, if there was a single remaining set I wanted in a store and a child was there that also wanted it, I would let the child have it. Another adult I would tell to find their own. An adult that claimed to be buying for a child, I'd say prove it.

It's a pretty unfair advantage when an adult competes with a child for purchase of a toy - especially an employed adult, without their own children, who can clear an aisle out of a given set in one hit.

The AFOL that buys it might well be the child whose parents wouldn't buy him a certain set 10 years before.

Diddums. Just because one child missed out, doesn't mean another child should have to.

If child A misses out on set 'Big Yellow Castle' and adult B hoards it to sell to child A at adulthood, child C also misses out at the original time of sale. By the time child A became an adult, they should have already reconciled the lack of 'Big Yellow Castle' in their lives anyway.

[kibosh]

I don't consider myself a LEGO investor or re-seller, but I do sell LEGO for a profit. And yes, I am a parent. I consider myself a fan of LEGO. I enjoy building with my LEGO, and I enjoy building with my kids. I am guilty of buying more LEGO than I need, but it is always with the intent that I will build with it eventually. Sometimes, I need money to buy a new LEGO set, so I sell off LEGO I haven't gotten around to yet. Sometimes, the value of a set gets so high, I can't justify NOT selling that set. LEGO for me is a 100% self funding hobby.

When I see LEGO on clearance, I will generally buy it all. Do I feel bad about it? Not even a little bit. As was mentioned in this thread, everyone had the chance to buy it. I had no unfair advantage. Outside of very rare exceptions, LEGO is a mass produced toy. Even if a re-seller does buy it all, the store will eventually restock it. No child is going to go without. They may go without that day, or at that store, but they will eventually get their LEGO. Learning delayed gratification is not a bad lesson.

People need to loosen up and quite worrying about little things that really don't affect them. Stop taking everything so seriously.

[Jared]

I feel like "investors" really take away from the hobby. It's the reason I will never get an exclusive comic-con fig.

[kibosh]

Did you go to comic-con? If not, that has just as much to do with you not getting those exclusives as the high resale prices do.

I just don't understand TLG's logic behind those SDCC minifigs. Who's their intended audience? SDCC is first and foremost a comic con catering to cosplayers and costume fans. Some of these people might be into LEGO, but I doubt the majority is. And I also doubt any LEGO fans go to SDCC primarily to collect these figures. Even if you did, SDCC is very expensive to attend. After paying for tickets, hotel, travel, etc., you're better off paying for the minifigs on eBay.

[ummester]

kibosh,

You have obviously never tried to find your children Batman 1, Spongebob or Harry Potter sets for their birthdays in a town with more cashed up kidults than kids.

Where I live now is balanced - larger population, more retailers and smaller AFOL to child ratio. Where I used to live there were less retailers and a much smaller population, the majority of which were cash rich, time poor DINKs.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[Hive]

It's a pretty unfair advantage when an adult competes with a child for purchase of a toy - especially an employed adult, without their own children, who can clear an aisle out of a given set in one hit.

Except that said adult usually isn't competing with the kid's wallet, but the wallet of his/her parents.

Besides, kids shouldn't get used to just getting everything they want. It's a valuable life lesson, if nothing else.

[ummester]

Except that said adult usually isn't competing with the kid's wallet, but the wallet of his/her parents.

Besides, kids shouldn't get used to just getting everything they want. It's a valuable life lesson, if nothing else.

I agree that going without sometimes is a valuable life lesson for kids. This does not justify toy investment, however. That is a life lesson the child's parents should decide on delivering, as required.

Having a toy product available for a child (who does not need a life lesson at that point in time) far better suits it's purpose than utilising it for investment.

I also have nothing against AFOLs (obviously), or AFOLs reselling sets to help support their own MOCing or collection habits. I like Bricklink (as a parts source) and know without AFOLs reselling (in some form) it wouldn't exist.

I draw the line at pure investment in LEGO (or any toy), however - acquiring multiple copies of a child's plaything, to be locked away in pristine condition, in the hope to turn a buck. It more than defeats the purpose of the product, in my eyes, it stands in opposition to the product's meaning.

Coins, stamps - fine, collect them, lock them away and hope their value increases. Play with stocks if you really want to speculate. But leave the toys alone, don't totally pervert their original purpose by so much with purely capitalist ideals.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[robuko]

kibosh,

You have obviously never tried to find your children Batman 1, Spongebob or Harry Potter sets for their birthdays in a town with more cashed up kidults than kids.

Where I live now is balanced - larger population, more retailers and smaller AFOL to child ratio. Where I used to live there were less retailers and a much smaller population, the majority of which were cash rich, time poor DINKs.

I'm glad you have better access now. You do also have the internet. Amazon is a very good source for new sets such as Batman, Spongebob, Harry Potter etc. Most sets do not really have restricted supply, so your idea that there is a fixed supply and adults are depriving children is not one that I can relate to. I am a parent, I am not a reseller, and I'm very glad that there are resellers. Resellers are providing a service in storage and providing supply when Lego has decided not to for a particular item, and that service should be compensated so that there is an incentive for them to provide it. Would you really prefer a world where there is zero secondary market supply, and you could never buy any Lego past end of line?

Edited August 8, 2014 by robuko

[ummester]

Robuko,

It's a toy :D

I'm not opposed to the idea of secondary market supply - and I am not opposed to the idea of paying a supplier fair value for holding the stock. I am opposed to massive investment mark ups occurring on a toy.

Perhaps the secondary LEGO market needs to be regulated :D Actually, as others have noted, TLG can regulate it by re-releasing sets.

Perhaps what I would prefer is this - if any set made in a given amount of time (say 20 years) starts selling for more than twice it's initial value (plus inflation), the set should be re-released. Something like that.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[robuko]

The secondary market is regulated - by the laws of supply and demand. The mark ups reflect what buyers at the margin will pay, and what sellers will settle for to free up working capital. I might wish I could buy a UCS MF for $300, but the truth is that there are other buyers who will pay more than me so they should get priority.

[ummester]

Yea - that's fine, free market structure and all that - look at how well the economy is working out for the world ATM :D Global economics aside, it's a toy!

I don't know why any other adult would fail to see that the idea of toy investment seems kind of wrong? You have gold, stocks - products designed for investment - toys are not designed for that purpose - they are designed to be played with.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[MAB]

For instance, if there was a single remaining set I wanted in a store and a child was there that also wanted it, I would let the child have it. Another adult I would tell to find their own. An adult that claimed to be buying for a child, I'd say prove it.

Fine for you, others would disagree. What about the adult who uses their child to convince you the child wants it when it is really the adult. In what capacity would you be there to judge? Why didn't the family purchase it earlier when there were lots available?

It's a pretty unfair advantage when an adult competes with a child for purchase of a toy - especially an employed adult, without their own children, who can clear an aisle out of a given set in one hit.

It is very rare for a set to disappear from a shelf within a day of it being released. Especially the child oriented sets. Parents of children have ample opportunity to buy, just as other adults do. Parents can also clear an aisle of sets if they want to.

Diddums. Just because one child missed out, doesn't mean another child should have to.

I don't get why a collector should be called a diddums. This is an AFOL site. We are all here because of toys. Why should a collector not be thrilled that they can buy a MISB edition of a set they really wanted as a kid but were not able to purchase?

If child A misses out on set 'Big Yellow Castle' and adult B hoards it to sell to child A at adulthood, child C also misses out at the original time of sale. By the time child A became an adult, they should have already reconciled the lack of 'Big Yellow Castle' in their lives anyway.

Why did Child C miss it? If it was just because adult B got there first, then it is his or his families fault. He had plenty of opportunity to buy it when it was on the shelf. Child A on the otherhand did not have the money back then. Why should child A have to reconcile not getting it? Many people buy toys from their childhood for nostalgia. Maybe child A is even child C. He missed it when he was a kid and always regretted it and is grateful of the opportunity to buy it. If Adult B hadn't picked it up, child D might have come along and bought it and the chance would have been lost forever.

Perhaps the secondary LEGO market needs to be regulated :D Actually, as others have noted, TLG can regulate it by re-releasing sets.

Perhaps what I would prefer is this - if any set made in a given amount of time (say 20 years) starts selling for more than twice it's initial value (plus inflation), the set should be re-released. Something like that.

TLG don't want to re-release sets. If they did, they would. They have enough modern sets to keep them at capacity.

Would lego really want to keep molds of old parts for 20 years just in case a set doubled in value, and then make sure they re-release the exact same set, same box, same colours of parts (old greys and browns). The simple answer is no.

Lego cares about the secondary market for current sets, not old ones.

Yea - that's fine, free market structure and all that - look at how well the economy is working out for the world ATM :D Global economics aside, it's a toy!

I don't know why any other adult would fail to see that the idea of toy investment seems kind of wrong? You have gold, stocks - products designed for investment - toys are not designed for that purpose - they are designed to be played with.

So what if it is a toy? Adults are allowed to play with toys too. Adults are allowed to collect toys too. They can open and play, or they can keep them MISB. If adults are not allowed to do what they like with toys that they own, then it is the end for eurobricks and all AFOLs.

Edited August 8, 2014 by MAB

[ummester]

MAB - I was saying didums to the idea of an adult that is sad they missed out on a toy as a child.

You see how ridiculously circular it is? My parents didn't get me a toy - so I will pay top dollar for it as an adult. Most common defense raised as to why it's alright for an investor to take a toy over a child - it will teach the child a lesson.

What lesson, that if they miss out they should pay more for it as an adult? By their own arguments, a toy investor is profiting from their best defense.

So what if it is a toy? Adults are allowed to play with toys too. Adults are allowed to collect toys too. They can open and play, or they can keep them MISB. If adults are not allowed to do what they like with toys that they own, then it is the end for eurobricks and all AFOLs.

What's that whole LEGO creed? Build well and play nice, or something similar.

I fail to see how a set that is left sitting untouched in a cupboard is either built well, or played with nicely.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[Hive]

I cannot really understand the line of thought that because something is marketed to be sold to Person A, then Person B has less of a right to buy and enjoy it than Person A. So what if it's primarily marketed towards children? If adults enjoy it all the same, they have as much right to the product as children. That is, if you can even speak about "rights" in this fashion. It is, after all, a product on a free market we're discussing here.

[ummester]

I cannot really understand the line of thought that because something is marketed to be sold to Person A, then Person B has less of a right to buy and enjoy it than Person A. So what if it's primarily marketed towards children? If adults enjoy it all the same, they have as much right to the product as children. That is, if you can even speak about "rights" in this fashion. It is, after all, a product on a free market we're discussing here.

Your missing the point.

An adult has as much legal right to buy a LEGO set as a child. However, an adult should be adult enough to realize that toys are ultimately made for children and not them. My argument was concerning a situation where there is only one set left in a particular store, that you want, and a sad child looking on who also wants and has the means to purchase it. The adult thing to do is let the child have first pick, because it is a toy. It's like letting an elderly person or pregnant woman have your seat in the bus, it's the decent thing to do given the situation.

I have never said that an adult shouldn't be able to buy and enjoy LEGO (by taking it out of it's box and doing something with it) either by themselves, with friends, or their own children. They are utilizing the product as it was deigned.

What I am saying is that leaving a LEGO set hidden away, in it's box, with the sole intention of investment, is in opposition to what the set was designed for - which is to be built and played with. It is effectively a waste of a perfectly good LEGO set for individual financial profit.

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[obsidianheart]

But if you have purchased that LEGO set with your own money, it is yours to waste as you see fit, regardless of sad children who helplessly look on in the world.

I have 5 sets unbuilt in boxes in storage, not because I'm waiting for the secondary market price to increase, but because I don't have room right now to display them. If, say, in a few years, I decide I don't care about ever putting them together and displaying them, and toss a few up on eBay, and they happen to sell for hundreds of dollars, does that mean I deprived a child of their seat on the bus?

Edited August 8, 2014 by obsidianheart

[ummester]

It depends what your intentions are obsidianheart.

If you intend to build/display but can't find the time/space, I'd say the purchase was a bit of a waste but was still in line with the design of the product.

If your intention was to store for profit, from the get go, then it is a misuse of what the product was designed for and callous neglect for all of the sad children helplessly looking on in the world :D

Either way, if you are buying more LEGO than you can actively use, don't you ever ask yourself why?

Edited August 8, 2014 by ummester

[MAB]

What's that whole LEGO creed? Build well and play nice, or something similar.

I fail to see how a set that is left sitting untouched in a cupboard is either built well, or played with nicely.

It doesn't have to be built to be enjoyed. For example, for polybags I nearly always get two. One to build and display one to keep sealed. I like the fact that I have a product that is exactly as it left the factory. I have my own small version of the lego vault.

Plus I don't think lego cares too much about how often the products are played with, they care about how many are sold.