@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
@OriginalDan said:
Keeping a hammer price low is one thing. Talking to a friend about who should go for a coin is different and not illegal.
Same issue. Hey, buddy, I'll stay away from the bust halves if you stay away from the paper money. The whole goal is to minimize the hammer for both of us.
No, it’s not like that. I see a coin I know my buddy would be interested in. I reach out to make sure he saw it. In some cases he hadn’t so now the auction lot has his attention. Knowing he’s going after it, I’m happy for him and no longer interested myself. I may or may not have bid otherwise, but now Ive decided not to. It’s like you’re saying I’m now required to bid my max amount or I’m breaking the law. That’s stupid.
You ‘re visiting in a small town, and you see a local notice for an auction which includes old coins.
Going there, you see there’s actually some terrific and valuable stuff, along with tractors, old furniture, etc.
While examining the coin lots, you notice a collector/dealer that you know is the only other person looking at the coins, while all the locals are in the barn perusing the farm machinery.
Question:
Before the auction starts, who among us wouldn’t approach the fellow collector/dealer, just to see what could be done to keep things friendly?
The answer would depend largely upon what you mean by “keep things friendly”.
It's illegal in NY State. It also happens in EVERY auction in NY State. And, while it is illegal, if you want to have any friends, you would probably do it yourself.
My friend and I go to the same coin auction. I know he's a major buyer of paper money and will almost always outbid me for rare paper. I'm a strong buyer but not as strong as he is. Would I really run him up to the max just to avoid "collusion" or would I stay out of it knowing he'll outbid me anyway and I would rather keep his friendship than make him pay the maximum by being the underbidder on every note.
Technically, staying out of the way of a friend is "collusion". Yes, it's on a different scale than if Christie's and Heritage did it with each other, but it is still collusion. I'm going to have to put it on the list of things that there is no point in worrying about. As long as the bidding itself is open, there is always the opportunity for another entity to come in and mess up the friendly collusion. So, why am I going to spend any time worrying about it?
And if the best examples of it we can find are 20 to 30 years old, then I clearly am right to not spend any time worrying about it.
Staying out of the way is doing him a favor.
Colluding is when someone gains an edge or advantage.
No. Staying out of the way is technically collusion and it does give him an advantage if I'm the second biggest whale in the room. Many times my friend wins for less than I would have paid, sometimes much less.
Still have to say No, you really didn't want it anyway or your friend would have stepped aside.
@OriginalDan said:
Keeping a hammer price low is one thing. Talking to a friend about who should go for a coin is different and not illegal.
TRUE and who does it hurt?
You have to have a victim for colusion.
The market sets the price, with or without someone stepping aside.
Even the friends are competitive. If both have a need or a want to maybe flip a coin for profit do they flip a coin to see who passes on said coin.
@DoubleEagle59 said:
I've always said there is no such thing as a true coin auction.
Closest thing to True is a clock that resets to 15 minutes after receiving a bid under the 15 minute mark.
Not taking into account all other variables.
@Typekat said:
***** It may be that the entire issue of auction buyers collusion is a moot point today.****
Major auctions of coins, paper money, and the vast majority of other collectibles are happening via online auctions with national or international reach.
Retail buyers now dominate those auctions, and the days of a group of dealers without any competition casually ‘carving up’ an auction for their own gain are long gone.
Of course, ethical purity will never be achieved in this or any other business.
But the Internet has revolutionized the trade in collectibles, to the benefit of all collectors.
No doubt that the larger internet participation has made buyer collusion more difficult, But, sometimes good collections are sold live where there is no internet participation. And even those auctions with internet bidders, the most serious dealers in specialized material tend to be present for the big collections as they must often view material before bidding. Still plenty of opportunity to collude and I suspect that it's still pretty rampant. I believe that some auctions are still being carved up pretty effectively and others to a lesser extent or not at all. I would presume that internet bidding may have lessened the problem somewhat but it's not a moot debate yet.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
I can’t imagine a ‘good’ collection of coins or paper money being auctioned without an Internet catalog and bidding available online. Comic books or Star Wars figurines, maybe.
I’m sure it sometimes happens. But not only is that a major screwup by the consignor, but one which offers those with the means and motives to exploit the opportunity presented.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
@Pnies20 said:
A word the courts use frequently is “reasonableness”, which needs to be discussed since we’re tossing around the word ILLEGAL
It’s reasonable that two friends discuss what they’re going to bid on and what coins they need. I hear it all day on the bourse floor at every show. Do they then HAVE to bid on the coins they both want? Of course not.
It’s unreasonable that dealers would discuss bids with other dealers because there would be no purpose for it other than to rig the price.
The latter is the point of the Sherman Act, the former is not.
I don't agree.
Collusion is an act that can be done by either collectors or dealers but both are illegal and immoral.
Either collectors or dealers can discuss lots in an auction without fear of collusion but they can't make agreements not to bid against each other in order for one to purchase the lot for less than they would have.
There's nothing illegal (or immoral) about asking a friend which lots he is interested in bidding on and then deciding not to bid on those lots because you don't want to run your friend up. It's obviously best to have some idea of who the stronger bidder is. One might then suggest comparing bids but now we're delving deeper into the grey area.
"Hey, what do you have on lot 3456? I'm at $800."
"I'm only at $500"
Really, nothing more needs to be said. But if you do propose, "Well I'll lay off 3456 if you lay off the lots on which I'm high bidder." Now you have probably crossed the line into collusion.
Of course this system only works if the colluders are honest with each other. If you said that you were bidding up to $800 for lot 3456 then I don't want to see you drop out of the bidding lower, right? Comparing notes isn't technically illegal and I'm not suggesting that anyone engage in this behavior because it does serve the purpose of collusion. Making an actual agreement is illegal. The prosecution could contend that your agreement was understood. Like I said-grey areas abound.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@Pnies20 said:
A word the courts use frequently is “reasonableness”, which needs to be discussed since we’re tossing around the word ILLEGAL
It’s reasonable that two friends discuss what they’re going to bid on and what coins they need. I hear it all day on the bourse floor at every show. Do they then HAVE to bid on the coins they both want? Of course not.
It’s unreasonable that dealers would discuss bids with other dealers because there would be no purpose for it other than to rig the price.
The latter is the point of the Sherman Act, the former is not.
I don't agree.
Collusion is an act that can be done by either collectors or dealers but both are illegal and immoral.
Either collectors or dealers can discuss lots in an auction without fear of collusion but they can't make agreements not to bid against each other in order for one to purchase the lot for less than they would have.
There's nothing illegal (or immoral) about asking a friend which lots he is interested in bidding on and then deciding not to bid on those lots because you don't want to run your friend up. It's obviously best to have some idea of who the stronger bidder is. One might then suggest comparing bids but now we're delving deeper into the grey area.
"Hey, what do you have on lot 3456? I'm at $800."
"I'm only at $500"
Really, nothing more needs to be said. But if you do propose, "Well I'll lay off 3456 if you lay off the lots on which I'm high bidder." Now you have probably crossed the line into collusion.
Of course this system only works if the colluders are honest with each other. If you said that you were bidding up to $800 for lot 3456 then I don't want to see you drop out of the bidding lower, right? Comparing notes isn't technically illegal and I'm not suggesting that anyone engage in this behavior because it does serve the purpose of collusion. Making an actual agreement is illegal. The prosecution could contend that your agreement was understood. Like I said-grey areas abound.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you here.
It’s totally different to say “I’m the high bidder, don’t bid because it’ll make me pay more”. It’s even more aggravated if those involved are dealers attempting to maximize profit.
Than
“I really want this coin for my set, let me have it”
Also you can disagree about my reasonableness portion but you haven’t discussed why. Sure collectors can form an illegal collusion ring but that’s not what implied here. It’s perfectly REASONABLE, as you stated yourself, for collectors to discuss these things and help each other build their sets. Practically that may look like “go for it, you really like it more than me.”
@DCW said:
1. Auction collusion is not ok.
2. What constitutes auction collusion is certainly more than two friends talking about a coin and agreeing not to bid each other to the moon.
I think the other thread was meant to illustrate the comraderie that can take place in specialty fields, and certainly got pushed into something else by the OP here. That's why everyone was laughing, by the way. Most everyone can agree that actual collusion in an auction is illegal. It was just kind of ridiculous the way the accusations came flying of "illegal activity."
When I think of true auction collusion, I always thing of the King Farouk sale in Egypt. All the dealers and coin collectors from abroad separating the lots to keep prices down.
A couple of buds agreeing that one of them wants it more and should go for it? Happens all the live long day.
(And speeding is still illegal if you don't get caught!)
Lol
Drive safely, and drink responsibly now
I'll admit that I wasn't impressed with a thread about fighting over coins in which the O/P was clearly admitting to his immoral activities. When I realized that I was taking the thread off topic, something that I had accused the O/P of that thread to doing with my previous thread, I did the proper thing and started this thread on collusion, which has produced some interesting reading. I then left this chapter of the Bust Half Nut Club to themselves. Many of them seem to have no problem with collusion as nobody has answered how would you like it if your collection is carved up when sold, realizing much less than you expected. Yes, illegal AND immoral activity, even if just innocently among friends. The world paper money dealers prosecuted by the Feds in the 1990s were just friends, too. They would have been much better off as friendly competitors.
If you want to see comradery, try the CU Paper Money discussion board. It's MUCH more civil over there and we're all friends. Rarely is anyone challenged there. Here, some people look to challenge anything and that's not really helpful.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
@OriginalDan said:
Keeping a hammer price low is one thing. Talking to a friend about who should go for a coin is different and not illegal.
Same issue. Hey, buddy, I'll stay away from the bust halves if you stay away from the paper money. The whole goal is to minimize the hammer for both of us.
No, it’s not like that. I see a coin I know my buddy would be interested in. I reach out to make sure he saw it. In some cases he hadn’t so now the auction lot has his attention. Knowing he’s going after it, I’m happy for him and no longer interested myself. I may or may not have bid otherwise, but now Ive decided not to. It’s like you’re saying I’m now required to bid my max amount or I’m breaking the law. That’s stupid.
Except that stupidity is the law. How is that any different if two dealers or corporations have the same discussion? Christie's wants it at up to $5 million. Sotheby's wants it at up to $8 million. No one else wants to pay more than $3 million. Why does Christie's have to bid their max amount? They are going to lose anyway. So they do a favor for a "friend" who will hopefully return the favor.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
What other intent do they have to not bid up to their max? [The assumption is not that they don't want the coin. They want it but for less money. ]
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
What other intent do they have to not bid up to their max? [The assumption is not that they don't want the coin. They want it but for less money. ]
You can want to win a coin without the intent to get it for a lesser price
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
What other intent do they have to not bid up to their max? [The assumption is not that they don't want the coin. They want it but for less money. ]
You can want to win a coin without the intent to get it for a lesser price
Yes. But if you all your friend to not bid, the only intent is to get it at a lesser price. Otherwise, you'd just outbid him.
@OriginalDan said:
Keeping a hammer price low is one thing. Talking to a friend about who should go for a coin is different and not illegal.
Same issue. Hey, buddy, I'll stay away from the bust halves if you stay away from the paper money. The whole goal is to minimize the hammer for both of us.
No, it’s not like that. I see a coin I know my buddy would be interested in. I reach out to make sure he saw it. In some cases he hadn’t so now the auction lot has his attention. Knowing he’s going after it, I’m happy for him and no longer interested myself. I may or may not have bid otherwise, but now Ive decided not to. It’s like you’re saying I’m now required to bid my max amount or I’m breaking the law. That’s stupid.
Except that stupidity is the law. How is that any different if two dealers or corporations have the same discussion? Christie's wants it at up to $5 million. Sotheby's wants it at up to $8 million. No one else wants to pay more than $3 million. Why does Christie's have to bid their max amount? They are going to lose anyway. So they do a favor for a "friend" who will hopefully return the favor.
That's ridiculous. I can choose to bid or not bid whenever I want. There are hundreds of reasons I may choose to bid or not bid. By your logic, if I ever discussed an auction lot with a friend, I would then be bound by law to bid on that lot to some maximum amount I would have bid, had I not had that conversation.
Too many people in this thread that seem to enjoy arguing without putting their thinking caps on.
If you want to see comradery, try the CU Paper Money discussion board. It's MUCH more civil over there and we're all friends. Rarely is anyone challenged there. Here, some people look to challenge anything and that's not really helpful.
No we don't!
But seriously...
Another absolutely absurd statement. Rarely is anyone challenged over there? Perhaps we (I for certain) don't take your suppositions, assumptions, assertions, and inanities as the solid gold you think they are.
@OriginalDan said:
Keeping a hammer price low is one thing. Talking to a friend about who should go for a coin is different and not illegal.
Same issue. Hey, buddy, I'll stay away from the bust halves if you stay away from the paper money. The whole goal is to minimize the hammer for both of us.
No, it’s not like that. I see a coin I know my buddy would be interested in. I reach out to make sure he saw it. In some cases he hadn’t so now the auction lot has his attention. Knowing he’s going after it, I’m happy for him and no longer interested myself. I may or may not have bid otherwise, but now Ive decided not to. It’s like you’re saying I’m now required to bid my max amount or I’m breaking the law. That’s stupid.
Except that stupidity is the law. How is that any different if two dealers or corporations have the same discussion? Christie's wants it at up to $5 million. Sotheby's wants it at up to $8 million. No one else wants to pay more than $3 million. Why does Christie's have to bid their max amount? They are going to lose anyway. So they do a favor for a "friend" who will hopefully return the favor.
That's ridiculous. I can choose to bid or not bid whenever I want. There are hundreds of reasons I may choose to bid or not bid. By your logic, if I ever discussed an auction lot with a friend, I would then be bound by law to bid on that lot to some maximum amount I would have bid, had I not had that conversation.
Too many people in this thread that seem to enjoy arguing without putting their thinking caps on.
That's not what I said. I said two friends both want it, but one wants it more so the other stays out of their way.
You're probably right, so maybe you should put your cap on.
@habaraca said:
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
What other intent do they have to not bid up to their max? [The assumption is not that they don't want the coin. They want it but for less money. ]
You can want to win a coin without the intent to get it for a lesser price
Yes. But if you all your friend to not bid, the only intent is to get it at a lesser price. Otherwise, you'd just outbid him.
@sellitstore said:
Again, discussions are OK. Agreements may not be and could constitute collusion. Discussions with implied agreements are in the grey area.
How is a discussion with an implied agreement in the grey area? It may be harder to prove in court without a written commitment. However, a discussion with an (implied) agreement is the definition of collusion.
"Hey, baby, if you gave me a $250 gift, I'd probably be VERY grateful all the way back to your place." Legal grey area?
So if two buddies have a discussion about " let me have this one", it's just helping out a bro...
... unless the two buddies are dealers, then it's collusion.
Got it.
Gotta love the collector vs. dealer double standards...
Bid rigging is illegal but it still happens; I've seen/heard it at more than one auction. " Hey, don't bid on that Pan Pac- I need it and you're just going to cost me more money because I gotta leave with it- I'll let you have that 93-S in return".
I have done nothing except read most of the posts here. And it seems as if there are real problems... almost guilt by association. One can attend an auction...choose not to bid for whatever reason... and because they have certain knowledge and choose not to bid...which remains their right and prerogative, that should not somehow create an obligation on their part...along the lines of a good Samaritan... to bid or do something noble to save the day for the consignor.
On the other hand, if there is bidding that was pre-arranged or agreed in advance among participants as to who was going to bid on what with the intent of limiting bids and squashing some level of competition... that is a different set of circumstances and is morally bankrupt not to mention illegal.
Sadly there is a stench emanating from this thread that requires a shower from just engaging and reading it.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
On 3-26-2024 I attended a Sheriff's Sale of real property. The property sold is about 20 acres of undeveloped land located in an expensive city. A portion of the land is steeply sloped (likely unbuildable) and a portion is flat (likely buildable). The Sale took as part of the enforcement of an unpaid judgment and judgment lien (in second priority position behind an first priority deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00) of about $80,000.00. The market value of the property currently is estimated to be about $650-$700K.
My client and I appeared at the sale. Another bidder appeared at the sale. Everyone at the sale was aware of the first deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00 on the property (which was in default and in foreclosure) Everyone at the sale understood (incorrectly it turns out) that the balance of the loan secured by the first deed of trust was about $370,000.00.
My client and the other bidder placed bids on the property at the Sheriff's Sale. My client placed a credit bid of $12,000.00. The other bidder had placed a cash bid of $11,000.00 and bid no higher. As a result my client won the property at the Sheriff's Sale and will obtain title to the property through a Sheriff's Deed.
The day following the Sheriff's Sale I learned from the foreclosure trustee handling the foreclosure of the first deed of trust on the property that the amount of money required to payoff the first deed of trust loan was not $370,000.00. Instead the amount required to payoff that loan was just under $15,000.00.
My client and I were stunned. My client paid just under $15,000.00 required to pay off the first deed of trust loan. As a result my client is now the owner of a property worth about $650-$700K. My client's financial investment in this property is a $12,000.00 credit bid on its $80,000.00 judgment (leaving a deficiency balance of about $68,000.00 that it can collect from other assets and income of the judgment debtor) and just under $15,000.00 paid to pay off the first deed of trust loan.
My question to you is:
If my client and I had been aware that the first deed of trust loan on the property had an unpaid balance of only about $15,000.00 on 3-26-2024 at the Sheriff's Sale, would my client and I be guilty of collusion if we did not disclose that information to the other bidder (who placed a max bid of $11,000.00 at the sale)?
Had that information been known on 3-26-2024 the bidding at the Sheriff's Sale would have gone much higher than $12,000.00.
@SanctionII said:
On 3-26-2024 I attended a Sheriff's Sale of real property. The property sold is about 20 acres of undeveloped land located in an expensive city. A portion of the land is steeply sloped (likely unbuildable) and a portion is flat (likely buildable). The Sale took as part of the enforcement of an unpaid judgment and judgment lien (in second priority position behind an first priority deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00) of about $80,000.00. The market value of the property currently is estimated to be about $650-$700K.
My client and I appeared at the sale. Another bidder appeared at the sale. Everyone at the sale was aware of the first deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00 on the property (which was in default and in foreclosure) Everyone at the sale understood (incorrectly it turns out) that the balance of the loan secured by the first deed of trust was about $370,000.00.
My client and the other bidder placed bids on the property at the Sheriff's Sale. My client placed a credit bid of $12,000.00. The other bidder had placed a cash bid of $11,000.00 and bid no higher. As a result my client won the property at the Sheriff's Sale and will obtain title to the property through a Sheriff's Deed.
The day following the Sheriff's Sale I learned from the foreclosure trustee handling the foreclosure of the first deed of trust on the property that the amount of money required to payoff the first deed of trust loan was not $370,000.00. Instead the amount required to payoff that loan was just under $15,000.00.
My client and I were stunned. My client paid just under $15,000.00 required to pay off the first deed of trust loan. As a result my client is now the owner of a property worth about $650-$700K. My client's financial investment in this property is a $12,000.00 credit bid on its $80,000.00 judgment (leaving a deficiency balance of about $68,000.00 that it can collect from other assets and income of the judgment debtor) and just under $15,000.00 paid to pay off the first deed of trust loan.
My question to you is:
If my client and I had been aware that the first deed of trust loan on the property had an unpaid balance of only about $15,000.00 on 3-26-2024 at the Sheriff's Sale, would my client and I be guilty of collusion if we did not disclose that information to the other bidder (who placed a max bid of $11,000.00 at the sale)?
Had that information been known on 3-26-2024 the bidding at the Sheriff's Sale would have gone much higher than $12,000.00.
What say you?
No. There's no other party involved. There has to be a colluding partner. You knowing something that others don't isn't collusion. However, if you and the other bidder were the only ones who knew about it and agreed to not bid against each other, then yes.
If I knew the senior loan balance was $15k instead of $370k I would be obligated as an attorney to inform my client of same.
If both my client and I know this, the question becomes whether my client and I are colluding to depress the bid price at the Sheriff's Sale (to the benefit of my client and to the detriment of the other bidder and to the property owner/debtor being foreclosed upon) if we do not disclose this information to the other bidder at the Sheriff's Sale (since disclosing that information would cause a large increase in the winning bid price paid at the sale).
Anyone remember the Pennypacker sale of large cents in Philadelphia in the 1950s? All of the large cent people knew about it. One of the Stack's boys (I think) went down there, bought everything, brought it all back. And the large cent people held their own auction.
@MapsOnFire said:
Anyone remember the Pennypacker sale of large cents in Philadelphia in the 1950s? All of the large cent people knew about it. One of the Stack's boys (I think) went down there, bought everything, brought it all back. And the large cent people held their own auction.
shhh....don't tell the forum sheriffs about stuff like this. IT's collusion!!
@SanctionII said:
If I knew the senior loan balance was $15k instead of $370k I would be obligated as an attorney to inform my client of same.
If both my client and I know this, the question becomes whether my client and I are colluding to depress the bid price at the Sheriff's Sale (to the benefit of my client and to the detriment of the other bidder and to the property owner/debtor being foreclosed upon) if we do not disclose this information to the other bidder at the Sheriff's Sale (since disclosing that information would cause a large increase in the winning bid price paid at the sale).
I don't think so, it's just a situation where you think you have more information than the other bidders, but you're not communicating with them. Maybe you're right or maybe you're mistaken, or maybe you're missing something else that all the other bidders know. I do this kind of stuff too, and where I'm at, in my experience, it's more common for some, usually unsophisticated, bidders NOT to know about the 1st position or other senior encumbrances and mistakenly bid it up. Whoops. Or someone buys a property cheap at a judicial foreclosure sale without also having the redemption rights, then they remodel it during the redemption period and get redeemed after the remodel. Or the property gets bid over credit and someone unexpected owns the surplus proceeds. I don't think any of this asymmetry of information constitutes collusion. On the other hand, something like giving lunch money to other bidders to take a walk during the sale would be collusion.
@sellitstore said:
Again, discussions are OK. Agreements may not be and could constitute collusion. Discussions with implied agreements are in the grey area.
How is a discussion with an implied agreement in the grey area? It may be harder to prove in court without a written commitment. However, a discussion with an (implied) agreement is the definition of collusion.
"Hey, baby, if you gave me a $250 gift, I'd probably be VERY grateful all the way back to your place." Legal grey area?
Your example is certainly not buyer collusion, so no legal grey area here.
Yes, an implied agreement CAN BE collusion, depending on the other facts. The grey area is the difficulty in proving that there was, indeed, an implied agreement, as you suggested. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. We actually agree on this.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@MapsOnFire said:
Anyone remember the Pennypacker sale of large cents in Philadelphia in the 1950s? All of the large cent people knew about it. One of the Stack's boys (I think) went down there, bought everything, brought it all back. And the large cent people held their own auction.
And the problem is that some in our business don't see this as a problem. It's deeply rooted and still exists today.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@coinkat said:
I have done nothing except read most of the posts here. And it seems as if there are real problems... almost guilt by association. One can attend an auction...choose not to bid for whatever reason... and because they have certain knowledge and choose not to bid...which remains their right and prerogative, that should not somehow create an obligation on their part...along the lines of a good Samaritan... to bid or do something noble to save the day for the consignor.
On the other hand, if there is bidding that was pre-arranged or agreed in advance among participants as to who was going to bid on what with the intent of limiting bids and squashing some level of competition... that is a different set of circumstances and is morally bankrupt not to mention illegal.
Sadly there is a stench emanating from this thread that requires a shower from just engaging and reading it.
I'm sorry that you find this discussion so upsetting.
Your first paragraph contains many false and misguided statements. They are not true. Don't believe them. They are what is upsetting you. Not everything everyone says here is accurate. Many people offer wrong information.
Having certain knowledge and choosing not to bid is NOT EVER a problem. Making agreements with others not to bid in order to keep prices down is where you will run into trouble. It really can be boiled down to that.
See, nothing really to be upset about.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@SanctionII said:
If I knew the senior loan balance was $15k instead of $370k I would be obligated as an attorney to inform my client of same.
If both my client and I know this, the question becomes whether my client and I are colluding to depress the bid price at the Sheriff's Sale (to the benefit of my client and to the detriment of the other bidder and to the property owner/debtor being foreclosed upon) if we do not disclose this information to the other bidder at the Sheriff's Sale (since disclosing that information would cause a large increase in the winning bid price paid at the sale).
No, you are acting as a representative of your client, so are, in effect acting as the same entity. If you gain this information and decide to bid against your client, not only do you have ethical problems with your client, but, if you make an arrangement not to bid against your client in order to keep the price low, then you may have a case of collusion, too.
Is there any obligation of the auctioneer to disclose or disclose accurately the balance due on the mortgage or is this part of the due diligence that buyers are expect to preform? Did the auctioneer do anything wrong?
Collusion would have only been a possibility here if you and the other bidder made an arrangement, either verbal, written or implied in order to not bid against each other to keep the price down. Or, If your lawyer decided to become a third bidder and made a deal with either of the other two bidders in order to keep the price down, that's collusion.
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
@sellitstore said:
Again, discussions are OK. Agreements may not be and could constitute collusion. Discussions with implied agreements are in the grey area.
How is a discussion with an implied agreement in the grey area? It may be harder to prove in court without a written commitment. However, a discussion with an (implied) agreement is the definition of collusion.
"Hey, baby, if you gave me a $250 gift, I'd probably be VERY grateful all the way back to your place." Legal grey area?
Your example is certainly not buyer collusion, so no legal grey area here.
Yes, an implied agreement CAN BE collusion, depending on the other facts. The grey area is the difficulty in proving that there was, indeed, an implied agreement, as you suggested. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. We actually agree on this.
Collusion is illegal in the United States, Sherman Antitrust of 1890 Act Section 1 "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding
three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
Clayton Act of 1914 "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States."
The gray areas are very clear to me, don't mess with federal laws. Ignorance cannot be used as a defense, and the FTC does go after small cases at times.
Robert Scot: Engraving Liberty - biography of US Mint's first chief engraver
Players partnering - Organizing bids regarded as a common business strategic practice in the industry / free enterprise, working your angle.
2 dealer friends (sole proprietors) sharing a table at a currency show looking over the auction catalog (for Retail stock). picking out what to bid on based on budget and avoiding bidding against their friend. Example - Dealer A wants a nice AU $10 1882 Brownback, Dealer B wants a scarce Dallas AU NBN $20 plainback only 6 known for that bank per the Kellybook. Beyond that they have about 10 more auc targets each where not in competition against each other.They will have fierce competition enough at the auction from both other dealers and rich collectors (putting in nuclear bids, favored to win the item). Considering the show costs they will need good retail sales, good auction wins (allowing good retail markup) to offset the costs of setting up at the out of town show. They Organizing bidding to have at least some $$ left over close to auc end (when collectors run out of money). It’s called the end game.
I like attending (setting up) currency shows and excitement bidding in auction getting some great wins. Good proprietary growth of the business a major goal.
@Cougar1978 Yes, this can be done legally but there's a fine line there and much grey area.
Let me throw in another hypothetical into your example. Both dealers carry bids to execute for others. Is there any way that they might compare bids and knock each other out so as not to end up bidding against each other? Remember, they are not the actual buyers but agents for the buyers.
I have been in this situation and have bid one increment above my lower bidder's maximum on behalf of the higher bidder. If it started and sold below both bidders maximum, how do you explain to the losing bidder why you didn't continue to execute their bid to their maximum? That's one reason why bidders sometimes "jump the bid" at auction-it's to knock out a lower bidder. What would you do?
Collector and dealer in obsolete currency. Always buying all obsolete bank notes and scrip.
I don’t bid for others. I am buying for Retail Inventory (roster needs) in those auctions per my procurement policy.
Procurement is based on the strategic objectives of the business, Cash Flow Situation, and Plan Spending.
As far as dealers executing bids for orders that’s a tough arena. Perhaps ask them. Say dealer bids it way up to get it will he get the sale (to Client) or be stuck with it? Yes can see how they may jump the bid to avoid a terrible situation.
Was considering bidding on a CACG coin. CAC CDN bid was $95. It was at $89 with an hour to close - I put in a bid of $117 (sceptical I would win but just had to do a ping see if a real target out there). I won it for $110.
Comments
INTENT it is all about INTENT.....
trying to cheat a seller or trying to help a friend.......
if they were the only 2 bidders then maybe some collusion here...... but with many bidders
there is no devalue to the seller.
With many bidders there is a lower likelihood to impact the final price by withholding bids but that's not always the case. If there are 20 bidders with moderate interest or funds who are only willing to bid on an item up to $1000 but you and your buddy are extremely interested bidders willing to spend up to $2000 and one of you decides to back out then ultimate hammer price is greatly impacted.
And this happens all the time at "country auctions". My buddy and I were often able to buy silver at well back of melt if it popped up at an antique auction. World paper is complicated and he was able to buy thousand dollar notes for $25 because I stayed out of his way.
People want to excuse the friend exception because they aren't an "evil corporation". But it is actually harder for Christie's and Sotheby's to conspire to rig a Heritage auction than it is for two friends to rig a "country auction". Yet people want to condemn the former and excuse the latter. But they are the same "sin" with the same intent: to reduce the hammer price.
That last statement is unequivocally false.
You’re assuming intent without any facts to prove it.
In my earlier statement about reasonableness, the collector’s intent is to add a coin to their collection at any cost, not reduce the price. For the dealers it’s the opposite. They have to reduce the price to maximize profit for their business.
The question is not whether a Merriam Webster definition of collusion is met. What would a court think about the two scenarios? Undoubtedly they would see them differently.
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
No, it’s not like that. I see a coin I know my buddy would be interested in. I reach out to make sure he saw it. In some cases he hadn’t so now the auction lot has his attention. Knowing he’s going after it, I’m happy for him and no longer interested myself. I may or may not have bid otherwise, but now Ive decided not to. It’s like you’re saying I’m now required to bid my max amount or I’m breaking the law. That’s stupid.
Accidentally dropping your hot dog at a coin show is also littering and property damage too by the way. Hold on tight to your mustard packets, folks!
Still have to say No, you really didn't want it anyway or your friend would have stepped aside.
TRUE and who does it hurt?
You have to have a victim for colusion.
The market sets the price, with or without someone stepping aside.
Even the friends are competitive. If both have a need or a want to maybe flip a coin for profit do they flip a coin to see who passes on said coin.
Closest thing to True is a clock that resets to 15 minutes after receiving a bid under the 15 minute mark.
Not taking into account all other variables.
No doubt that the larger internet participation has made buyer collusion more difficult, But, sometimes good collections are sold live where there is no internet participation. And even those auctions with internet bidders, the most serious dealers in specialized material tend to be present for the big collections as they must often view material before bidding. Still plenty of opportunity to collude and I suspect that it's still pretty rampant. I believe that some auctions are still being carved up pretty effectively and others to a lesser extent or not at all. I would presume that internet bidding may have lessened the problem somewhat but it's not a moot debate yet.
@sellitstore
I can’t imagine a ‘good’ collection of coins or paper money being auctioned without an Internet catalog and bidding available online. Comic books or Star Wars figurines, maybe.
I’m sure it sometimes happens. But not only is that a major screwup by the consignor, but one which offers those with the means and motives to exploit the opportunity presented.
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
I don't agree.
Collusion is an act that can be done by either collectors or dealers but both are illegal and immoral.
Either collectors or dealers can discuss lots in an auction without fear of collusion but they can't make agreements not to bid against each other in order for one to purchase the lot for less than they would have.
There's nothing illegal (or immoral) about asking a friend which lots he is interested in bidding on and then deciding not to bid on those lots because you don't want to run your friend up. It's obviously best to have some idea of who the stronger bidder is. One might then suggest comparing bids but now we're delving deeper into the grey area.
"Hey, what do you have on lot 3456? I'm at $800."
"I'm only at $500"
Really, nothing more needs to be said. But if you do propose, "Well I'll lay off 3456 if you lay off the lots on which I'm high bidder." Now you have probably crossed the line into collusion.
Of course this system only works if the colluders are honest with each other. If you said that you were bidding up to $800 for lot 3456 then I don't want to see you drop out of the bidding lower, right? Comparing notes isn't technically illegal and I'm not suggesting that anyone engage in this behavior because it does serve the purpose of collusion. Making an actual agreement is illegal. The prosecution could contend that your agreement was understood. Like I said-grey areas abound.
I don’t think anyone is disagreeing with you here.
It’s totally different to say “I’m the high bidder, don’t bid because it’ll make me pay more”. It’s even more aggravated if those involved are dealers attempting to maximize profit.
Than
“I really want this coin for my set, let me have it”
Also you can disagree about my reasonableness portion but you haven’t discussed why. Sure collectors can form an illegal collusion ring but that’s not what implied here. It’s perfectly REASONABLE, as you stated yourself, for collectors to discuss these things and help each other build their sets. Practically that may look like “go for it, you really like it more than me.”
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
I'll admit that I wasn't impressed with a thread about fighting over coins in which the O/P was clearly admitting to his immoral activities. When I realized that I was taking the thread off topic, something that I had accused the O/P of that thread to doing with my previous thread, I did the proper thing and started this thread on collusion, which has produced some interesting reading. I then left this chapter of the Bust Half Nut Club to themselves. Many of them seem to have no problem with collusion as nobody has answered how would you like it if your collection is carved up when sold, realizing much less than you expected. Yes, illegal AND immoral activity, even if just innocently among friends. The world paper money dealers prosecuted by the Feds in the 1990s were just friends, too. They would have been much better off as friendly competitors.
If you want to see comradery, try the CU Paper Money discussion board. It's MUCH more civil over there and we're all friends. Rarely is anyone challenged there. Here, some people look to challenge anything and that's not really helpful.
Without facts to prove what? My friend and I stayed out of each other's way so that we could buy more cheaply. It had NOTHING to do with acquiring it. We could easily have bid against each other and acquired it at closer to retail. That's a fact. The ONLY reason to stay out of a friend's way is to decrease the hammer price. Otherwise you would just both bid until one of you reached your max and bowed out. My bidding against him does NOT prevent him acquiring it, it just increases the price at which he acquires. It needs no proof, it is self-evident.
“They are the same sin with the same intent.”
Intent. To prove intent. Intent is not self-evident.
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
Except that stupidity is the law. How is that any different if two dealers or corporations have the same discussion? Christie's wants it at up to $5 million. Sotheby's wants it at up to $8 million. No one else wants to pay more than $3 million. Why does Christie's have to bid their max amount? They are going to lose anyway. So they do a favor for a "friend" who will hopefully return the favor.
What other intent do they have to not bid up to their max? [The assumption is not that they don't want the coin. They want it but for less money. ]
You can want to win a coin without the intent to get it for a lesser price
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
Again, discussions are OK. Agreements may not be and could constitute collusion. Discussions with implied agreements are in the grey area.
Yes. But if you all your friend to not bid, the only intent is to get it at a lesser price. Otherwise, you'd just outbid him.
That's ridiculous. I can choose to bid or not bid whenever I want. There are hundreds of reasons I may choose to bid or not bid. By your logic, if I ever discussed an auction lot with a friend, I would then be bound by law to bid on that lot to some maximum amount I would have bid, had I not had that conversation.
Too many people in this thread that seem to enjoy arguing without putting their thinking caps on.
No we don't!
But seriously...
Another absolutely absurd statement. Rarely is anyone challenged over there? Perhaps we (I for certain) don't take your suppositions, assumptions, assertions, and inanities as the solid gold you think they are.
Chopmarked Trade Dollar Registry Set --- US Gold Showcase --- World Gold Showcase --- World Chopmark Showcase
That's not what I said. I said two friends both want it, but one wants it more so the other stays out of their way.
You're probably right, so maybe you should put your cap on.
Tautology
BHNC #248 … 108 and counting.
How is a discussion with an implied agreement in the grey area? It may be harder to prove in court without a written commitment. However, a discussion with an (implied) agreement is the definition of collusion.
"Hey, baby, if you gave me a $250 gift, I'd probably be VERY grateful all the way back to your place." Legal grey area?
So if two buddies have a discussion about " let me have this one", it's just helping out a bro...
... unless the two buddies are dealers, then it's collusion.
Got it.
Gotta love the collector vs. dealer double standards...
Bid rigging is illegal but it still happens; I've seen/heard it at more than one auction. " Hey, don't bid on that Pan Pac- I need it and you're just going to cost me more money because I gotta leave with it- I'll let you have that 93-S in return".
RIP Mom- 1932-2012
I have done nothing except read most of the posts here. And it seems as if there are real problems... almost guilt by association. One can attend an auction...choose not to bid for whatever reason... and because they have certain knowledge and choose not to bid...which remains their right and prerogative, that should not somehow create an obligation on their part...along the lines of a good Samaritan... to bid or do something noble to save the day for the consignor.
On the other hand, if there is bidding that was pre-arranged or agreed in advance among participants as to who was going to bid on what with the intent of limiting bids and squashing some level of competition... that is a different set of circumstances and is morally bankrupt not to mention illegal.
Sadly there is a stench emanating from this thread that requires a shower from just engaging and reading it.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Yo, @coinkat
Typekat here. You know, your cousin…
Hey, don’t sweat this stuff - it’s just social media. Imagining it’s real and true will drive you nuts.
Now, hit the showers, and you’ll feel better tomorrow!
30+ years coin shop experience (ret.) Coins, bullion, currency, scrap & interesting folks. Loved every minute!
On 3-26-2024 I attended a Sheriff's Sale of real property. The property sold is about 20 acres of undeveloped land located in an expensive city. A portion of the land is steeply sloped (likely unbuildable) and a portion is flat (likely buildable). The Sale took as part of the enforcement of an unpaid judgment and judgment lien (in second priority position behind an first priority deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00) of about $80,000.00. The market value of the property currently is estimated to be about $650-$700K.
My client and I appeared at the sale. Another bidder appeared at the sale. Everyone at the sale was aware of the first deed of trust loan of about $370,000.00 on the property (which was in default and in foreclosure) Everyone at the sale understood (incorrectly it turns out) that the balance of the loan secured by the first deed of trust was about $370,000.00.
My client and the other bidder placed bids on the property at the Sheriff's Sale. My client placed a credit bid of $12,000.00. The other bidder had placed a cash bid of $11,000.00 and bid no higher. As a result my client won the property at the Sheriff's Sale and will obtain title to the property through a Sheriff's Deed.
The day following the Sheriff's Sale I learned from the foreclosure trustee handling the foreclosure of the first deed of trust on the property that the amount of money required to payoff the first deed of trust loan was not $370,000.00. Instead the amount required to payoff that loan was just under $15,000.00.
My client and I were stunned. My client paid just under $15,000.00 required to pay off the first deed of trust loan. As a result my client is now the owner of a property worth about $650-$700K. My client's financial investment in this property is a $12,000.00 credit bid on its $80,000.00 judgment (leaving a deficiency balance of about $68,000.00 that it can collect from other assets and income of the judgment debtor) and just under $15,000.00 paid to pay off the first deed of trust loan.
My question to you is:
If my client and I had been aware that the first deed of trust loan on the property had an unpaid balance of only about $15,000.00 on 3-26-2024 at the Sheriff's Sale, would my client and I be guilty of collusion if we did not disclose that information to the other bidder (who placed a max bid of $11,000.00 at the sale)?
Had that information been known on 3-26-2024 the bidding at the Sheriff's Sale would have gone much higher than $12,000.00.
What say you?
No. There's no other party involved. There has to be a colluding partner. You knowing something that others don't isn't collusion. However, if you and the other bidder were the only ones who knew about it and agreed to not bid against each other, then yes.
If I knew the senior loan balance was $15k instead of $370k I would be obligated as an attorney to inform my client of same.
If both my client and I know this, the question becomes whether my client and I are colluding to depress the bid price at the Sheriff's Sale (to the benefit of my client and to the detriment of the other bidder and to the property owner/debtor being foreclosed upon) if we do not disclose this information to the other bidder at the Sheriff's Sale (since disclosing that information would cause a large increase in the winning bid price paid at the sale).
Anyone remember the Pennypacker sale of large cents in Philadelphia in the 1950s? All of the large cent people knew about it. One of the Stack's boys (I think) went down there, bought everything, brought it all back. And the large cent people held their own auction.
shhh....don't tell the forum sheriffs about stuff like this. IT's collusion!!
I don't think so, it's just a situation where you think you have more information than the other bidders, but you're not communicating with them. Maybe you're right or maybe you're mistaken, or maybe you're missing something else that all the other bidders know. I do this kind of stuff too, and where I'm at, in my experience, it's more common for some, usually unsophisticated, bidders NOT to know about the 1st position or other senior encumbrances and mistakenly bid it up. Whoops. Or someone buys a property cheap at a judicial foreclosure sale without also having the redemption rights, then they remodel it during the redemption period and get redeemed after the remodel. Or the property gets bid over credit and someone unexpected owns the surplus proceeds. I don't think any of this asymmetry of information constitutes collusion. On the other hand, something like giving lunch money to other bidders to take a walk during the sale would be collusion.
Your example is certainly not buyer collusion, so no legal grey area here.
Yes, an implied agreement CAN BE collusion, depending on the other facts. The grey area is the difficulty in proving that there was, indeed, an implied agreement, as you suggested. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point. We actually agree on this.
And the problem is that some in our business don't see this as a problem. It's deeply rooted and still exists today.
I'm sorry that you find this discussion so upsetting.
Your first paragraph contains many false and misguided statements. They are not true. Don't believe them. They are what is upsetting you. Not everything everyone says here is accurate. Many people offer wrong information.
Having certain knowledge and choosing not to bid is NOT EVER a problem. Making agreements with others not to bid in order to keep prices down is where you will run into trouble. It really can be boiled down to that.
See, nothing really to be upset about.
No, you are acting as a representative of your client, so are, in effect acting as the same entity. If you gain this information and decide to bid against your client, not only do you have ethical problems with your client, but, if you make an arrangement not to bid against your client in order to keep the price low, then you may have a case of collusion, too.
Is there any obligation of the auctioneer to disclose or disclose accurately the balance due on the mortgage or is this part of the due diligence that buyers are expect to preform? Did the auctioneer do anything wrong?
Collusion would have only been a possibility here if you and the other bidder made an arrangement, either verbal, written or implied in order to not bid against each other to keep the price down. Or, If your lawyer decided to become a third bidder and made a deal with either of the other two bidders in order to keep the price down, that's collusion.
Got it. Thanks
Collusion is illegal in the United States, Sherman Antitrust of 1890 Act Section 1 "Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding
$10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding
three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
Clayton Act of 1914 "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States."
The gray areas are very clear to me, don't mess with federal laws. Ignorance cannot be used as a defense, and the FTC does go after small cases at times.
When I first read the title, I thought there was a website named auction collusion.
Players partnering - Organizing bids regarded as a common business strategic practice in the industry / free enterprise, working your angle.
2 dealer friends (sole proprietors) sharing a table at a currency show looking over the auction catalog (for Retail stock). picking out what to bid on based on budget and avoiding bidding against their friend. Example - Dealer A wants a nice AU $10 1882 Brownback, Dealer B wants a scarce Dallas AU NBN $20 plainback only 6 known for that bank per the Kellybook. Beyond that they have about 10 more auc targets each where not in competition against each other.They will have fierce competition enough at the auction from both other dealers and rich collectors (putting in nuclear bids, favored to win the item). Considering the show costs they will need good retail sales, good auction wins (allowing good retail markup) to offset the costs of setting up at the out of town show. They Organizing bidding to have at least some $$ left over close to auc end (when collectors run out of money). It’s called the end game.
I like attending (setting up) currency shows and excitement bidding in auction getting some great wins. Good proprietary growth of the business a major goal.
@Cougar1978 Yes, this can be done legally but there's a fine line there and much grey area.
Let me throw in another hypothetical into your example. Both dealers carry bids to execute for others. Is there any way that they might compare bids and knock each other out so as not to end up bidding against each other? Remember, they are not the actual buyers but agents for the buyers.
I have been in this situation and have bid one increment above my lower bidder's maximum on behalf of the higher bidder. If it started and sold below both bidders maximum, how do you explain to the losing bidder why you didn't continue to execute their bid to their maximum? That's one reason why bidders sometimes "jump the bid" at auction-it's to knock out a lower bidder. What would you do?
I don’t bid for others. I am buying for Retail Inventory (roster needs) in those auctions per my procurement policy.
Procurement is based on the strategic objectives of the business, Cash Flow Situation, and Plan Spending.
As far as dealers executing bids for orders that’s a tough arena. Perhaps ask them. Say dealer bids it way up to get it will he get the sale (to Client) or be stuck with it? Yes can see how they may jump the bid to avoid a terrible situation.
Was considering bidding on a CACG coin. CAC CDN bid was $95. It was at $89 with an hour to close - I put in a bid of $117 (sceptical I would win but just had to do a ping see if a real target out there). I won it for $110.