Collection Strategy & Economic uncertainty

For an honest one man business, a legally binding contract is fine, until the one man suffers a stroke and can no longer fulfill the contract. It's like that 30 year guarentee on your roof, but your roofer is 50 yo.

The guarenteed return is the keystone to a Ponzi scheme...been there done that in the early 80s when I was in the cash economy. It's fine, if you're like me and get in early. Your initial investment plus more is paid out to you before the scheme tanks. A legally binding contract is not a protection against a Ponzi scheme. In my case, Ponzi skipped and prosecutors don't like fraud cases; Bernie is an exception and most people would do his time for the payoff he and his family still sit on.
 
brownshoe said:
Bernie is an exception and most people would do his time for the payoff he and his family still sit on.
Click to expand...

I guess that that statement is expected from someone who values money more than anything; personally, I do not.

My time is a non-renewable resource--you can get more money but you sure can't buy time. I would not trade all of Madoff's money for time spent in prison away from my loved ones. As we say, life's too short.
 
Les Robertson said:
Bernie Madoff, did not have a legally binding contract with a 12 month time frame. If he did, he would have been found out to be a thief long before he was.
Click to expand...

This is complete nonsense.

Until the very end, Bernie promptly paid ALL the requests for withdrawals by his customers. Which of course was the beauty of his scheme. Everyone was relaxed and had complete confidence that they would be paid if they ever needed the money. Also anyone who was enjoying his high rate of returns would have be deemed crazy to withdraw money from the sure thing.

Also, having a court order (generated by that terrific "legally binding contract") is completely worthless, IF you can't locate assets to attach. Just ask Mr. Madoff's creditors.

P
 
stizman said:
This is an interesting discussion. I'm waiting for the answer Les. BLP, GLP or MOP?
Click to expand...

Well, I posted an answer to this question (I said MOP) and was told I needed to do more homework. So I got out David Daroms book Custom Folding Knives and saw that almost all the pearl handled knives were Blacklip pearl. I guess the "correct" answer is Blacklip pearl. (sorry STeven, I hope this doesn't impact your collecting) However, the chapter on Warenski, arguably the greatest maker in the book, has a picture of two folders, one is Blacklip and one is MOP. I'd buy the MOP folder.

I also have a better way for Les to prove his point about custom knives being a good investment. Instead of having to give Les money to invest (he won't let you see what his investments are unless you give him money to invest) Les ought to use his own money and for a fee (like paying for financial advice from a newsletter) let us see the list of his investments, what he bought, how much he paid for it, what the ROI was. etc. This would truly be risk free. The only risk would be to Les, if he didn't perform the subscribers would see for themselves where the money went. Les would also have income from the subscription fee.
 
I think Les is making a point rather that soliciting for investors. He says he's willing to back up what he says with money. That's typical of the Les I know. And someone who puts his full name as his handle.

If you have bought knives you like--then the value you get for them when it is time to sale should not matter. That is why you bought them. If you never plan to sell them, then why should you care what your family will get for them? If they are of no value to you other than the pleasure of owning them, then forget about what you paid or what they're worth--and you probably shouldn't be commenting on knife values, appreciation, or monetary considerations since by your own definition you've said that is not your motivation.

However, when we ask ourselves whether our knife collecting has been a success or failure, in the eyes of most people--it is not self satisfaction. Have you ever looked at someone else's knives and thought, "I bet he gets a lot of satisfaction in owning them, even though they are worth half of what he paid?"

No. If you look at a friend's knife collection and if it crammed with Loveless, Moran, Herron, Warenski, Steve Johnson, Ernest Emerson, Tony Bose your first thought is "Darn, what a nice collection." The very thing that makes the aforementioned makers names that jerks everyone to attention is the value of those knives.

If some of those maker's I've mentioned only brought $150 on today's market there are a lot of collectors who wouldn't give them a second glance.

No one seems to want gold at $400 an ounce, or AR-15's at $800. But let the price go to $1000 an ounce for gold or $1500 for an AR, and half the people you see are asking about them.

Most collectors do not hunt out knives for their collection based on the quality of the knives themselves. That decision usually includes the knives, the maker's personality, the amount of publicity he has received, the perceived demand of his knives, and oh yeah, how much those knives have appreciated in value.

The key to successful collecting at the bottom line is not collecting what you like but collecting what everyone else likes--and hopefully what everyone will like even more years down the road. I was around when the ivory micarta boot knife craze hit handmade knives in the 80's. Anyone get a lot of self satisfaction out of owning those if you bought them directly from the makers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top