Reading through this thread, it seems like there’s an interesting paradox here: some of the people with more valuable collections ($100k+) are less inclined to count their collections as part of their “net worth,” at least in concrete terms — though of course this isn’t universal. Maybe we can attribute this to the fact that people with extremely expensive collections are more likely to have (1) more non-Pokémon assets and (2) more experience dealing with the technical points of finance and asset management, and therefore a narrower concept of what is or isn’t advantageous to count as part of one’s worth for tax purposes, etc.
For my part, I am a very small fish… The optimized value of my collection is <$50k. Nonetheless, I certainly count it when contemplating my “net worth” in my head, or in discussions with my friends, etc., because it’s the single largest asset I own by a pretty distant long shot. I make decent money, but I do not own a house, my car is old, and my savings/investments/retirement accounts combined are (unfortunately) worth less than my Pokémon cards — and the summation of those is barely more than my remaining student loan debt.
As I get older and — hopefully — accumulate more non-Pokémon assets, and as I familiarize myself more with how financial institutions and the government treat certain assets, my perspective on this will probably change. For the time being, though, my net worth essentially is my collection. For purposes of feeling good about myself and my finances, I most definitely count it.
No, if the value of my collection fell to $0, I’d still be happy having the cards. Unlike other financial vehicles, it’s not something I view as liquid enough to use for things like food, housing, etc.
Certainly everything has *some* kind of value, but that’s like asking if I count my Nintendo Switch, PC, and the clothes in my closet as part of my net worth. They have value, but they’re not liquid enough for me to see them as money rather than a purchase.
I felt the same way about the random money I threw into cryptocurrency years ago, but even that has immediate liquidity through sites like coinbase. Pokemon cards have no such option unless you take a steep discount and sell cheaply, and even then you still have to mail things off unless you find a local buyer who is just waiting to buy things at all times.
Maybe she’s more of a BGS type of gal? Wait, no no no, you’ve got yourself a raw card lover right there, pal. Show her your binder and she’ll never go slabbed again.
It depends on what standard you set to consider things as part of your “net worth”. For me, it’s things that are easily liquid. For you, it seems to include things that can increase in value over time. Though (being pedantic) by that strict definition, cash is not part of your net worth since it technically depreciates in purchasing power over the time you hold it due to inflation.
People consider their home values in their net worth all the time, but the price of the house itself depreciates as you live in it. (Usually this is more than offset the appreciation of the land that it’s on.)
Do you not consider pokemon cards easily liquid? Sure for boxes of bulk and 2 dollar gx/ex cards but for any card over 100 bucks, you do an auction on ebay and itll sell easily and likely close to its market value.
I don’t consider them easily liquid in the same way that stocks / bonds are, where you get market value whenever you need to sell.
My collection is a mix of WotC-era 1st editions (which are generally more liquid), but also a lot of obscure promos. The foreign promos are rare and don’t pop up often on eBay, but their price can range greatly depending on if you have 2+ interested parties or not. In that sense, they’re not really liquid bc the supply has to match up with demand, otherwise you sell at a steep discount.
I think card condition also ties into lack of liquidity. Much of my collection is ungraded because I prefer the look / feel of a binder, but prices are really only assigned market values once they’re graded, which is a huge friction to moving things around. Raw prices (rightfully so) are much lower and range wider depending on audience. It’s not like stocks where one common share of $TSLA is the exact same as another.
Why not. If people cringe at the idea of their own collection but turn the cheek when they see that art makes part of some of the 1%'s worth then they shouldn’t be into collecting. After all the elite aren’t the ones commenting.
[EDIT]
It’s fustrating/ amusing to still see people on here of all places have anxiety to how the public percieves them when it’s the people laughed at who eventually win.
I like to keep track of the general value of my collection, but it isn’t something that I would consider in my overall net worth with things like other assets and income. Collecting does require some form of financial management for me, but I don’t really consider it “investing” because I am not overly concerned with the monetary value aside from how much it will cost me. I am not trying to make money, nor do I want to be some kind of business tycoon turning millions out of cards. I just like Pokemon!