rudy talks alot about print runs. I am very surprised he does not have a position in japanese modern. From my observations on japanese modern-- they just print it and are done with it and move on to the next set. There have been several times where I see a set/booster box I may want to buy and ultimately don’t and before I know it, its the end of the year and the price is double or tripled
3 Likes
It’s because he can’t get product at distributor pricing. Even if he could, he couldn’t get the volume because Japanese supply is more balanced. This is why Japanese sets increase faster because there aren’t individuals with 20,000 boxes.
10 Likes
pain. this has happened to me so many times
1 Like
Hah thanks for the guidance, yep always been shocking at maths. Hey well 16% I’d certainly take it. I’m gonna write the formula down somewhere. I’ve added a do not listen to my maths disclaimer to the post. On the plus side the point I was trying to make still works! 
1 Like
Oh absolutely, your point still stands. Rudy’s strategy could perform better than simply parking his money in index funds and even when accounting for additional fees (warehousing, storage, sales fees, postage) he’s probably able to crack around that magical 10% annualized return for his sealed product — and that is only on steam siege. Other sets (cough evolving skies) may produce more outsized returns. He wouldn’t continue to do it if he didn’t have an anecdotal track record of success.
Side point: many folks religiously plug the stability of just sending it on SPY or VTSAX, citing anywhere from 8-10% YoY return numbers; they plan their retirements around these figures. But there is absolutely no guarantee that global superpowers will maintain their status into the future.
Look at Japan and their Nikkei 225 (think of it as Japan’s S&P). If you invested $1m in 1991 into the Nikkei, and 30 years later you pulled all your money out (say in late 2020), you’d have (drumroll please) $1m. Despite being an industrial superpower, Japan had 30 years of stagnation. Most folks and the smart money are placing bets on such a scenario not happening in the USA—but could it happen? It’s within our range of outcomes.
TL;DR: for almost everyone, especially the average person, investing IS gambling. Even in ETFs. Reminds me of this:
10 Likes
still not saying that Rudy’s investment won’t work out great for him, but if the United States’ market starts to mirror Japan’s market in 1991, i don’t think many people will be focused on buying ETBs.
1 Like
Rudy must have the biggest of biceps after lifting all those thousands of astral radiance etbs. Thats where the real gains are in this scenario
3 Likes
Don’t forget his beefy upper back from carrying heavy bags.
Completely disagree with this viewpoint. Conventional investing, i.e, index funds, individual stocks, etc, are not gambling at all. Buying those securities is investing and speculating, NOT gambling - they are very different things. (for reference, see: (Speculation vs. Gambling: What's the Difference?).
There is no 100% guarantee of anything, ever. But the odds of a major superpower like the EU or US collapsing and the value of investments in those geopolitical blocs stagnating or going to zero are…near zero.
Japan is an entirely different case. It is a small, rocky series of islands with very little natural resources and a massive population. Comparing Japan to a geopolitical bloc is apples to oranges.
Japans economy is very different from that of the EU’s or the US’s.
Investing is absolutely not gambling. If forced at gunpoint to choose between between investing a retirement fund in index funds or an equivalent amount in USD of sealed Storm Siege boxes, you’d be an absolute moron to choose the Storm Siege boxes.
7 Likes
If the only distinction between gambling and investments is a negative vs positive expected value, then it’s a perfectly fair comparison. The practical results are very different but the essence is the same. Wagering money to gain more money.
It’s still a “gamble” to invest in index funds. There’s a reason you move your money out of these kinds of investments as you get closer to retirement because a short-term investment in an index fund can very much be negative.
I also think that we don’t know at all the probability of a large civilization collapse. I think making a confident claim either way is a bit naive. This is a bit conjecture on my part but I believe that exponentially growing civilizations are also living in exponentially shrinking lifespans. Just like a bunch of bacteria in a petri dish, the faster they grow the shorter lifespan of the colonies on the dish. This all assumes a closed system however.
Generally I don’t think you’re wrong in any of your remarks, just wanted to offer some counterweight to some of your points. I would also take an index fund over an equivalent amount of etb. Though that has more to do with liquidity than anything.
2 Likes
I know you’re making a point, but I want to be clear that I agree with this sentiment and your assessment of the level of downside risk present with each of these investment choices given the amount of information I have.
My takeaway from this article is in how the author is defining “speculation” vs. “gambling”. It’s important to define key terms in understanding any argument, so I’ll go ahead and define what I meant by “gambling” in my original post vs. what the author of the article is defining “gambling” as.
The author interestingly defines gambling multiple times. Once by saying, “Gambling refers to wagering money in an event that has an uncertain outcome in hopes of winning more money.” But, the author continues, further clarifying what he means, “ Converse to speculation, gambling involves a game of chance. Generally, the odds are stacked against gamblers. When gambling, the probability of losing an investment is usually higher than the probability of winning more than the investment.”
Notice in this clarification 1) the very uncertain terms like “generally”, “usually”, (not too useful when defining terms concretely) 2) notice he uses “the probability of losing an investment”, and 3) he’s clearly alluding to a casino-type of game in which the house takes a rake, making the game unfavorable.
What I meant by ‘gambling’ is more akin to his unclarified, first definition. It applies to both index fund investing AND buying steam siege boxes AND a game of roulette AND betting on a fair coin toss with a stranger in statistics class AND sports betting, etc.
I didn’t use ‘speculating’ in my post, but I think when he tries to define it, his entire point (and tbh yours by dint of sharing the article to explain the difference between the words/concepts) falls apart. “Speculation refers to the act of conducting a financial transaction that has a substantial risk of losing value but also holds the expectation of a significant gain or other major value.”
How is this any different than my definition of gambling? People don’t gamble expecting to make a loss, they think they’re going to win. Gambling also carries a substantial risk of loss. Furthermore, in his second ‘gambling’ definition he says it involves a “game of chance” — I’d say conducting a financial transaction where you have high upside and downside is a game of chance.
He continues on, changing the definition of ‘gambling’ again, “Gambling, on the other hand, always involves a negative expected return — the house always has the advantage.” I don’t remember there being a “house” in our definition but there is always a house in casino games and sports betting. He’s confused.
I’m not going to continue picking apart the article, but I’ll wrap up by saying, I still see risk involved in putting your money in ETFs and steam siege boxes—one appears less risky but in both cases you’re speculating, gambling, investing, whatever.
No, the odds of a major superpower like the EU or US collapsing are 100%. The thing you have to predict (and where risk comes in) is time horizon, always. There are dozens of examples of massive ‘too big to fail’ empires (and companies and banks and countries and and and) that have. It’s a guarantee.
TL;DR: I respectfully disagree ser, my mind is not changed.
3 Likes
I can’t believe that e4 has two Rudy threads
3 Likes
What were the print numbers like in 2016 compared to 2024 though?
In the United States the taxes for long term capital gains on stock profit can be 0%, 15% or capped out at 20%. On collectibles the tax rate you are supposed to pay is a flat 28% regardless if your other income puts you in a higher or lower tax bracket.
Does he pay an employee to process orders, or will he be doing this himself? What do you value your time at when you are 50 or 60 years old? This could all be very time consuming compared to clicking a few buttons to sell your stock.
IMO I think Pokemon is around for a long time, but he can’t really change his position that easily, without it costing a lot. With an index fund they can sell and buy stock and change the allocation of the fund over time without you having to do it yourself and without you having to pay taxes.
Storage cost, is he renting a facility? What is the utility bill to keep these in the right condition for 20 years, what is the property tax if he owns it?
A lot to consider, his situation can change a lot of factors.
In regard to print runs in 2016 vs now; they’re virtually irrelevant. I quoted Keynes’ “markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent” in another thread, and it very much applies to investing in Pokémon cards or sealed product. There are too many other variables at play that influence the price of any given product at any given time, not to mention the introduction of new variables over time that don’t exist now but may exist in the future, or which exist now but may be far more relevant in the future. Social media influence between 2016 and now is one example. It’s why in the other thread about Evolving Skies speculation about its price is fun, but ultimately pointless.
The main point made here is the fact that even the “worst” Pokemon products have, at least on the face of it, out-performed a typical index fund or passive investment vehicle, even when considering expenses involved. As you point out Rudy probably has greater associated costs than the average person, but he also scales significantly more which greatly dilutes the cost per unit product. Given his portfolio of properties and other funds that generate income and general aversion to debt, especially non-leveraged debt, there’s a likelihood he either owns his warehouse or has an attractive lease deal on it. And this is all just talking about facilitating investment in bottom of the barrel products. Better products like Evolutions have produced double those returns. If this wasn’t true, Rudy wouldn’t be doing it. The juice has to be worth the squeeze for him. If the annualized returns made over the last 10 years for him proved to be about the same as an index fund, the Alpha Investments YouTube channel probably wouldn’t exist. The guy even owns a big whiteboard, it’s not like he hasn’t crunched the numbers.
1 Like
My thought on any of posts like these is that people just are anti Rudy.
Rudy is in the open, he is vocal about his actions and why he does it. I bet this forum has people lurking just like Rudy, that are doing the exact same thing, but hiding in the shadows. The upper tier of Pokémon Collectors are all just like Rudy. Building positions first, using Youtube, Patron, X, Instagram to talk product down so they can scoop for lower prices. And hype up when product is out of print/out of stock.
I don’t know who this is aimed at, but I’m in that position and I don’t do anything you described. Even people who try to, it has no real effect. I just commented in another thread how the largest poketuber (pokerev) hyping something up didn’t last, because the market is bigger than even the biggest individual.
9 Likes
It’s always easier to know where the waves are instead of trying to make your own.
2 Likes
the cabal strikes again
7 Likes
Heard some really wild speculations on ES bb…
But I’m just contented buying blisters! 
(Love the free pins and promo cards that came with blister)
1 Like