Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;mrbrklyn, post: 482185, member: 4381&quot;]Putting aside the emotional charge that the term fraud generates for a moment, understand that it is possible that if a dealer is making a business of hedging investment advise of others that they can also be caught up in a fraud based on that business practice.&nbsp; With CAC though, that is there core business.</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, understand that even the recent Madoff $50,000,000 Ponzy scheme probably didn&#039;t start off as an attempt to deceive.&nbsp; It&#039;s likely that he started out with some legitimate investment which he got wiped out on and then covered it up to save face, which fed on itself.&nbsp; A business model which leads to a economic forces that cause the business to inevitably put the business into a position of deceit in order to maintain profitability is how economists define a fraud.&nbsp;&nbsp; Hedging others investment opinions for profit is an old and known fraud in this regard.</p><p><br /></p><p>For example, if CAC reslabbed their coins with fractional grading, then the market would respond with competition and follow CAC down that path.&nbsp; That would be an open market where CAC is an innovator and in competition.&nbsp; A long time ago I asked what could any of the TPGers do to compete in the CAC market share.&nbsp; The answer is nothing, because CAC is grading the Slabbers opinions.&nbsp; No matter how accurate, fractional or perfect the grading of the slabbers is, CAC will claim another level of secondary hedge opinion in order to survive.&nbsp; Whether the hedge opinion is based on observable fact or not is irrelevant over time.&nbsp; They MUST produce a quantifiable amount of market uncertainty about the slabber grades to ensure profitability.&nbsp; Therefor, regardless of any claims of criteria that CAC might make, the model can not be sustained without inevitable deceit, unless there is collusion which is fraud on a grander scale involving more market players.</p><p><br /></p><p>I respect that others might disagree with me on this, but you should give this some thought and understand the underlined reasoning I&#039;m making.&nbsp; Its not revolutionary on my part.&nbsp; I&#039;ve read it in books <img src="styles/default/xenforo/clear.png" class="mceSmilieSprite mceSmilie1" alt=":)" unselectable="on" unselectable="on" /></p><p><br /></p><p>Also, it is possibly for many legitimate businesses to do things that are dicey at best for a variety of reasons, even without the intention of doing anything wrong.&nbsp; You can&#039;t squeeze that out of the market place, nor would you really want to.&nbsp; Its part of the risks of business.&nbsp; But it is difficult at best for a single dealer to warp the market by himself, nor is hedging opinions their bread and butter.&nbsp; In fact, I&#039;d venture to say that much of these types of deals, in as much as they might exist, the dealer is really just accessing the coin and the discussion of the slab is secondary.&nbsp; The Arbitrage of wrongly graded coins in of itself isn&#039;t a general cause for fraud.&nbsp; But placing a sticker on the slab as a secondary rating is in itself a huge problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>As I said, if they cracked the coins and regraded them as a second opinion, that wouldn&#039;t be such a problem.&nbsp; Its the stickers and registration of already graded coins that is the problem.&nbsp; That is an activity that is clearly designed to bend the market and prevent fair competition.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Ruben[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in