Do you want the Lego collectible bubble to burst?

[Gomek]

I’ve been very fond of pointing out how the Lego collectible market is following the trends of the comics market in the eighties.

Prices are climbing and people are hording, but eventually when everyone goes to sell, those prices will drop. And when the amount of sellers is greater than the amount of buyers, some Lego will be worth less than you paid for it.

So the question is; Do you want the collectible Lego bubble to burst? The obvious con is that your collections will lose a tremendous amount of value, the obvious plus is you’ll be able to pick up some Lego for much less than retail. (Large comics collections from the 80’s with no particular rarity are worth pennies on the dollar)

[Forresto]

I don't sell Lego so in a way yes. However what effect would something like this have on TLG?

[HawkLord]

Right now business is good for Lego because of the boom in collecting/hoarding since 2013-2014. The abundance of licensed IPs really helped make Lego a competitive enough toy product that now an IP knows they "made it" if there's a Lego set of it.

Do I want that to end? Not really. If the collecting/hoarding bubble burst then Lego production would decrease to accommodate. I've been collecting since 2009 and have been able to find every Lego item I've been looking for; though granted I'm not a completist or buyer of con exclusives. If product did decrease it could impact the readily available sets that I had faith would always be there.

Realistically, though we're still in the upswing. Lego hasn't quite peaked yet in terms of maxing the bubble, so I'm not worried.

Edited March 14, 2016 by HawkLord

[Gomek]

I don't sell Lego so in a way yes. However what effect would something like this have on TLG?

Lego would make less money on toys.. but like the comics companies (now), Lego has income streams for things like movies, TV, video games, books, and general licensing that comics companies weren't taking advantage off (back then).

Edited March 14, 2016 by Gomek

[dr_spock]

I don't buy LEGO as an investment instrument. It doesn't really matter to me. As with any investment and speculation, it is knowing when to get in and get out. Anybody still holding on to Cabbage Patch Kids?

[Gomek]

I don't buy LEGO as an investment instrument. It doesn't really matter to me. As with any investment and speculation, it is knowing when to get in and get out. Anybody still holding on to Cabbage Patch Kids?

I was just talking to a friend yesterday, and he had the foresight to keep all his Kenner Starwars toys in great condition, but didn't have the foresight to sell them in the 90's when their value was at it's highest.

With Lego, there was that article circulating that basically said that if you had invested in buying Lego 10 years ago, you'd have made a lot more money than in the stock market. What people don't get out of that is the expense of storing Lego, and the effort it takes to sell and ship it. (I've sold Lego, it's a pain)

For me, with regard to the bubble, I'm still a collector first and foremost, so getting massive amounts of Lego on the cheap sounds great. But then there's that other side, where I've got so much, having it devalued would admittedly be a punch in the gut.

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

But then there's that other side, where I've got so much, having it devalued would admittedly be a punch in the gut.

I honestly don't understand it when people say this. Regardless of the market value, everything you already own stays the same. Your minifigs or sets will not physically deteriorate because of devaluation in the aftermarket. This would only matter if you were to sell your collection. On the other hand, a drop in prices means you can get doubles of things you already own or fill those holes in your collection.

Although one could argue that when prices drop it means that you could have gotten a better price if you had waited, prices are fairly unpredictable, and one uses the best heuristics one can have in choosing what to buy when.

[BlockLogo]

I don't sell LEGO, but I justify large purchases like modular buildings and big licensed sets by telling myself (and my wife) that we would be able to sell them close to, if not higher than, what we paid for them, even if used. So it's not really buying LEGO as an investment, but it's a nice bonus that, right now at least, my "collectibles" are retaining their value.

On the other hand, the aftermarket prices are completely out of hand. There's listing on eBay for JUST THE MANUAL for the 10179 MF for $500. The set itself is going for $3000 if you're lucky. There are mass produced CMFs on bricklink for $40 and up. This is just not going to last. So many amateurs are trying to invest in LEGO since the many articles in the last couple of years.

[davee123]

The other effect that it might have is on currently desirable lineups like Star Wars / Superhero minifigures, Modular Town sets, UCS, etc. That is, if a significant portion of the buyers are indeed buying to resell, then they'll presumably stop buying when the bubble bursts. And that would mean LEGO sees a drop in sales, and decides to discontinue or cut back on these products. So it could have a negative effect for you, even if you don't really care about the prices involved.

Personally, I hope it finds a balance point, rather than bursting. That'd be nice. But that's probably wishful thinking. So I guess that means I'm in favor of it staying as-is (as inflated as it may be).

I honestly don't worry about my collection's value. I don't expect to sell it until I've been retired for a while, and it looks like I won't be around much longer. Then I'll start to sell, because chances are that burdening my family with a massive LEGO collection to get rid of is more than they'd want to deal with. But ... when that happens, I expect my really valuable sets will have decreased quite a bit in value. Who's going to want my old UCS Millennium Falcon in, say, 2045? Everyone that grew up with Star Wars is similarly dying, downsizing, and quite possibly selling at the same time. They younger folks that have money to spend are going to know the "new" Millennium Falcon from EP7-EP9 (assuming that it stays a prominent ship in the films), and my UCS LEGO version will be an interesting historical curiosity-- not a highly sought after display piece.

So... I already expect that when I get rid of my collection, it'll be greatly devalued. So that's no matter to me.

Buying new stuff? Well, I don't really care about that either. There are a few scant things that I don't have because of the price-- like Mr. Gold, for example. But mostly, if I want them, I buy them when they come out, without much difficulty. Perhaps if I were looking to really grow my collection, I might care-- because I could get stuff for cheap. But I've already got more than a million pieces. So I don't need to make my collection even more monstrous. I'm fine with prices as they are, even if they're inflated now.

The only negative is really the possibility of re-selling. Sure, I don't plan on re-selling, but it's something I think about now and again. If I wanted to make a little money on the side, could I buy something cool, like, say, the SHIELD Helicarrier, and sell it in a few years? Well, it's fun to think about. And I like that the possibility is there. ... Not that I've ever done it. And (God forbid!) I have to sell my collection prematurely thanks to some personal crisis, it's nice to have the value to fall back on. Neither of those are likely, but they're possible.

In the end, I guess that means I'd like it to stay where it is.

DaveE

[kibosh]

At first, I was going to answer with a resounding yes, I do hope the bubble bursts. When it does, there will be a flood of MISB sets hitting the market at seriously reduced prices.

My LEGO collection, and this hobby, has intrinsic value to me. My love of LEGO, building with LEGO, playing with LEGO with my kids, sharing my hobby with others; this is where the value is to me. The monetary value is nice, but I am not going to sell. I hope to spend countless time with my grand kids building.

As others have pointed out, I'd rather see the market even out a little. There are far too many sellers right now on far too many channels, and just as many buyers competing. It is a sellers market, and as a buyer, this is bad for me.

[x105Black]

What I would like is for LEGO to come down in price on the secondary market. There are a lot of things that are vastly overpriced. As a collector, I am only interested in obtaining LEGO. Since I am not an investor, someone who plans to resell their LEGO in the future, I would not be bothered by the bursting of the bubble. It would likely help me to get more LEGO. I think that, while investing is bringing in business to LEGO, it is making it more difficult for the average collector to obtain LEGO.

I'd agree with the above posters who would like things to even out. I think that this would bring down some of the outrageous prices while still allowing serious investors to profit, and keeping the secondary market for pieces viable.

[Gomek]

I honestly don't understand it when people say this. Regardless of the market value, everything you already own stays the same. Your minifigs or sets will not physically deteriorate because of devaluation in the aftermarket. This would only matter if you were to sell your collection. On the other hand, a drop in prices means you can get doubles of things you already own or fill those holes in your collection.

Although one could argue that when prices drop it means that you could have gotten a better price if you had waited, prices are fairly unpredictable, and one uses the best heuristics one can have in choosing what to buy when.

Well, a couple things.. I'm not wealthy, so seeing sets at even 30% less than what I paid for them does hurt. (so far this mostly only happens on Black Friday). And most of the problem here is that I then realize I could have gotten more Lego.

Also I've been collecting non-stop since 1976, so I'm well beyond what people call 'critical mass'. I have sold lots of Lego, but it's always so I can buy different Lego sets.

[xboxtravis7992]

Burst! The price increases and limited set runs are horrible. I can't believe the Ant-Man set was only on the shelves for 6 months and now that it is out of stock, the Ant-Man minifig now is on Bricklink, for $20; the price of the ENTIRE SET!!!

This is getting ridiculous. I can't keep up with set releases anymore, and once a set goes off the market Bricklink prices triple. I miss the days were a set could be found on a shelf in a small Toy store 2-3 years after release.

[kibosh]

I miss the days were a set could be found on a shelf in a small Toy store 2-3 years after release.

Oh, how I miss these days! I was traveling a lot back then to mostly back water towns and the LEGO sets I could find still on the shelf (and usually at significant markdowns...) were incredible. It really fueled my emergence from my Dark Ages.

[HawkLord]

We're seeing a lot of short runs on licensed sets which can be blamed on the movies, since they seem to have a couple super hero movies per year, for example. They can't afford to keep Ant-Man on the shelves when just around the corner is Civil War, Thor 3, and Doc Strange. If the movies would slow, these sets would stay out longer.

[Forresto]

It's depressing looking back at the original star wars waves and seeing how cheap they were like the original UCS sets. If I was the age I am now back then I would've been buying every single set. I had a great Lego childhood so i'm not going to complain at all, I got a lot of sets. Still it's ridiculous. Here's the difference Star Wars sets are not going down in price any time soon because of the new movies.

[kibosh]

They're not going down in price because of inflation. Has nothing to do with new movies being out. Over time, everything gets more expensive.

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

Well, a couple things.. I'm not wealthy, so seeing sets at even 30% less than what I paid for them does hurt. (so far this mostly only happens on Black Friday). And most of the problem here is that I then realize I could have gotten more Lego.

Also I've been collecting non-stop since 1976, so I'm well beyond what people call 'critical mass'. I have sold lots of Lego, but it's always so I can buy different Lego sets.

We all think like that. Minimizing spending on what we actually buy allows us to maximize how much we can actually buy. But the mental trap here is the benefit of hindsight. Take the Ant-Man set. If you waited say, one year, to see it at a discount, you would have been disappointed, because it was actually retired. So, like I said, it's a matter of using heuristics to deal with the uncertainty of unpredictable prices. The best one can do is avoid buying things too soon, but giving a sufficient threshold to try to grab something before the prices sky rocket.

Whenever I buy something, even if I later see it at a discount, I do not lose any inner peace. It's already mine. It could just as well have gotten retired or scarce. Nobody knows, so it's not a simple matter of "if I had waited I could have gotten it cheaper", but rather "I didn't risk it and I did not get it cheaper". I can deal with that.

Edited March 15, 2016 by BrickHat

[Jackad7]

I'm conflicted on the topic. For anyone who plays/played magic the gathering youll know what I'm talking about. Basically old cards that may not have seen a lot of play would spike with the slightest indication of play because of their low supply. I'm concerned that this may happen here with popular UCS and modular sets. Especially the UCS falcon. It's too expensive to remake without severely ticking off everyone who poured a couple thousand into them, but they keep people away from collecting. I feel like it's better for the community to have a freer market without the high prices. If they stay on top of them they won't go through the roof and stay more acceptable.

[Danorak81]

I can see the pro's and cons. It's the potential knock on, long term effect it has. I have a friend who is self employed, and when money allowed, he'd often double-up the sets that he bought (I'm talking £100+ sets, Star Wars in particular). That way he'd have one for himself and one to sell on. His logic behind this was that most of the expensive sets would go up in value as not many people had the free cash to buy them, so if he ever hit some difficult times or whatever, he knew that he'd have some sealed sets to sell on. He was quite savvy, doing the same with 70's Star Wars figures and sets.

Admittedly, you'd need to have quite an inventory to sustain any type of normal life if business was poor, but these were more to 'help out' if times were tighter than normal. He has some extremely valuable sets that I'm sure will serve him well if sold on. Even the opened sets would fair well for him. So, in that sense, I can see the thinking behind it.

What I hate, which I have seen within the last few months, is people selling the day after a set is discontinued, sometimes near double the RRP. There were some sets that I wanted but couldn't afford, but now they're even more unattainable because people want ridiculous amounts of money for them. I know thats the way it goes-and I've no issue with collecting to sell, but it's the greed that goes with it. I've been into, and always saved for Lego, all my life. And I've had to save for some expensive sets but thats what I've done. I have a real passion for the product, whereas many people now just buy to make money, driving up the price for people who can't afford a lot-and usually have little to no interest in the product at all.

And as mentioned earlier: even second hand Lego. I've seen a massive increase in price for loose, mixed lots on eBay-where it didn't used to be like that. I've no issue with people trying to make money, but Lego is supposed to be a toy-and I know that there are many children now who are missing out on even the more basic lines because the used values are pricing them and their parents out of the market. I know that sounds extreme, but it's a reality!

[HawkLord]

Well, the thing is only "collectors" are going after old Lego sets like the UCS Falcon. There's much better alternatives out there in terms of Falcons and certainly better minifigures out there. Same is true with Cloud City.

"Flippers" are going after anything they can buy and tuck away for later. They're not trying to buy UCS Falcons because the cost of the investment is too high. Might as well go after things like the Ant-Man set and hoard it because it was a one-and-done item for a Marvel movie that got overshadowed. Easier to ship and the profit margin could be better.

With some stuff like Star Wars and Marvel we're seeing two dynamics in play. One - the movies are coming so fast that shelf life is reduced. Ant-Man is a good point, it got too crowded compared to AoU. Two - the boom is causing a lot more "flippers" to come out and grab as much material as they can to sell in the future. A lot of people are looking at this like an investment.

It's very similar to when people bought up Star Wars action figures in the 90s thinking they'd be worth a ton like the figures from the 70s were. It ended being a huge disappointment.

[MAB]

I'm conflicted on the topic. For anyone who plays/played magic the gathering youll know what I'm talking about. Basically old cards that may not have seen a lot of play would spike with the slightest indication of play because of their low supply. I'm concerned that this may happen here with popular UCS and modular sets. Especially the UCS falcon. It's too expensive to remake without severely ticking off everyone who poured a couple thousand into them, but they keep people away from collecting. I feel like it's better for the community to have a freer market without the high prices. If they stay on top of them they won't go through the roof and stay more acceptable.

What do you mean by a freer market without high prices? If a market is free, then prices are set by buyers and sellers. If priced too high they won't sell, if priced too low someone will buy and resell. As soon as any limitations are put on the market (not allowing high prices, or killing high prices by making reproductions), then the market is no longer free.

I don't see how the existence of an old set at high secondary market price keeps people away from collecting. Collecting that particular set, maybe. But Lego doesn't care about that. They care about sales of their current sets, not ones that have been gone 10 years. If Lego start to manipulate secondary prices by re-releasing sets, then that has an inherent danger. People stop buying for investment, which hits their current product range. If I think something will not make 2x my cost price within a year, I won't buy it (if investing). It won't reach that if a re-release is likely. So current stock won't sell as well, which does then impact Lego. Of course, it will then be discounted, and investors will jump in at 50% off.

You only need look at the CMF range to see the effect. Bunny suit guy is re-released and his value plummets. Will people be so willing to invest in CMF now, when other re-releases may come?

[Paul B Technic]

I don't collect, I build ;)

[xboxtravis7992]

Oh, how I miss these days! I was traveling a lot back then to mostly back water towns and the LEGO sets I could find still on the shelf (and usually at significant markdowns...) were incredible. It really fueled my emergence from my Dark Ages.

The sad thing is I live in semi-rural small towns... And that era is of finding old product is GONE. I had to rush to the store to buy up Lego sets quickly several times in the past few years. Take 2015 for example, were after Christmas I went to the store to buy the Bionicle set Mask Maker vs. Skull Grinder. I think most AFOL's would agree that Bionicle is hardly Lego's biggest selling theme right now... Yet I arrived at the store and there was just ONE copy of set left. Just one! Unbelievable!

The reason I am still scratching my head about the Ant-Man set though was because its shelf life was so short. I know there were recalls and what not; but the set was not given a full release! One day it was in the store; the next it was gone for good. To make matters worse; the new Civil War sets don't include a regular Ant Man figure so you can figure that is driving up his value in the market right now.

[Jackad7]

What do you mean by a freer market without high prices? If a market is free, then prices are set by buyers and sellers. If priced too high they won't sell, if priced too low someone will buy and resell. As soon as any limitations are put on the market (not allowing high prices, or killing high prices by making reproductions), then the market is no longer free.

I don't see how the existence of an old set at high secondary market price keeps people away from collecting. Collecting that particular set, maybe. But Lego doesn't care about that. They care about sales of their current sets, not ones that have been gone 10 years. If Lego start to manipulate secondary prices by re-releasing sets, then that has an inherent danger. People stop buying for investment, which hits their current product range. If I think something will not make 2x my cost price within a year, I won't buy it (if investing). It won't reach that if a re-release is likely. So current stock won't sell as well, which does then impact Lego. Of course, it will then be discounted, and investors will jump in at 50% off.

You only need look at the CMF range to see the effect. Bunny suit guy is re-released and his value plummets. Will people be so willing to invest in CMF now, when other re-releases may come?

You just said having high prices wouldn't affect collectors, but then said having reruns of figures keeps people away from collecting. TLG isnt making figures for people to horde and "invest" in. These are not stocks. TLG makes it a point to crack down on people who do things of the sort. If you buy something for your collection and it goes up so you decide to sell it that's one thing but if you're complaining that remaking figures or sets scared away investors, unless youre talking about the stock holders of TLG, they don't matter.