I feel a lot of people throw around the word flop, yet it can be a very subjective term. What do you consider a flop? Is anything above MSRP great? I left out anything above 100%, because in reality, those can't be considered flops. The goal here is to come to a more sound understanding of what a flop is? Obviously clearances can make even the worst set profitable, but for the sake of discussion, imagine they are irrelevant.

What's illogical, is assuming that we will know exactly which set is going to be the "top spot set in performance that outperformed all others". That's why we aren't all already filthy rich right now. We don't know. We do know, or at least we can make an inductive argument based upon past trends, that a stock or product will perform a certain way. We have a certain amount of confidence in our decisions and hedge our bets accordingly. You seem to have introduced the concept of relying on one set, not me. I stated, as you quoted, that there is a potential for a profitable set to bust if I could have spent my money better elsewhere. That will always be true of all things. There is always something else out there that you can be making more money on, but you won't always know or may not have the capital or be given access to it. It also isn't wise to put all of your investing eggs in one basket...that's why everyone here has multiple sets, we all (hopefully) have retirement plans that are spread across multiple stocks, etc. My definition of illogical is something that is lacking in reason...if we are going to play this game, I would argue that the example you provided about the 2000 versus 2001 dollar investment still holds valid reason...it just has to be put in terms that are relative to a conclusion. This talk has gone way past productive though...so I'm done now.

Whatever becomes of this thread, I think we can all agree that that Supreme Council of Secondary LEGO Sales needs to immediately convene a meeting and declare that a "flop" from this point forward is defined as any set that earns less than 25% return within 2 years of EOL. It must be so because this is clearly not subjective in any way, shape, or form. Also, I just want to say that my favorite number is purple. If you divide purple by 17 and carry the -violet that makes a folding chair.

My brain hurts now.

The answer is 42. Thread over.

What's illogical, is assuming that we will know exactly which set is going to be the "top spot set in performance that outperformed all others". That's why we aren't all already filthy rich right now. We don't know.

We do know, or at least we can make an inductive argument based upon past trends, that a stock or product will perform a certain way. We have a certain amount of confidence in our decisions and hedge our bets accordingly.

You seem to have introduced the concept of relying on one set, not me. I stated, as you quoted, that there is a potential for a profitable set to bust if I could have spent my money better elsewhere. That will always be true of all things. There is always something else out there that you can be making more money on, but you won't always know or may not have the capital or be given access to it. It also isn't wise to put all of your investing eggs in one basket...that's why everyone here has multiple sets, we all (hopefully) have retirement plans that are spread across multiple stocks, etc.

My definition of illogical is something that is lacking in reason...if we are going to play this game, I would argue that the example you provided about the 2000 versus 2001 dollar investment still holds valid reason...it just has to be put in terms that are relative to a conclusion. This talk has gone way past productive though...so I'm done now.

I am not the best in English language but I just fail to see how can you call something that for example gains you 2000$ net profit a bust since there is another set that gains 2001$...

I mean yes, we can call the 2nd set most/more profitable than the first, but I fail to see how can we consider the first set a flop/bust.

If I put 3 sets for example.

set 1

Production run/shelf run: 2 years: value: 100$

Secondary market run during 2 years: 70$ or even less

EOL time: 1 year: value: 72$

EOL time: 5 years: value 80$

Bottom line: FLOP

set 2

Production run/shelf run: 2 years: value 100$

Secondary market run during 2 years: 70$ or even less

EOL time: 1 year: value: 130$

EOL time: 5 years: value: 190$

Bottom line: SUCCESS

set 2

Production run/shelf run: 2 years: value 100$

Secondary market run during 2 years: 75$ or even less

EOL time: 1 year: value: 150$

EOL time: 5 years: value: 225$

Bottom line: SUCCESS

so yeah I agree relatively speaking set 3 is better and best (of them 3) money invested but set 2 is still doing great imo.

I think its not unproductive.... I think its great to debate such things.

I think everyone read into this way too much. The question was "Relative to MSRP, what is a flop?" I was trying to avoid the detailed analysis of comparing sets based upon what one pays for them. I think we all understand that you can make a profit on a set you purchase for 75% off. This was to measure success of a set on a consistent basis.

I think everyone read into this way too much. The question was "Relative to MSRP, what is a flop?" I was trying to avoid the detailed analysis of comparing sets based upon what one pays for them. I think we all understand that you can make a profit on a set you purchase for 75% off. This was to measure success of a set on a consistent basis.

This thread definitely spun out of control...

I think many of us understand what you're attempting to do, I just don't think you're going to come up with some grand unified theory of LEGO investing, especially not one centered on MSRP. MSRP isn't the same in all markets, and as was mentioned, MSRP isn't a factor for many of the people here. There are too many subjectives at play to pin everything against MSRP. I don't think there's disinterest in what you're saying here, it's more that all of those subjectives and intangibles spin everyone in so many directions that the conversation quickly becomes meaningless.

Borrowing from a brief PM I had with Ed, even if you know how a theme historically performed against MSRP, you're still looking at what happened rather than at an indicator of future performance. It's why mutual funds always have a disclaimer that says "past results do not guarantee future performance."

I know you know this, but it's also reasonable to point out that the "S" is for "suggested". If it were required it would be MRRP, but it's not.

I look at it like this. Whatever the item is, all I really have to do is find a buyer at the price I'm willing to sell. MSRP is irrelevant so long as I can find a buyer, and the underlying item (regardless of the theme or even the type of product) is irrelevant because it is simply a container of value. This is really the same approach TRU is taking when they consistently price sets above MSRP...MSRP is irrelevant to them, as all they really need is a low-information buyer or a buyer who doesn't care about MSRP and they'll get their price.

I think everyone read into this way too much. The question was "Relative to MSRP, what is a flop?" I was trying to avoid the detailed analysis of comparing sets based upon what one pays for them. I think we all understand that you can make a profit on a set you purchase for 75% off. This was to measure success of a set on a consistent basis.

I understand what you are trying to get at but unfortunately there is no unified theory for the question you originally asked. 25% above retail for a $120 set is different from a $10 one of course, and that is just one factor which makes trying to generalize the entire thing practically impossible.

If there was a general idea I could suggest, it's that with smaller items you need a higher percentage gained to earn a profit whereas with larger items the percentage can be smaller but still yield a profit even when factoring costs into the sale itself.

I understand what you are trying to get at but unfortunately there is no unified theory for the question you originally asked. 25% above retail for a $120 set is different from a $10 one of course, and that is just one factor which makes trying to generalize the entire thing practically impossible.

If there was a general idea I could suggest, it's that with smaller items you need a higher percentage gained to earn a profit whereas with larger items the percentage can be smaller but still yield a profit even when factoring costs into the sale itself.

You are right but however we can still universaly agree that anything growing 50% of MSRP makes you net profit ultimately regardless of fees or entry price :)