RM Auction in Battersea, some nice cars available

[jonby]

Elderly said:

jonby said:

It is acceptable to bid on behalf of the vendor up to the point of the reserve...........

.................. it is also not OK to make consecutive bids on behalf of the vendor, say for instance up to one bid below reserve, in the hope that someone might jump in at the last minute

Quite right but it's not unknown for an unethical auctioneer to place a bid on behalf of the vendor and then take a bid off the wall and then back to the vendor until the item is bought in at a respectable level close to the reserve, or sold at reserve (sometimes with discretion) to the person who likes to wait until all competing bids have been made before raising his hand.

The auctioneers' practise that I *really* dislike is when the reserve is set higher than the low estimate, it doesn't appear to happen often but it does happen.

Of course, just as in any walk of life, there are those that obey the rules and those that don't - I was explaining what is acceptable, not just from an ethics point of view, but also a legal one. This is not about best practice but a matter of law. We are members of NAVA (national association of valuers & auctioneers) and they support the practice (i.e. not making consecutive bids as an auctioneer). The problem of course is proving those instances where it happens

with reserves, again NAVA would agree with you. IIRC it's not a legal issue, but anyone that sets a reserve higher than lower estimate is doing themselves no favours, other than in some very oddball exceptional situations - there are very few auctioneers that would entertain that idea, because of the badwill it would generate to not sell somethign that hits lower estimate but isn't sold for failure to meet reserve. NAVA rules support this but not all auctioneers are members of NAVA

[Elderly]

jonby said:

with reserves, again NAVA would agree with you. IIRC it's not a legal issue, but anyone that sets a reserve higher than lower estimate is doing themselves no favours, other than in some very oddball exceptional situations - there are very few auctioneers that would entertain that idea, because of the badwill it would generate to not sell somethign that hits lower estimate but isn't sold for failure to meet reserve. NAVA rules support this but not all auctioneers are members of NAVA

You are right in all you say jonby, I think we both posted for the elucidation of others, but I wonder if Coy's are members of NAVA ?????

[Streetrod]

All the sale prices here including fees if anyone is interested:

http://www.rmauctions.com/AuctionResults.cfm?SaleC...

[CampDavid]

Streetrod said:

All the sale prices here including fees if anyone is interested:

http://www.rmauctions.com/AuctionResults.cfm?SaleC...

Lot 132 is going to go up in value like a rocket in the next 10 years

[R.P.M]

Some very strong prices.
Notably the Daytona, and both porches 959 and 993gt2.

[Rollcage]

I thought the conversion rate seemed pretty good last night, certainly looks that way - 84%

The DB5 Convertible made strong money, as did the 2CV!

[R.P.M]

CampDavid said:

Streetrod said:

All the sale prices here including fees if anyone is interested:

http://www.rmauctions.com/AuctionResults.cfm?SaleC...

Lot 132 is going to go up in value like a rocket in the next 10 years

Perhaps if you wanted it for a static display
Early vanquishes we're absolutely dogged with problems.

[Jagmanv12]

jonby said:

with reserves, again NAVA would agree with you. IIRC it's not a legal issue, but anyone that sets a reserve higher than lower estimate is doing themselves no favours,

Surely there are two people involved in that and it's the wrong way round timewise? The seller will set the reserve and then the auctioneer will set the reserve in the catalogue. Obviously the seller has no control over the estimates that the auctioneer puts in the catalogue.

[BelfastBoy]

RoyaleDetailing said:

Thats a bit silly really as that counts for all cars. Everyone expects a supercar to rocket up in price or hold its value. Reality is that these car do depreciate so of course a 2nd hand one is going to be cheaper than a new one, and buying from an auction will always be cheaper than buying from a dealer. You dont get a warranty and risk having a large bill waiting. What you are comparing is the auction price (which tends to be the lowest) to the showroom price (which tends to be the highest). Apples and pears.

The more expensive the car, the bigger the variance.

No, it doesn't count for all cars. The most direct comparison / competition for any Koenigsegg has always been the Pagani Zonda - they've appreciated in value very nicely. Super Vettura have been mentioned on this forum - they'll sell you a lovely Zonda F or F Roadster for a hell of a lot more than they cost the owners when they left the factory. What about the Ferrari Enzo, McLaren F1?

I agree that most cars, even exotics, do depreciate in value eventually. My point was that if you buy a Koenigsegg Agera today, you're doing so because you really want a sensational hypercar to enjoy. If you're buying it in the hope that, some day, you'll sell it on as an appreciating asset, forget it. Just enjoy the car and take the hit when the time comes! Or, keep it as part of a collection. Koenigseggs and, more spectacularly, Veyrons, are never going to pay for themselves. Maybe, in 15-20 years time, Koenigsegg could enjoy a renaissance and the car could suddenly become in demand. But it seems unlikely. (Btw, if I had the means - yes, I would still want one. It just wouldn't be a first choice.)

[jonny5]

koenigsegg price has me thinking, little more than a 458 spider and good stop gap until Zonda ?

[P300V8]

jonby said:

Very kind, I'll pay you later ! :-)

My job is all about discussing & defining 'value' which is such an interesting concept with so many different definitions.....

I know its late but try this concept....

"worth" is the subjective "value" that an individual (potential buyer) places on an item. An item is "cheap" (good value) where the selling price is less than the worth and "expensive" (poor value) where the selling price is more than the worth.

Note "need" (ie how badly I need this item) will likely influence "worth"

Note "value" "worth" and "need" are subjective and independent of market price.

An auction house pre sale "valuation" will likely be set in relation to the (previous) market price +/-.

Edited by P300V8 on Thursday 1st November 23:14

[jonby]

Jagmanv12 said:

jonby said:

with reserves, again NAVA would agree with you. IIRC it's not a legal issue, but anyone that sets a reserve higher than lower estimate is doing themselves no favours,

Surely there are two people involved in that and it's the wrong way round timewise? The seller will set the reserve and then the auctioneer will set the reserve in the catalogue. Obviously the seller has no control over the estimates that the auctioneer puts in the catalogue.

yes & no

starting point in the discussion tends to be an estimate from the auctioneer, put to the prospective client (seller, in our language, the 'vendor'). If the client disagrees, auctioneer may move it slightly in either direction. Or the auctioneer may agree/suggest a lower published estimate (i.e. the one the buyers see) than the one suggested to the client, in order to entice buyers, particularly on something that has less recent market evidence

If the vendor disagrees with the estimate to be published and it can't be resolved, item may not be accepted for sale. Once the published estimate is agreed, a discussion about reserves takes place - the auctioneer will encourage a reserve of less than lower estimate (it;s very difficult to generalise by how much) but the vendor has the final decision and providing the reserve is no more than the lower estimate, auctioneer will accept the entry

Bottom line - it tends to be discussed & agreed prior and both parties have to agree. reserve & estimate tends to be part of the same discussion. if it can;t be agreed, entry won't happen

[jonby]

P300V8 said:

jonby said:

Very kind, I'll pay you later ! :-)

My job is all about discussing & defining 'value' which is such an interesting concept with so many different definitions.....

I know its late but try this concept....

"worth" is the subjective "value" that an individual (potential buyer) places on an item. An item is "cheap" (good value) where the selling price is less than the worth and "expensive" (poor value) where the selling price is more than the worth.

Note "need" (ie how badly I need this item) will likely influence "worth"

Note "value" "worth" and "need" are subjective and independent of market price.

An auction house pre sale "valuation" will likely be set in relation to the (previous) market price +/-.

Edited by P300V8 on Thursday 1st November 23:14

some valid points but it's only a fraction of the story

For instance, a buyer may place a value on an item based on what it;s worth to them and of course this is influenced by need but what happens if they can;t access funds/finance to pay for it - he won't be able to bid so can;t influence the price but may after think it's sold cheap or dear. So if it goes for less than this person would say it's worth to them , has it still achieved market value ? Arguably yes

Re: auction house valuations, the one thing people seem to often forget is we don't have a crystal ball - I'm always surprised at some results in a sale (in both directions). I never cease to be amazed at how often a potential buyer asks what I think something will sell for and when I say I don't know, they think I'm with-holding information from them when in reality, the auctioneer doesn't know. Arguably the buyer, who is the one that decides what something sells for, should therefore have a better idea of what it might sell for than the auctioneer - one thing's for sure, if you do give the buyer an anticipated price, they then disagree in the majority of cases - so why ask ?!?

As I say, it's a very complex subject that has many variables & angles.

[jonby]

Elderly said:

jonby said:

with reserves, again NAVA would agree with you. IIRC it's not a legal issue, but anyone that sets a reserve higher than lower estimate is doing themselves no favours, other than in some very oddball exceptional situations - there are very few auctioneers that would entertain that idea, because of the badwill it would generate to not sell somethign that hits lower estimate but isn't sold for failure to meet reserve. NAVA rules support this but not all auctioneers are members of NAVA

You are right in all you say jonby, I think we both posted for the elucidation of others, but I wonder if Coy's are members of NAVA ?????

The handful of huge fine art & car auctioneers tend to neither come under or join RICS (which tends to cover property auctioneers and the P&M divisions of same) or NAVA (which includes auctioneers of fine art, property, P&M, chattels & more). I think RICS rules for firms that don't sell property are 'looser'

There are remarkably few rules or required qualifications if you're not bound by one of those two organisations - anyone can stand up and be an auctioneer and believe it or not, if you're not a member of NAVA or RICS, there's no legal obligation (to my knowledge) to hold funds in a segregated client account and certainly no checks if you're not a member of one of those two bodies - our only client account checks are our auditors annual check and our annual NAVA check (which has to be done by an independent qualified accountant).

Here's a great link
http://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2012/mar/...
It explains that SOFAA (another organisation, the society of fine art auctioneers) is advisory, not regulatory. It cannot insist on client accounts and furthermore, discusses an auctioneer that stated it ran segregated client accounts when in fact it didn't. As it;s not a regulatory body and doesn't check or audit, it had no way of knowing. Perhaps most startling, neither Christies or Sothebys, the most well known auctioneers in the world, use client accounts

I bet most vendors assume all auction houses use a segregated client account but it's simply not the case.

I'm no lover of regulation in general but I wish there was more in my industry - it's effectively self-regulating

Having said all that, I have no idea if Coys or RM have good or bad practices - I have no experience of them other than watching their auctions online out of professional (and petrolhead !) interest

[100 IAN]

Jonby your comments are very educational. Having gone to many many auctions and spent thousands £'s buying at them i'm still always apprehensive as i'm never 100% sure i know exactly what's going on.

I know that when the auctioneer says "i'm selling" that the reserve has been reached but can you enlighten me of any other phrases.

I've always assumed that when they say "with me at £x" that refers to a bid that has been submitted before the start of the auction? or does it refer to a ficticious bid as the auctioneer is trying to reach the reserve?

Some auctioneers are easier to read than others. I recently went to a property auction where with only a handful of people in the room the auctioneer took obvious bids 'off the wall' and then in 4 out of 5 cases said "sorry not enough" and didn't drop the hammer. It happened on so many lots that everyone sniggered.

When he got a real bid his whole manner changed, he became much calmer, more relaxed and slowed his pace a little. He was clearly uncomfortable with the lots that he didn't get real bids for.

Other auctioneers whilst they may say "sold" sometimes don't bang the hammer which i assume means that reserve hasn't been met and the item hasn't actually sold - ?

Thanks Jonby for any insight you can give.

[will_]

Most high-value auctions are recorded, so if there is any dispute over the increments it can be investigated.

As such, if a paddle number isn't read out after the "sale" it usually means the item hasn't sold. The auctioneer won't always make it clear whether a lot has been passed or not.

"Bidding off the wall" is a divisive tactic. On the one hand, if the item hasn't reached the reserve, the bidder can't buy it so does it really matter if the counter-bids are real or not if the buyer is prepared to pay over the reserve for the item and it's only a matter of "getting there"? On the other it is understandable that people don't like bidding against phantoms!

[will_]

jonby said:

Having said all that, I have no idea if Coys or RM have good or bad practices - I have no experience of them other than watching their auctions online out of professional (and petrolhead !) interest

In relation to Coys (or at least one of their subsidiaries - Coys of Kensington Sales Ltd) they did this a few years ago:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2874724/Classic...

When the vendors set up a website to publicise the issue, Coys sued them for libel:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2878351/Classic...

It did kick most of the auction houses to use escrow accounts but in my opinion it is a disgrace that "Coys" are still trading.

[k-ink]

will_ said:

It did kick most of the auction houses to use escrow accounts but in my opinion it is a disgrace that "Coys" are still trading.

Coys are a disgraceful company!

[CampDavid]

k-ink said:

will_ said:

It did kick most of the auction houses to use escrow accounts but in my opinion it is a disgrace that "Coys" are still trading.

Coys are a disgraceful company!

I was at there 50th Birthday celibration a few years ago and, oddly, they missed out the whole bankrupcy thing

[Elderly]

jonby said:

I have no idea if Coys or RM have good or bad practices -

I know nothing about RM but in my experience I would say that there's something fishy about Koi .