Jump to content
  • Sign in to follow this  

    Three Strikes and You're Out: The Case Against "Price Per Brick"


    Throughout the Golden Age of Baseball, when Mickey Mantle and Willie Mays patrolled the game's outfields, baseball writers and fans used three primary statistics to explain a player's offensive prowess: runs, home runs and RBI. This had been the case for a hundred years, but in 1977 a little known statistician named Bill James produced a magazine called Bill James Baseball Abstract. In it he presented a number of new statistics that more accurately represented how baseball players created or saved runs. As time went on James' Abstracts gained acceptance, and eventually he became the prophet of a new way of measuring baseball statistics called sabermetrics, popularized most recently in the movie Moneyball. Today, many of these sabermetrics have been accepted by the mainstream baseball community and are routinely used when comparing baseball players across generations. Without James, these sabermetrics may never have taken root.

    Like baseball junkies, Lego investors also use statistics to estimate the future performance of their investment sets. Among these, the Price Per Piece statistic seems to have caught on as the default metric to assess the "value" of a set. PPP shows up prominently in Brickpicker's very own set review template, asking reviewers to assess the set's PPP for a better understand of the set's value. Its concept is simple: the more bricks a buyer receives for their dollar, the more they "get" for their money. Typically, buyers and investors have used a $.10 per piece benchmark to label sets as good or bad values.

    In the context of investing, using PPP to estimate future demand for a given set is at best limiting, and at worst, flat out wrong. In order for PPP to help in measuring future performance, we need to see a correlation between PPP and secondary market performance. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of examples where low Price Per Piece sets don't perform well after retirement, and a similar count of high PPP sets that are phenomenal performers. In my earlier blog, Lego Truths and Myths, I showed how 5525 Amusement Park has a strong PPP ratio of $.052/piece and a dreadful secondary market performance, with a 32% loss from MSRP. Yet in the same theme, 10183 Hobby Trains has a PPP of $.093, with an amazing 135% incredible secondary market gain, while 5526 Skyline has a ridiculously low PPP of $.047 with an even better 144% post-EOL yield. As you can see, there is no correlation between low PPP and high earnings within the Factory theme.

    For other themes, the trend continues: here is the performance of a recent, relevant theme, Pirates of the Carribean:
     

    PPP1

    For a theme with some pretty similar PPPs, there is a huge difference in post-EOL performance. The takeaway is this: there is NO correlation between PPP and secondary market performance. Demand for a secondary market set is largely determined by other set characteristics, most notably primary market demand and primary market availability. So can PPP be used for anything, or is it a complete strikeout for investors? To answer this, we must determine whether there are secondary market buyers that are price-sensitive, or more willing to buy something if it's priced lower. Here is a simple market segmentation showing the types of secondary market buyers that I presented in a previous blog article:
     

    SecondaryMarket

    Among the secondary market's two submarkets of AFOLs and parents, there is one market segment that is very price conscious: MOCers. MOCers are AFOLs (Adult Fans of Lego) that design and build their own models referred to as "MOCs", an abbreviation for "My Own Creations". They often require specific colors or unique pieces for their MOCs and will pay what they need to get them. However if there are cheaper, more reliable alternatives, they will use them. In the past, a few bold expert investors have tried to purchase retail sets anticipating the set's pieces will be more desirable than others after the set has retired. To find these sets, most use Bricklink.com, a website with a function that provides the total part-out value of a set based upon the last six months of sales, so comparing the retail PPP against the part-out PPP may provide investors with a good gauge to whether MOCers might pay inflated prices once a set has retired. Here are some randomly selected retail sets with their current part out and retail PPPs:


    PPP2

    This table shows us that MOCers would likely pay a premium over retail for 79003 and 79111, but NOT for 9493 and 21008 since their Part out to Retail PPP ratio is significantly lower. Technically, this is a metric that can be calculated without PPP, but translating it to PPP allows meaningful comparison across all types and sizes of sets. When using this new metric, it's important to bear in mind that this Part-out to Retail PPP ratio isn't an assessment of future secondary market performance, only a guess whether MOCers will still purchase sets above retail after retirement. While Burj Khalifa has a terrible ratio, it still may be a winner in the secondary market because of its collectability as part of the Architecture theme. While the Part-out to Retail PPP ratio allows us to think about PPP and investing from a slightly different angle, it will likely never become a meaningful or widely used statistic since it only measures demand from one small segment of the overall secondary market.

    There are two other insights from PPP that provide additional information to our beloved Lego universe:

    • On average, licensed themes are more expensive on a Price-Per-Piece basis than non-licensed themes. Comparing the average theme PPP among a group of licensed themes could provide a very rough comparison of Lego's licensing costs. We surmise that Star Wars has the highest licensing fees because their sets' PPPs are, on average, higher than others. Comparing the aggregate PPP for a theme would likely show this even better.
    • The PPP ratio can also be used by Lego buyers to quickly expand their Lego piece collections by purchasing only low PPP sets. This would apply to a VERY small segment of Lego buyers with a negligible effect on either the primary or secondary market.

    While these PPP fun facts are interesting, they aren't particularly illuminating for investors.

    We know from our assessment of PPP that there is no correlation between PPP and investment success. Yet, while the best analysis in the world can give you a great chance at making money, the immortal words of Yogi Berra still echo loudly in the relatively immature Lego investment market:

    "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

    If you are determined to use Price Per Piece as part of a systematic approach to investing, you can still make money. As always, invest accordingly.

     

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Totally agree. PPP is flat out worthless from an investor stand point for boxed sets. Buyers are buying the pieces as a whole set. That is where the worth comes from. It only seems like a valid concern for people who part out sets, or people after the individual pieces in a set versus the model the set itself builds.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Thanks, Wit. It boggles my mind when I read reviews or posts that reference a low price per piece to justify its investment value.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Agreed.  PPP is an old school and outdated method of determining value of a set on a personal collection or investment viewpoint.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest skfdlty

    Posted

    Several investors "part out" sets, which would impact how much a set is worth to them because they need lots of pieces. They don't care how much the set as a whole is worth, they just want the individual aspects of a set to be worth more, which in many ways ends up meaning that there is a higher Price Per Piece ratio than another set.

     

    Not saying I disagree, but I just want to add a different perspective into the discussion, though I just now read LFoW's post, so a bit of what I wrote has already been said.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    It should be clear that if your target market is going to be people who will be willing to pay 2,3 or even 5x the original MSRP of the set, then valuing the set on the price per part is not going to have any relevance.  Price per part is a metric that only concerns value conscious buyers who will only buy sets at or below retail.

    The main concerns for investors should be:
    Is it a cool set and will it continue to be a cool set.
    Will Lego make a set that's fairly similar (think police/fire stations).
    Could future sets make this one more desirable?
    Does it have unique/rare parts that make it difficult to assemble from other sets.  

    Will other sellers be warehousing the same set, causing the price to be held down.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Agree...I could see PPP mattering if you were buying some big mixed used lot, but from a standpoint of those of us buying boxed sets and selling as boxed sets it's really irrelevant.

     

    Also, I'd think that those guys that are parting things out are not selling all parts from a set at equal price...there are probably a few pieces per set or a couple of figures that command a higher price, with the remainder being typical.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Good writeup, Quacs.

     

    I have only considered the 'price per piece' ratio in relation to investing for those with plans of parting out the set. As for myself (or in terms of collecting), it is just meant to be a general gauge when buying to expand my stockpile of pieces and try to weigh the decisions between which set will give me more of what I desire in the end or what price could be a bargain in my mind.

     

    Something to note, why are all the attached images so small? I have to click on each to see the full image.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Thanks Quacs.  I agree that PPP is almost worthless as a measure of investment value.  I say almost because the only redeeming feature I can see for it is that potential Joe Public buyers sometimes look at the piece count on the box to see if they are "getting a good deal".  That's one of the main reasons the piece count is printed there by TLG, it's a little bit of marketing.  Still, it's only a very small portion of buyers who think that way and even when they do it's a minor factor in their purchasing decision making.

     

    The other thing PPP has been used for is a measure of retail value, to see if TLG have priced the set relatively higher or lower when compared to other Lego sets.  It's a metric for that comparison.  In this regard I also think it is a very poor instrument.  What we are really trying to do is estimate the cost of production for the set.  We can approximate that far better with a measure such as Price Per Gram.  This shows the comparison between sets based on the raw amount of ABS plastic that goes into them.  There are also minifigures to factor in.  A set with no minifigs will have a lower PPP & also PPG than one that does.  

     

    It's never an exact science, but we have to work with the tools we have and I too think that PPP is a very blunt one.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    PPP is only good for determining the initial cost of the set while it's still in production. I've never looked at the PPP as any sort of indicator on how a set's value will increase or decrease.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

    Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...