Reptiles as investments and the market

[EmeraldBoid]

So, I was chatting with some of my friends last night and we were talking about what we were breeding this year and then next, future projects etc... . One asked me what I planned on selling and for what prices, I said that what I did not sell to some wholesale buyers I trust, I would sell for dirt cheap that away I am not bogged down for weeks selling slowly at "market" value. That sparked someone to say, "What about other breeders? If they see you selling X for $125 plus shipping, when they sell it all day for $400, they'll kill you for hurting their investments". Ultimately I just said, "Last time I checked I was playing with snakes, not stocks". That got me thinking about all the folks that will often refer to certain animals as monetary investments and will expect an almost guaranteed return on said investment. While I do not think it's wrong to want to break even or make a profit, it's just not been on my radar lately...I have projects that include the husbandry and reproduction of the species and mutations I enjoy. Those of you that do the same plus have a want for profit/to break even on their projects, why (if you do, that is) do you think it's wrong for someone else to ask for a lower or higher return on their projects?

For example, pick any mutation/species (call it X) you have seen recently for $400-$600, you are browsing the classifieds and see six people that just produced X. Three of them want between $400-$600, one has them listed at $385 OBO, another has X for $825, and finally our last seller is letting them go for $175. None of them are the original producers, they are all for the most part hobby breeders, and they all bought the "ingredients" for X for around the same cost (let's say $1000 +/- $100) . They are all nice people and in good circumstances, is there anything wrong with one, some, or all of them solely due to the value they have placed on the animals they have produced?

 

[hhmoore]

The problem I have with your scenario is that it has little to do with the "value they place on the animal"...it's people selling them for dirt cheap so they attract the first buyers and don't get bogged down with animals that they have to care for; and it has become increasingly common over the past several years. IMO, it started as a cross between people having more babies than they wanted to deal with and simple cutthroat competition.
It's the nature of the beast in today's marketplace, which is part of the reason I dislike it so much.

 

[EmeraldBoid]

The problem I have with your scenario is that it has little to do with the "value they place on the animal"...it's people selling them for dirt cheap so they attract the first buyers and don't get bogged down with animals that they have to care for; and it has become increasingly common over the past several years. IMO, it started as a cross between people having more babies than they wanted to deal with and simple cutthroat competition.
It's the nature of the beast in today's marketplace, which is part of the reason I dislike it so much.

Fair enough that is often the main reason, quick sale and what not. My situation is if I do not sell on whole sale to people trust (I.e. I have bought the species from them before), then I would want quick, fast sales so I am not answering emails for the next few months, I get all the serious buyer in one week and the animals out the next, leaving me to my holdbacks and projects plus everything else going on in my life (I am advancing in my education and time for my collection is precious to me). So you would have nothing against someone who simply places a lower value because he or she believes it is fair? Not to produce a quick sale.

 

[hhmoore]

Don't put words in my mouth, please.
(A more complete response is more than I have time for right now)

 

[EmeraldBoid]

Don't put words in my mouth, please.
(A more complete response is more than I have time for right now)

I did not mean to do such, nor do I think I did, your response is your response and I interpreted it as such. If you were dissatisfied with my interpretation though, I apologize. I welcome any thoughts you or anyone else have, I do expect though that we are able to break eachothers thoughts down as fellow hobbyists, clarify eachother, and thus understand eachother more deeply...maybe even learn from each other.

 

[bcr229]

Ever read the prospectus on an investment? Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

The OP's time is at a premium. So, he has to decide which option is "worth" more to him: the hours spent on emails responding to tire-kickers, negotiating, sending pictures, laughing at low-ballers, etc. or pricing his animals so they sell quickly and he then spends his time studying for a degree that I assume will put him on a lucrative career path.

There's also a saying in pawn: the fast money is the low money. Walk in with a stack of stuff that you need to pawn because rent is due in three days, and you'll be lucky to get 20% of what the shop owner will flip it for. Similarly, if you've overproduced and you need to move animals because you can't afford to feed them, or you've got more eggs in the incubator than you have tubs in the hatchling racks, you won't get top prices because you are being forced to sell quickly.

A final point: if I see a seller with prices way below "market", I will pass on the ad unless it was posted by someone with a stellar reputation. If I don't recognize the seller and I can't find any feedback on him, I'll assume it's either a scammer or someone dumping an infected collection, and look elsewhere.

 

[hhmoore]

So you would have nothing against someone who simply places a lower value because he or she believes it is fair? Not to produce a quick sale.

Depending on the species or phenotype, I'm not entirely sure that claim can easily be made. How many people do you think actually undervalue their own animals if there isn't a sales based reason? I'm probably not the best person to have this conversation with, because I'm jaded & dislike the whole selling process...especially as it relates to BPs. People have effectively devalued morphs through overproduction and whatever it takes pricing - that's old news...but, combined, it impacts most sellers' valuation of their animals.
I'm a firm believer in tiered pricing; but a relatively small portion of the buyers are ready to seriously embrace that. To apply that concept to your example - if a seller, through whatever methods he employs, decides that XYs are worth an average of $400...with that as astarting point, I would have no qualms about seeing him pricing animals at $300 if they could be considered visibly inferior (ugly). Are we supposed to seriously believe, though, that he's selling his for $150-175 because that's all he thinks they're worth? Sorry, I'm not buying that. He might believe that $400 is an inflated price, and that most other people are actually selling them for about 60% of their posts prices; but, IMO, that particular valuation would still be based on the desire for sales rather than some intrinsic idea of worth/value.
That said, we have to acknowledge that the market is AFU; and it isn't something that is going to be fixed by a few handfuls of people clinging to the idea of higher prices or investment returns. At the same time, let's not kid ourselves that selling snakes for dirt cheap doesn't have longer reaching effects on other sellers or the perceived value of those animals.
I readily acknowledge that any person or business has the right to sell for whatever price they want, and without consideration of anybody else's thoughts on the matter. That doesn't mean that I think it's okay, or that I won't think poorly of the person doing it.

 

[hhmoore]

Lest one get the wrong impression of the above, I really don't worry too much about what other people do...other than noting the effect in a generalized form for conversations like this. I've been essentially out of the marketplace for a few years, so it hasn't mattered to me on a personal level. This year I did produce some babies - - and as much as I've been reminded how much I enjoy playing with baby snakes, I've been reminded how little I like sales. That's why I haven't posted any ads yet, lol (sorry, I don't count that one trade ad).
I will eventually - probably soon - but I suspect that I'll be wintering over about half of them simply because I don't have much tolerance for the process. I'll play the game for a couple weeks, then start losing interest. Somebody will annoy me, and I'll pull all my ads. At this time of year, the likelihood that I'll decide to repost before I choosing to suspend shipping due to temps is pretty slim.

 

[AbsoluteApril]

For example, pick any mutation/species (call it X) you have seen recently for $400-$600, you are browsing the classifieds and see six people that just produced X. Three of them want between $400-$600, one has them listed at $385 OBO, another has X for $825, and finally our last seller is letting them go for $175. None of them are the original producers, they are all for the most part hobby breeders, and they all bought the "ingredients" for X for around the same cost (let's say $1000 +/- $100) . They are all nice people and in good circumstances, is there anything wrong with one, some, or all of them solely due to the value they have placed on the animals they have produced?

Some people will see those ads and believe $175 (or even $385 obo... ~ $300-350) is setting the new 'base price' for that species/morph/'project'. They may then demand that same price from other sellers and/or price their own offspring accordingly in that lower bracket*. That doesn't mean those other sellers have to lower their pricing but it puts the added pressure on them to do so and in some eyes it, in turn, devalues that project even faster/further than what might be considered the normal 'value' loss on any given project each year as both more people produce it, increasing supply and as the demand goes down, since more people already have it or decide to skip it since the value is low ('value' and 'low' being subjective of course). Sellers create the market, buyers drive it.

I hope that makes sense.

I readily acknowledge that any person or business has the right to sell for whatever price they want, and without consideration of anybody else's thoughts on the matter. That doesn't mean that I think it's okay, or that I won't think poorly of the person doing it.

*For my own example as someone that doesn't breed very often, I have to base my outlook on the 'market'; one species I am debating breeding for this next season, the babies used to go for an average of $250/ea very consistantly, over the last few years I've seen average pricing drop closer to $125/ea. So as a seller, I'll do my best to price around that 'current fair market value', with some priced a bit higher if they show enough of a quality difference within the litter to warrant it.

 

[EmeraldBoid]

Depending on the species or phenotype, I'm not entirely sure that claim can easily be made. How many people do you think actually undervalue their own animals if there isn't a sales based reason? I'm probably not the best person to have this conversation with, because I'm jaded & dislike the whole selling process...especially as it relates to BPs. People have effectively devalued morphs through overproduction and whatever it takes pricing - that's old news...but, combined, it impacts most sellers' valuation of their animals.
I'm a firm believer in tiered pricing; but a relatively small portion of the buyers are ready to seriously embrace that. To apply that concept to your example - if a seller, through whatever methods he employs, decides that XYs are worth an average of $400...with that as astarting point, I would have no qualms about seeing him pricing animals at $300 if they could be considered visibly inferior (ugly). Are we supposed to seriously believe, though, that he's selling his for $150-175 because that's all he thinks they're worth? Sorry, I'm not buying that. He might believe that $400 is an inflated price, and that most other people are actually selling them for about 60% of their posts prices; but, IMO, that particular valuation would still be based on the desire for sales rather than some intrinsic idea of worth/value.
That said, we have to acknowledge that the market is AFU; and it isn't something that is going to be fixed by a few handfuls of people clinging to the idea of higher prices or investment returns. At the same time, let's not kid ourselves that selling snakes for dirt cheap doesn't have longer reaching effects on other sellers or the perceived value of those animals.
I readily acknowledge that any person or business has the right to sell for whatever price they want, and without consideration of anybody else's thoughts on the matter. That doesn't mean that I think it's okay, or that I won't think poorly of the person doing it.

I agree, quality should always be recognized; however, in my eyes, this quality is worth more to my project vs. My check book. Therefore I am probably not going to sell it and if I buy it, I will just pay what I need to and disregard the $ sign.

Some people will see those ads and believe $175 (or even $385 obo... ~ $300-350) is setting the new 'base price' for that species/morph/'project'. They may then demand that same price from other sellers and/or price their own offspring accordingly in that lower bracket*. That doesn't mean those other sellers have to lower their pricing but it puts the added pressure on them to do so and in some eyes it, in turn, devalues that project even faster/further than what might be considered the normal 'value' loss on any given project each year as both more people produce it, increasing supply and as the demand goes down, since more people already have it or decide to skip it since the value is low ('value' and 'low' being subjective of course). Sellers create the market, buyers drive it.

I hope that makes sense.






*For my own example as someone that doesn't breed very often, I have to base my outlook on the 'market'; one species I am debating breeding for this next season, the babies used to go for an average of $250/ea very consistantly, over the last few years I've seen average pricing drop closer to $125/ea. So as a seller, I'll do my best to price around that 'current fair market value', with some priced a bit higher if they show enough of a quality difference within the litter to warrant it.

So what are your thoughts concerning the seller who is set at $825? Using the same logic of attempting to (intentionally or otherwise) set a new base price, stop me fast if I am not reading your words correctly, if it is a poor choice in your opinion to deflate the price (the $175), then would it also be poor choice to inflate it ($825)? Is one a lesser of two evils? Is it really logical to like something too hot, but like something that is too cold as well?

 

[hhmoore]

If one person is willing to pay the $825, what difference does it make to anybody that didn't want to? Realistically, overpricing has only one negative effect; and it doesn't impact anybody but the seller (because he's unlikely to actually sell). One could argue that it negatively impacts the purchaser because he ends up paying more; but I'm inclined to disagree. The purchaser has other options, and deciding to buy a more expensive animal is his choice.