75159 - UCS: Death Star (2016)

[gregpj]

This one is for you LEGO, inspired by @BrickLegacy and brought to you by Brickpickers everywhere.

[AirborneAFOL]

Lots of changes by TLG as of late :

- haven't heard of folks being banned for months at LEGO Shop at Home

Interesting point.

I know I for one have modified my buying habits in light of banhammer tales. I guess I'd assumed we regulars around here had all just done better to stay sufficiently "off the radar"... But it could very well be that they've laxed the enforcement of it, I suppose...

[gregpj]

Not making jokes here, but isn't it a bit concerning that many of the various threads on this board end up converging with the bubble thread, or at least hinting at some level of investor dissatisfaction/concern/frustration/fear with the current state of the market and what the future holds in terms of Lego reselling viability?

How many people today are as confident with the market and TLG's decision making as they were 2-3 years ago?

It's a statistically proven fact that people are more willing to express negative opinions in a place like this (where many people are able to freely express their opinion... Party poopers aside, we can do that here).

It's also proven that once the negative Nancy's are out, those with positive opinions are more likely to stay quiet.

(And before you wonder if I just pulled that outta my ass, my partner worked at a market research firm doing statistical analysis for a number of years before going back to do her Ph.D. in sociology with her area of expertise being stats - not math based, social science based. Heck I even worked there for 11 months. )

[Deadfraggle]

44 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

You forgot increased purchase limits on most exclusives.  Sounds like someone is looking to save money and drum up business.

 

23 minutes ago, AirborneAFOL said:

Interesting point.

I know I for one have modified my buying habits in light of banhammer tales. I guess I'd assumed we regulars around here had all just done better to stay sufficiently "off the radar"... But it could very well be that they've laxed the enforcement of it, I suppose...

Let's say TLG was somewhat concerned with resellers and the negative perception of them in the marketplace. In theory, if you increase purchase limits, stop enforcing bans, and extend product shelf life, you can drastically increase the supply of each set available in the secondary market. Increasing supply and increasing number of resellers creates more competition which drives down the aftermarket prices. 

The effect is that Lego moves more product at retail to resellers and doesn't have to endure the public backlash over steep increases in set prices on the secondary market. 

What happens when retired sets no longer increase significantly in value? That has to  decrease the perceived collectability and value of the product in the long run, which will eventually lead to decreased retail sales. 

[inversion]

4 minutes ago, Deadfraggle said:

Not making jokes here, but isn't it a bit concerning that many of the various threads on this board end up converging with the bubble thread, or at least hinting at some level of investor dissatisfaction/concern/frustration/fear with the current state of the market and what the future holds in terms of Lego reselling viability?

How many people today are as confident with the market and TLG's decision making as they were 2-3 years ago?

People are just not used to bear markets. Since the mid 2000's we were in a big bull market for LEGO. In the real economy they are following each other, yet people are still making money on the stock market. The keywords are flexibility and insight. Making money with LEGO was too easy in the last few years, this pheomenon was bound to be torn down. It is just hard to accept the truth. 

LEGO's decision making is also understandable. 10188 was a good seller. Disney may have only wanted to give it a face-lift. AoH might also be coming from Disney. We don't know either what's going on in the background nor what kind of statistics they have. What we know is that long term collectors and investors will be disgruntled, what they also most likely know, however their main objectives are probably different thus they accept this fact. Not everybody can be made happy at once.

I am confident in LEGO, and what I see is that people are having a hard time adjusting to changes in corporate strategy after a relatively stable and predictable period for investors. 

In summary, people are just grieving the easy money. Sorry, but there is no free lunch.

[Ed Mack]

6 minutes ago, Deadfraggle said:

Not making jokes here, but isn't it a bit concerning that many of the various threads on this board end up converging with the bubble thread, or at least hinting at some level of investor dissatisfaction/concern/frustration/fear with the current state of the market and what the future holds in terms of Lego reselling viability?

How many people today are as confident with the market and TLG's decision making as they were 2-3 years ago?

The LEGO Group's consecutive run of exceptional profits is going to end someday.  I get the sense from recent comments from LEGO corporate that they were counting on the Asian markets to be their next growth area and that the American and European markets were leveling off.  With Lepin and others in the mix, who knows what expectations are now.  As to your question...no, I am not as confident now as I was 2-3 years ago.  

[Deadfraggle]

3 minutes ago, inversion said:

 

I am confident in LEGO, and what I see is that people are having a hard time adjusting to changes in corporate strategy after a relatively stable and predictable period for investors. 

In summary, people are just grieving the easy money. Sorry, but there is no free lunch.

Really solid points. It's been my increasing thought throughout 2016, that there is plenty of money to be made doing this, but investors are going to have to adapt to the changing conditions.

I don't know if the buy/stash/forget/sell in three or four years technique will work as well as we move forward.

[KShine]

5 minutes ago, inversion said:

People are just not used to bear markets.

This is not a bear market - there is no new bull market waiting to follow it.

The bull has been getting tired, slowing down, and soon might very well be dead.

[Ed Mack]

1 minute ago, Deadfraggle said:

I don't know if the buy/stash/forget/sell in three or four years technique will work as well as we move forward.

For many sets...yes, that will be the right way to go and time will heal all wounds.  But for others, there is the increasing chance that money will be made only in short term flipping/shortages situation.

[dcdfan]

10 minutes ago, inversion said:

AoH might also be coming from Disney. We don't know either what's going on in the background nor what kind of statistics they have.

My takeaway: There is an awesome Hoth set coming up to replace AoH.

[inversion]

1 minute ago, Ed Mack said:

The LEGO Group's consecutive run of exceptional profits is going to end someday.  I get the sense from recent comments from LEGO corporate that they were counting on the Asian markets to be their next growth area and that the American and European markets were leveling off.  With Lepin and others in the mix, who knows what expectations are now.  As to your question...no, I am not as confident now as I was 2-3 years ago.  

Profit levels and profit growth are two different things. Exceptional profits can be maintained even with 0 growth. Markets are finite, it could be pretty much expected that the growth slows down since more and more of the latent customer base has been turned into actual customers. I see no problem with slow growth.

Exceptional profits can be eroded either because increasing costs (not very likely in the near future) or stronger competition. However Lepin and the others need to achieve a substantial market share to endanger LEGO. I don't see that happening in the near future for multiple reasons I don't want elaborate on right now. I see no serious competitors in the building blocks market.Therefore competition has to come from outside this market. Other toys, other fads. LEGO might lose its hip status and revert back to just be one toy among the others.

What is more likely in my book is their main IPs losing strength. SW and Super Heroes are nicely blowing a big fat bubble, called oversaturation. Movies and games and everything are churned out at an increasing speed. I believe people will lose mass interest very soon, especially if some of the releases suck (which seem to be the case with RO). If these IPs become uncool, LEGO can be seriously hurt.  

[Val-E]

All I know is Lepin are now my direct rival as they are cloning all my stash. I know it´s not Lego but the price difference is enough for more than a few buyers to think twice - me included. What TLG have been doing recently with their own reissues is also worrying, so I have stopped buying altogether and will use this Xmas to reduce my stock as much as I can (no sales in summer). I figure that flipping will still be possible bu the vultures are certainly circling over long term investors.

[dcdfan]

7 minutes ago, Val-E said:

All I know is Lepin are now my direct rival as they are cloning all my stash.

Well, sure cause they're cloning every Lego set ever made.

Edited August 20, 2016 by dcdfan

[Val-E]

2 minutes ago, dcdfan said:

Well, sure cause they're cloning every Lego set ever made.

It´s interesting to see what have been their priorities, though. I know it´s the wrong thread for this but they haven´t been in a rush to do The Hobbit or Lone Ranger, have they? That pretty much reflects what they see the easiest buck coming from, which is SW and modulars.

[inversion]

27 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

For many sets...yes, that will be the right way to go and time will heal all wounds.  But for others, there is the increasing chance that money will be made only in short term flipping/shortages situation.

What needs to be also considered is the superstar effect. When people want to buy stuff they have rankings and limited budget. Let's say our run of the mill AFOL is into D2C sets. He awakens from his dark dreams and finds himself facing a plethora of retired and current sets. A list of facts first:

1. There are more exclusives in production than ever.
2. Their average quality is higher than ever.
3. There are (obviously) more retired sets than ever. 
4. People need space. 
5. More investors than ever.

So let's say George has room for 10 sets. He buys all 6 he likes from the current ones, since they are cheaper, easier to access and have a high quality. Then he has room for 4 more. Conditionally on his budget he will establish a list of still affordable retired sets. He will pick the top 4 on that list. 

When LEGO investing became big, there were only a few really desirable sets.  The chances that the same sets were on top of people's list was higher AND for a given set the chance to be a superstar (being on top of people's lists on average) was also much higher. Now there are plenty of sets. These days demand has to be dispersed across a much broader selection of potential sets to acquire, however there is only room for a handful of 'superstars'. Those are the winners. Plus, the higher number of sets in production means people will run out later from retail purchases and turn to retired sets. The fast rate of releases and longer life cycles ensures that less people turn to secondary markets. 

The gist of this economics is that due to LEGO churning out more exclusives an increasing portion of sets is condemned to be missing out on the top spots in people's rankings, plus demand is also more dispersed, negating the effect of limited supplies driving up prices. 

This is the reason many good, but not truly outstanding exclusives are showing poor returns. They are behind on the lists.

Edited August 20, 2016 by inversion

[Ed Mack]

5 minutes ago, inversion said:

Profit levels and profit growth are two different things. Exceptional profits can be maintained even with 0 growth. Markets are finite, it could be pretty much expected that the growth slows down since more and more of the latent customer base has been turned into actual customers. I see no problem with slow growth.

Exceptional profits can be eroded either because increasing costs (not very likely in the near future) or stronger competition. However Lepin and the others need to achieve a substantial market share to endanger LEGO. I don't see that happening in the near future for multiple reasons I don't want elaborate on right now. I see no serious competitors in the building blocks market.Therefore competition has to come from outside this market. Other toys, other fads. LEGO might lose its hip status and revert back to just be one toy among the others.

What is more likely in my book is their main IPs losing strength. SW and Super Heroes are nicely blowing a big fat bubble, called oversaturation. Movies and games and everything are churned out at an increasing speed. I believe people will lose mass interest very soon, especially if some of the releases suck (which seem to be the case with RO). If these IPs become uncool, LEGO can be seriously hurt.  

I always appreciate the Inversion answer...I truly do.  You always make me feel like a dummy....LOL.  

[dcdfan]

4 minutes ago, Val-E said:

It´s interesting to see what have been their priorities, though.

Yes.

 

4 minutes ago, Val-E said:

I know it´s the wrong thread for this

Yes.

 

4 minutes ago, Val-E said:

they haven´t been in a rush to do The Hobbit or Lone Ranger, have they?

No. I would bet they're working down a list of sorts. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised at anything.

 

5 minutes ago, Val-E said:

That pretty much reflects what they see the easiest buck coming from, which is SW and modulars.

Yes. Whew.

[asharerin]

50 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

For many sets...yes, that will be the right way to go and time will heal all wounds.  But for others, there is the increasing chance that money will be made only in short term flipping/shortages situation.

I am no longer confident in long term holding of this company's products. After the Toy Shop and 10188 fiasco it is clear nothing is out of bounds. This company is either hell bent on destroying the secondary market or is completely clueless. In either scenario the risk of long term holding just went through the roof. I will be selling my UCS Falcon. Grand Carousels, Tajs and Eiffel Towers this shopping season. I love my collectibles, but I love my money even more. Already scaled back my buying this year to just 10% of what I did in 2015 and 5% of 2014, and it will be even less in 2017. Once I sell my 2014 stash in a few years I dumping that into rental properties and sticking to scummy quick flip practices within the return window for Lego products. There are quite a few here in the Northwest who are cutting back big time as well. I will still enjoy building a set from time to time but as investment material it just got downgraded heavily by me. Lego is printing way too many pieces these days for my liking and is clearly out of touch with the secondary market. They will still make their billions, just not at my expense.

[Ed Mack]

5 minutes ago, inversion said:

What needs to be also considered is the superstar effect. When people want to buy stuff they have rankings and limited budget. Let's say our run of the mill AFOL is into D2C sets. He awakens from his dark dreams and finds himself facing a plethora of retired and current sets. A list of facts first:

1. There are more exclusives in production than ever.
2. Their average quality is higher than ever.
3. There are (obviously) more retired sets than ever. 
4. People need space. 
5. More investors than ever.

So let's say George has room for 10 sets. He buys all 6 he likes from the current ones, since they are cheaper, easier to access and have a high quality. Then he has room for 4 more. Conditionally on his budget he will establish a list of still affordable retired sets. He will pick the top 4 on that list. 

When LEGO investing became big, there were only a few really desirable sets.  The chances that the same sets were on top of people's list was higher AND for a given set the chance to be a superstar (being on top of people's lists on average) was also much higher. Now there are plenty of sets. These days demand has to be dispersed across a much broader selection of potential sets to acquire, however there is only room for a handful of 'superstars'. Those are the winners. 

The gist of this economics is that due to LEGO churning out more exclusives an increasing portion of sets is condemned to be missing out on the top spots in people's rankings, plus demand is also more dispersed, negating the effect of limited supplies driving up prices. 

This is the reason many good, but not truly outstanding exclusives are showing poor returns. They are behind on the lists.

I agree, but those quality sets that are not "Superstars"  and might not appreciate quickly at first, usually have their run of appreciation.  It might take some time for some, but those are the sets I WANT.  These are the sets that are not hoarded or copied.  Given some time, they will appreciate and are the safest bets in the current market.  There are literally hundreds of these sets over the past 5-10 years that fit the "quality set...solid but not exceptional...under the radar...etc." description.  I want the "Burger" LEGO set, not the "Filet Mignon" LEGO set.

[c_rpg]

54 minutes ago, inversion said:

People are just not used to bear markets. Since the mid 2000's we were in a big bull market for LEGO. In the real economy they are following each other, yet people are still making money on the stock market. The keywords are flexibility and insight. Making money with LEGO was too easy in the last few years, this pheomenon was bound to be torn down. It is just hard to accept the truth.

Hmmm... How do I short Lego?

[dcdfan]

5 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

I agree, but those quality sets that are not "Superstars"  and might not appreciate quickly at first, usually have their run of appreciation.  It might take some time for some, but those are the sets I WANT.  These are the sets that are not hoarded or copied.  Given some time, they will appreciate and are the safest bets in the current market.  There are literally hundreds of these sets over the past 5-10 years that fit the "quality set...solid but not exceptional...under the radar...etc." description.  I want the "Burger" LEGO set, not the "Filet Mignon" LEGO set.

Absolutely. Agree 100%. I've been noticing this for a long while now.

[jstodda]

I have 10188 as the centerpiece of my collection, I also have 1 sealed that I recently purchased for 415.  I love 10188 and was planning on keeping the sealed one for a long time anyway.  As for the new 10188 aka SSDD I am disappointed and frustrated with the direction TLG seems to be going.  I will still buy 1 eventually but mainly for the UCS badge since 10188 doesnt have one.

In a way this is exactly what Lego was marketing for. People who would rather have the UCS badge on a box then have a set that's worthy of a UCS name.

They can try to deal with this branding all they want but it is up to the consumer to Define for them if it is acceptable or not through purchases. I guess we will see what happens. If you're willing to buy and identical set just because one says UCS on the box then that pretty much defines the issue.

[inversion]

14 minutes ago, Ed Mack said:

I agree, but those quality sets that are not "Superstars"  and might not appreciate quickly at first, usually have their run of appreciation.  It might take some time for some, but those are the sets I WANT.  These are the sets that are not hoarded or copied.  Given some time, they will appreciate and are the safest bets in the current market.  There are literally hundreds of these sets over the past 5-10 years that fit the "quality set...solid but not exceptional...under the radar...etc." description.  I want the "Burger" LEGO set, not the "Filet Mignon" LEGO set.

Potential superstars are more hoarded, thus price increase is subsided. Your 'safe bet quality sets' can be exactly safe bets because of less hoarding. However, as more and more of those sets are released, you need less and less hoarding per set to achieve same price appreciation. As demand scatters more and more across these not 'superstar' sets, the harder will it be for them to increase in price.

However I agree with you, a good investor strategy is hitting the sweet spot between popularity (placement in rankings) and potential hoarding. My point is that the ever increasing number of total released sets and number of available sets at retail strengthens competition among sets for customers. And competition depresses prices.

Edited August 20, 2016 by inversion

[Ed Mack]

13 minutes ago, jstodda said:

 

In a way this is exactly what Lego was marketing for. People who would rather have the UCS badge on a box then have a set that's worthy of a UCS name.

They can try to deal with this branding all they want but it is up to the consumer to Define for them if it is acceptable or not through purchases. I guess we will see what happens. If you're willing to buy and identical set just because one says UCS on the box then that pretty much defines the issue.

 

Speaking of the UCS badge, does the 75159 have a UCS plaque or did LEGO cheese out on that as well?

[weitzel78]

It seems the UCS designation now means any SW set priced at $200 or more ($150 and below being regular seys, and $150-200 not offered). They have diminished the UCS moniker, and it doesn't mean what it used to.

Sets need to be evaluated on an individual basis, regardless of these designations. I believe we are entering a period where picking the right sets and entering and exiting at the right time will be key. No longer can we expect to just buy and hold any lego star wars or UCS sets and get great returns. 

[kris_1973]

Speaking of the UCS badge, does the 75159 have a UCS plaque or did LEGO cheese out on that as well?

If I'm not mistaken, one of the leaked pictures (downward shooting angle) showed it in lower-right corner of box front.