This post started as an investigation into whether the crypto "winter" does actually explain recent changes in luxury watch prices. I was motivated by a Bloomberg article containing this claim (as well as subsequent discussions of that article). As I started working on this post, though, I realized that the data referenced in the Bloomberg article is so bad, my plans had to change. Fam: we have a problem. People publishing numbers relating to the watch industry do not seem to understand some very fundamental concepts when it comes to markets (I'm going with this possibility rather than a rather more troubling conclusion: they understand and they're actively misleading people). Those same people are making statements and drawing conclusions based upon some very shaky foundations.
So, this post is going to explore why a lot of the numbers we see when it comes to the watch market do not actually measure prices. Many claim to report prices, but that is not what they're doing. This is becoming a bit of a theme on Horolonomics: the fact that someone has a number does not mean that number measures something you are interested in. I have a whole lot of sympathy towards those who are pushing us towards the use of data in order to understand the watch market. But poorly measured data is really no different than visiting the oracle at Delphi and having her roll the chicken bones or read the tea leaves or whatever it is she did. In fact, mismeasured data may be way worse than no data at all because it could lead you to inappropriately suspend your skepticism.
A price taking market. Not how much of watch trade works.Let's get into it. There are a lot of ways a market can be structured. One is what we might think of as "price taking." This is like the supermarket: they post a price for an item on their shelf. Then, you go in and buy it at that price. So, there is no difference between what the supermarket asks for an item and what you pay.
The important thing to note is that very few online platforms for luxury watches operate in this way. Instead, we see a whole lot of asking prices for watches. What we don't observe is the closing price: that is, the price actually paid for a watch (for that matter, nor do we observe the "bid," which is the price buyers are willing to pay). When people say "price" for an item in this type of market, what they're really thinking about is the closing price. This is the amount of money that changes hands. The closing price is an agreement between buyer and seller about the object's value.
Let me give an example of why this is a problem for so-called watch market data providers. Subdial defines their "market index" for watches as follows: "Our data model is proprietary, it is updated daily with listings from around the world." So, they basically scrape a whole bunch of numbers off of a whole bunch of watch platforms. Here's the thing: these are asks. They are what the seller wants you to pay. They are not closing prices. Closing prices are much, much harder to obtain.
Here's why this is a problem: suppose I post a vintage Omega pie pan Constellation on a watch forum scraped by Subdial. I list it for $3,000 but I know it doesn't warrant that amount. But I think, "hey, someone out there might actually go for it." Into Subdial's database goes an entry that says a Constellation price is $3,000.
Now, let's say I get a DM from someone and they say, "look, that thing is not worth $3k but I'll give you $1k for it." I give up the ruse, agree to sell at a closing price of $1k and we carry out the transaction on Venmo or whatever. I mark the listing sold in the forum. So, Subdial has the wrong number in their database. The price is the actual closing price of $1k but they record it as $3k.
No amount of handwaving is OK in this situation. The price simply is not $3k. Please know that I'm only mentioning Subdial here as an example. There are many many people now publishing mismeasured "price" data. These publications are kind of like the National Enquirer (tabloid) of economics: they get a whole lot of attention but John Travolta did not actually marry an alien (the price of a Constellation is not actually $3k).
Bid ask spreads before and after the Great Recession.I know some of what I bring up here might risk seeming pedantic. But particularly now, when liquidity is lower and there is a whole lot of uncertainty due to the high risk of recession, asks are probably really really far off from closing. We know this from the US Treasury bond market, where bid ask spreads (the difference between what a seller will accept and a buyer will pay) spiked during the Great Recession of c. 2008 - 9 (see the included graph). So it's quite likely that the asks masquerading as watch prices right now are more inaccurate than ever.
I do believe that, in general, more information is better. However, it is very important that anyone publishing or discussing numbers honestly reports the limitations of those numbers. Right now, that seems far from the case when it comes to secondary market watch prices.
My book on the history of Rolex marketing is now available on Amazon! It debuted as the #1 New Release in its category. You can find it here.
I applaud the effort by watch manufacturers to minimize their contributions to climate change. Globally, we've made some progress towards "bending the curve" of greenhouse gas emissions, which is the good news. This figure from climateactiontracker.org shows that, even under an optimistic scenario, some increase in global temperatures is unavoidable. The bad news is that we clearly need to do a whole lot more to get to a point where we halt the growing cost of environmental degradation. As the graph I've presented here shows, existing policies are not enough to ensure a healthy planet for our children, their children, and all future generations. As Elizabeth Doer's outstanding coverage on Quill and Pad shows, the watch industry is discussing the challenges ahead and developing contributions to the fight against climate change. These include the use of recycled and recovered materials in manufacturing as well as requiring transparency in how raw materials are
Today, I learned a new term from an Instagram post by @ebaywatches. That term is "closet currency." No, this doesn't refer to someone stacking bills in some dark corner of their wardrobe. Instead, closet currency is the value that is stored in items that you put in your closet. At least, that's what I think it means. I arrived at this conclusion since eBay's post featured YouTuber Jose Zeniga describing the monetary value of different luxury watches. Zeniga also described a "luxury exchange" that eBay set up in NYC. In essence, you could take something out of your closet, go to the exchange, get an appraisal value, and then use your item and its appraisal to purchase another item that was available on the exchange. The formal definition of money is anything that is generally accepted as payment. In essense, eBay set up a NYC micro-economy in which almost any closet item could be used as money. Money is actually a pretty complex topic. It took a lo
An inflatable rat in front of a Rolex property in New York City, source: Google Maps. While following up on a recent Instagram post, I spent some time reviewing properties owned by Rolex in the New York City metropolitan area. One property, in particular, caught my interest because it seemed to be "off the beaten track." In order to learn more about it, I used street view in Google Maps to access some pictures of the building. As I virtually strolled down the middle of the street, I approached the building's main entrance. Surprise doesn't even begin to describe my reaction when I saw an inflatible rat positioned on the sidewalk facing the door. This thing was big, maybe 12 feet tall. A carnival-esque rodent was the last thing I expected to see near the entrance to a Rolex building. There were three people standing nearby, one wearing something like a construction hat. Having seen a number of labor-related demonstrations in the recent past, my gut told me th
Comments
Post a Comment