Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6291441" data-attributes="member: 27160">Sure, but that's hardly surprising since (a) his career was so short and his output both brilliant and prolific, and (b) just inflation since 1970 has inflated prices enormously.Hmm, "modest estate" by whose reckoning? Mike Jeffrey reported it as only $20,000, but honesty and accuracy were hardly his most notable features. Even by his account, that sum does not seem to include assets such as the Electric Ladyland studio.Sure, and this brings up a nub of what I was saying; was the increase in value extraordinary, and was it a result of holding back some of the IP forming part of the estate (i.e. neither selling it nor licensing it)?I am sceptical of this on several grounds:- A fair amount of the music was in fact released, and has been earning (for the estate) for much of the 40+ years since Jimi's death. If it hadn't, I wouldn't have been saving my pocket money to buy it in the late '70s.- To the extent that some of the material was not released, the reasons cited by the managers of the estate have frequently been quality and completeness related, rather than any expectation that the price was too low and could be expected to rise.- The real initial value of the estate is debatable, but most credible sources put it at "multimillion" - probably low millions of real value at the time of his death. A sum of $7.5 million in 1970 would be expected to appreciate to $80 million by 2002 if simply invested in US GDP (which is what you should expect the long-term stock market value to parallel). That represents a very pedestrian rate of accumulation; a sum of $4 million accumulating to $80 million would be more like the desired expectation for a risky investment such as a popular music legacy immediately following an artist's death.So, is that really an example of "holding back IP assets giving unusually good returns"? It's not impossible, but I remain sceptical and, even if it is, it's hardly a regular, run-of-the-mill case. It hardly proves that holding IP for accumulating value due to pent-up demand is in general a good business strategy, and I remain convinced that it's actually, in general, a very bad one.</blockquote>

Verification