Safe audiogon transactions; lowering the bar.

I've never seen anything that addresses the insurance risk for items owned and shipped to a repair facility, which clearly is not the owner, and is returned to the owner from that facility. The shipper of the return item is clearly not the owner, does not have an insurable interest and insures the package for full value. On what basis does the shipper decided to settle a claim with the repair facility which shipped rather than the owner who has the damages??????

Hi again Swampwalker,

We seem to be getting closer on our ideas. I wonder why you think that I don't trust buyers/sellers with substantial feedback. If I read correctly, that's Bishopwill and others. I personally have 270+ positives with no negatives between here and Ebay while doing deals for well into 6 figures. Me?
I trust anyone with virtually all positives, who sounds and acts solid. Act flaky and scare the hell out of me. I don't need to buy or sell so, make me nervous and we've got no deal to do. Easy. Your personal choice to look only at recent feedback doesn't work for me. I care about character and history and subtance. I buy substantial items regularly and work to be cost effective but not be scammed.

I'm certain that Audiogon could expand the verification system and combined with verification and documentation enter into an insurance arrangement with a 3rd party provider to insure transactions.

BUT and I really mean BUT, if a thief wants to steal, it's going to happen. Maybe to me, maybe not, but certainly he'll find willing participants.

I'd really like to see the feedback include the amount of the sale, if buyer or seller and type of payment. It makes evaluating the prior transactions more effective.

It's fun to see how suspicious minds deal with risk. The truth for everyone here who trades cash for goods is that there are no guarantees. Cod does present the risk of there being A.......s like that thief last summer from San Diego who paid cod's with forged certified checks to the tune of 100k+ and those who speak about boxes with no goods in them. I'll never understand those who have little or no transaction history and are untrusting of others who have substantial immaculate transaction history, and believe that cod is the answer. It kinda makes me suspicious of them!!!

Even in the box, in person transactions can be tainted. In person only assures the players that there is an item and that there is cash. NO more!

The protection under Paypal is only concerning verified members up to $200??? And when shipped to a verified address and when the claim is made within 30 days of payment. I have been clipped twice on ebay by CD/R sales which I thought Ebay would handle and by the time I didn?t get re-payment, it was over the 30 days. Not much money involved, but no repayment. Paypal has no guarantee against chargebacks when the purchaser uses a credit card as payment method. BIG RISK!

Wire transfers have clear advantages. Initially, banks have verifiability of accounts with tax id's and other bank references, generally including credit histories. Additionally, in order to wire funds, the seller has to provide verification of who, where and telephone confirmation numbers all of which can be checked. Reverse look up phone numbers for addresses and if not satisfied, ask for the audio shop the piece was purchased at and then look up the number and call the shop. Sellers can provide their bankers names and phone numbers as well. There is at a minimum very little likelihood of fraud by anonymity.

With the above available, I?d never ship cod to anyone with low feedback. EVER! Yes, anyone who does buy from me is taking a risk. But that risk isn?t that I won?t ship or that the goods aren?t as advertised, only that they won?t like what they thought they would.

Wires can't be stopped once received except for bank error. So, at least one half of the risk is removed. No method other than in person exchange completely eliminates the risk to the second party of not receiving the goods.

It?s unfortunate that only one side of the risk can be eliminated. But, given that fact, it?s 100% better than both sides being at risk.

Bill E.

Hi Bishopwill,

I read your Ebay feedback; 6 positives, 1 neutral, 3 negatives and your Audiogon feedback; zero. I think I understand the value of your experience on this subject.

Another proof that a logical extension of an illogical premise is still bull!

The playing field can never be level, it's always tilted to one side. Only question to me, irrespective of position, is can risk be eliminated? I did mention I'm an actuary, didn't I?

Best wishes,

Hi Swampwalker,

I'm curious what part of what Bishopwill wrote you agree with? I for one am more usually a buyer not a seller. I am not in the audio business and never will be. I write only as an interested party who wishes to reduce risk in transactions to the extent possible. The emotionalizing of buyer vs. seller seems a waste of time to me. Rather, risk reduction would be more useful.

Unless buyer/seller meet in person, there is no way I can think of to eliminate the possibility that one or the other potentially is acting in bad faith and that is still not foolproof. But, even in cash in person transactions, it is also remotely likely that the transfer takes place in a parking lot alongside a highway, the goods are stolen, or one or the other is a thief. Certainly possible as well given that large amounts of cash can be involved.

Unless one side can be certain of the other sides history and character, a risk is being taken.

I was speaking with my wife, a lawyer, about this a few minutes ago. We considered what we thought were all possibilities. Then I pondered whether I would send $60,000 for a pair of speakers(an exceptionally large amount of money) I want by wire to someone, dealer or otherwise or go in person to inspect first prior to delivery of payment. My conclusion is that I would only trust one person here on Audiogon with that much money and that's Jonathan Tinn. Anyone else and I go in person. And that's independent of wealth, history or contribution to this site.

I clearly understand and appreciate the risks we all take. Most of us who have spent large amounts here know them all too well. But, gut feelings, bank references and verification are the yardsticks to reduce risk by not which side of the transaction is more righteous.

Every arrangement has faults and risks. Imagine selling your pair of Levinson 33's for a bargain $16,000 and agreeing to an escrow. The "buyer" sends a legitimate certified check to the escrow agent, it is deposited and clears. You're notified of good funds and you ship to the "buyer". He then notifies the escrow agent upon receipt not to release the escrow. He alleges fraud, misrepresentation, condition reduction, you're a liar or whatever. He has your amps and you don't have your money and your not going to get it! Anyone here prepared to sue in Federal Court to recover $16,000? I'm not! I'm reasonably certain that no lawyer here is. Just what would we do?

Any arrangement other than payment to seller up front is seller at risk period. Perhaps someone here can find a hole in that logic? If so, please post.

Other side, buyer at risk. Buyer sends payment, seller doesn't ship or ships stuffed box or sends goods in lesser condition that represented. Unless we can arrange buyer insurance??? buyer is not protected as would be in a credit card transaction to a dealer. Maybe that's the answer. Induce a insurer to be willing to guaranty against fraud for a fee with due diligence being on the part of the insurer.

Now the $$$$$ question. Who here is prepared to pay the premium to insure the purchase or sale of the items they buy or sell presuming a cost factor of say 2%?

If we want absolute protection, then we've got to pay for it.