On Thursday night, June 11, the biggest World Cup in history kicked off at Estadio Azteca: 48 teams, 104 matches, three host countries. The following night, the United States take the field in Los Angeles. And the card market is running flat out with the tournament — the soccer index is up 10.6% over the past six months, and the shelves are buckling under fresh World Cup product.

Everyone is buying. This piece asks two questions: what exactly is being bought — and what happened to the people who bought last time.

The Biggest Stage, a Different Regime

On paper, 2026 is the biggest opportunity soccer cards have ever been handed: a home tournament on the American market and an audience that basketball and football collectors keep spilling into. And big money believes it. A month ago, FIFA announced the end of the Panini era that began in 1970 — from 2031, the exclusive license for World Cup cards, stickers and trading card games moves to Fanatics/Topps. (Panini still holds the license through this tournament and 2030.) Fanatics’ CEO added a number of his own: their UEFA-licensed card business grew from about $15 million to over $200 million. Institutions don’t buy fads. They buy trends.

One number is missing from the bullish threads, though: the CardLadder soccer index — a composite gauge of soccer card prices — sits at 13,627, still roughly 31% below its 2021 peak of 19,864. This isn’t mania. It’s a recovery, and it only started in early 2025. And the difference between mania and recovery will decide everything that follows.

What’s Actually Being Bought

Five names, the same six-month window, CardLadder player indexes:

• Yamal (18): +241.6%

• Haaland (25): +46.8%

• Mbappé (27): +32.4%

• Ronaldo (41): +7.5%

• Messi (38): +3.8%

• The segment as a whole: +10.6%

The ranking almost exactly tracks age — in reverse. The one exception sits at the tail: forty-one-year-old Ronaldo has leapfrogged Messi, three years his junior. And that exception gives the game away: age itself isn’t what’s being paid for. The market pays for a fresh story: how many chapters are left, and how big a stage they’ll play on. And on that basis, the five split into four tiers.

The Heir. Yamal is a category of his own — and he has the most of both. At eighteen he goes to his first World Cup leading Spain, the bookmakers’ favorite; he turns nineteen on July 13, six days before the final. His market didn’t reprice — it rewrote the price list. And it did so despite an injury that will likely cost him at least the start of the group stage. At the bottom of the range: his base rookie Refractor, the 2023-24 Topps Chrome UEFA Club Competitions #64. In a PSA 10 — the top grade, 476 of them in existence — it went from $500 to $2,130 in six months. At the top end: four of his cards have cleared $100,000 in the past fifteen months, with the record held by a signed Superfractor — a one-of-one — from the Euro Topps Chrome set, at $396,500 in June 2025. And in between, demand nobody else on this list has: CardLadder indexes just 29 Yamal cards so far — against 92 for Haaland — and they’re still worth nearly four times as much combined. On top of that, his cards trade nearly twice as many dollars per day as Mbappé’s and Haaland’s put together.

The New Chapter. Norway hadn’t reached a World Cup since 1998, so Haaland, at twenty-five, is heading to the first major tournament of his career. And the demand comes from the top down. Every rookie line has a scarcity ladder — from the base version up to limited parallels, where /99 means 99 copies made. His 2019 Topps Chrome Bundesliga line (#72) over the past six months:

• Refractor (PSA 10; the base, most-traded version): from $2,500 to $2,640, +5.6%

• Green Refractor /99 (in PSA 9, where the card actually trades): from $1,800 to $3,350 on three sales, +86%

• Gold Refractor /50 (PSA 10): from $15,200 to $30,000 between last September and this April, +97%

A handful of trades? Sure. With scarce cards, the small sample is the point, not a flaw in the measurement.

The Rerun. Mbappé — world champion in 2018, a hat-trick in a lost 2022 final, leading a favorite at twenty-seven — is the most valuable warning on this list. His Green Refractor /99 from the key 2017 Topps Chrome UEFA Champions League line (#41) jumped from $9,900 to about $15,000 last autumn — but everything was rising then; it rode the whole market, no merit of its own. Since December the segment has added another ten percent and Haaland’s scarce pieces tens of percent. Mbappé’s own index is up 32.4% over the same six months — but the growth lives at the cheap end of his range: base versions and World Cup-branded cards, most under $1,000, up anywhere from 45% to more than 130% over the past three months. At the top, where status is decided, almost nothing is moving:

• Green Refractor /99 (PSA 10): $15,000 in December, $15,000 in May — zero

• Purple Refractor /250 (PSA 10): first sale $5,150 in March, last $4,500 in May — eight in total, scattered between $4,500 and $5,433. No direction.

• Gold Refractor /50 (PSA 10): last sale $21,000 in August 2023 — not a single one since

• Kaboom! (2018 Panini, PSA 10): $16,669 in February, $16,000 in May — six sales in total, swinging between $13,800 and $16,200 along the way. Busy, but no net move.

Same product line, same parallel, same window: Haaland’s /99 +86%, Mbappé’s /99 0%.

Standing still in a rising market isn’t stability — it’s losing ground.

The difference shows at the top of the ladder. A fresh story gets even the scarcest pieces repriced — six-figure sales for Yamal, a doubled Gold for Haaland. A rerun’s top stays put, waiting for a story that no longer comes.

The Last Dance. Messi and Ronaldo are closing the same story at two different speeds. Messi’s market is still by far the biggest — his indexed cards are worth $79 million, more than the other four put together — but his wave has already passed. In late summer and autumn 2025, a run of record sales swept through his market. The wave was crowned by his 2004-05 Panini Mega Cracks #71 rookie selling for $1.5 million in a PSA 10 — no soccer card has ever sold for more. The index shot to nearly 177,000 points, then corrected and settled around 130,000 — more than double where 2025 began. Today’s +3.8% isn’t apathy; it’s the echo. Ronaldo went the other way: up 22% off his January low, the only one of the five closing the window right at his peak — 141,594 points. Two speeds, one logic: a farewell doesn’t go on sale.

One note on method, because the whole piece rests on it: indexes summarize, sales testify. That’s why I show both everywhere — and when it’s a handful of trades, I say so straight out.

What Qatar Did

Now flip the whole thing around. Qatar 2022 was the biggest catalyst this sport has — and it landed in the middle of the biggest slide the hobby has ever seen. The covid bubble was deflating: the soccer index lost 67% between its 2021 peak and its 2024 trough of 6,480 points. The tournament didn’t slow that avalanche by a single week; the index kept falling straight through it.

And the winners? Messi lifted the trophy — and his market just shrugged. Twelve months after the final whistle his index stood 1.2% above where it had started — it never left a 36,000–46,000 band. Mbappé scored a hat-trick in the final and took the Golden Boot — and his index still gave back 27% in the year that followed. His flagship rookie in PSA 10 — the 2016 Panini Foot sticker (#504/505) — spiked briefly during the tournament, then lost 36% over the next twelve months. The segment over the same window: −31%. The honest read: the regime did the damage — and the biggest stage in sport couldn’t buy anyone a repricing. The world champion got a year of treading water. The Golden Boot got minus twenty-seven.

And at the very top? Mbappé’s Gold Refractor /50 from that same 2017 Topps Chrome UCL line: $26,400 in March 2023, $21,000 in August — then silence. Almost three years without a single sale.

After the tournament, it wasn’t just prices that dried up. Liquidity did.

When the story fades, it won’t be the price on your screen that hurts — it’ll be the buyer who never shows up.

I don’t know this cycle only from charts. That beaten-up rerun card above — the same Mbappé Panini Foot rookie sticker — isn’t an anonymous example. Last autumn, three years after Qatar, I bought it — precisely because the decline had already done its work. This spring, before kickoff, I sold it — for roughly half again what I paid. Not because I’m smarter than the market. I just bought when nobody wanted the story, and sold as the tournament was bringing the attention back.

What Follows — and What Doesn’t

2026 isn’t 2022, though. The regime has flipped: the market has been recovering since early 2025, so this time tournament demand has a chance to actually show up in prices instead of drowning in them. The data does not say everything will be a third cheaper in January.

What it does say is asymmetry. Whoever buys today is buying after six months of gains, at the top of the story, in a regime nobody can forecast for the second half of the year. And one detail straight from the stat boxes: Messi, Haaland and Mbappé all close the window just under its highs (−4.7%, −4.2%, −2.6%), the segment −1.4%. That’s not a decline — it’s lost momentum. The market isn’t accelerating into kickoff. It’s standing still.

Whoever holds, on the other hand, is looking at the most liquid window of the entire cycle: more buyers, more bids and more attention than this segment will see again before the 2030 World Cup. And one more memory from last time — the only things that stayed above water were the unrepeatable pieces. Everything replaceable bled with the market.

Scarcity won’t always protect you. Unrepeatability might.

The Verdict

Holding? The tournament is a window to sell, not a reason to fall in love. Love for winners is the most expensive emotion in a portfolio — I wrote about it last time.

Buying? The big buying window historically doesn’t open at kickoff — it opens months after the final. There are exceptions even now: an injury has Bellingham priced well below the role he’ll play this summer — England’s most important player. And Vinícius — one of the five or six most valuable footballers in the world, per Transfermarkt — has cards that never caught up with that status. But the real discounts start once the attention drains away — that’s exactly how it went after Qatar. And if you’re buying now anyway, at peak attention, at least know which tier you’re buying into: the heir, the new chapter, the rerun or the last dance.

Watching? The best-documented boom-bust cycle in the hobby’s history is about to run right in front of you. Take notes. The next big window arrives with the 2030 World Cup — sooner than you think.

Everyone buys the World Cup. The sellers are the ones who read history.

Which tier are you buying into?

And would you still buy it six months after the final?

Reply directly to this email — I read every response.

Subscribe now

— Geminded

There’s a card in my vault I’ve held for years for one reason only: so I don’t have to admit a loss. The market isn’t moving. No catalyst. I know I should sell — and I keep putting it off. Meanwhile, a card I sold three years too early is now worth twenty times what I got for it. This isn’t a story about two cards. It’s a story about one mistake we all make — and about why we make it even when we see it.

It’s a flaw in how the mind works — mine, yours, everyone’s who has ever held a position and watched it rise or fall. The flaw has a name: the disposition effect. And today you won’t get another story — you’ll get the mechanism from the inside. Why you have it too, even if you think you don’t.

What it is

The term comes from 1985, from a paper by Hersh Shefrin and Meir Statman. Its title is the whole thesis: “The Disposition to Sell Winners Too Early and Ride Losers Too Long.”

It has two sides — and they’re exact opposites. You sell winners too early — you lock in a sure gain before it ripens. And you hold losing positions too long — you refuse to close one and wait for it to “come back.” It isn’t about mood. It isn’t greed one day and fear the next. It’s a systematic asymmetry that always pulls the same way.

And this isn’t soft speculation. In 1998, Terrance Odean went through the trading records of 10,000 real brokerage accounts. The result: investors realized gains 1.5× more often than losses — 14.8% of gains booked versus 9.8% of losses.

Now, here’s the first objection waiting to be raised: doesn’t that just mean they invested well and had more winners? No. The number doesn’t measure how many winners they had — it measures how they treated them. Out of all their winning positions, they sold a far larger share than they did of their losing ones. When they were up, they took the gain. When they were down, they held and waited. Same decision environment, opposite behavior. “They invested well” doesn’t explain that.

No survey, no lab. Real trades by real people with real money. The effect shows up across the US, Europe and Asia, among retail and institutional investors alike. It’s one of the most robust facts we have about how investors behave.

Why it happens

Shefrin and Statman saw four psychological forces behind it. Don’t read them as a list — read them as four forces pulling the same way, each of which I know from my own head.

Loss aversion — the engine. Kahneman and Tversky showed that a loss hurts roughly twice as much as an equal gain feels good. It’s not an impression — it’s an asymmetry built into how we value things (a coefficient around 2.25). What that means for your decisions: realizing a gain is a small, certain pleasure now. Realizing a loss is a large, certain pain now. The brain instinctively takes the pleasure and defers the pain.

Mental accounting — the ledger in your head. You run every card as a separate account against the price you paid for it. Until you sell, the account is “open” — the loss is only on paper, it can still “come back.” The moment you sell, you close the account and the paper loss turns into a final, booked defeat. Which gives one of the most important sentences in this whole piece: your purchase price is psychologically sticky but economically irrelevant. The market doesn’t care what you paid. Price is set by what the card can actually fetch today based on recent sales — not by your account.

Regret avoidance — dodging the admission of a mistake. Selling at a loss means actively admitting: I was wrong. Holding means postponing that admission. Selling a winner, by contrast, brings pride — “I was right, I cashed in.” The mind collects pride and runs from admitting it was wrong, even when that costs it money.

Self-control — willpower versus desire. Shefrin has his own apt term for it: get-evenitis. The urge to at least break even, to get square, to “not lose on it” — before I close the position. It’s the disease of breaking even. And we all know it.

Four different forces, one direction: hold what’s falling, sell what’s rising. Exactly the opposite of what the math would want.

Why it hurts more with cards

This is where most articles on the disposition effect stop — at stocks. And where the part that interests me about cards begins. Because the effect isn’t tied to the stock market. It’s documented on markets that trade slowly, and where you have a relationship with the asset.

In 2001, David Genesove and Christopher Mayer studied the Boston condo market. Owners sitting on a nominal loss set noticeably higher asking prices than those sitting on a gain — they passed part of their loss straight into the price and waited months for a buyer who often never came. Loss aversion isn’t a stock-market anomaly. It lives anywhere the asset is illiquid and emotionally charged. And a card is both — more so than a stock.

Three reasons a card hands your head more excuses than a stock does:

No daily price. A stock is priced every second. A card isn’t. A “paper loss” is far easier to keep calling “temporary” when no one is repricing it out loud every day.

Emotional ownership. You don’t hold a stock in your hand. A card you do. The collector’s attachment amplifies mental accounting — the reference point (your purchase price) gets even stickier when a piece of you is attached to it.

Illiquidity masks the mistake. When a card barely trades, “it’s just not selling yet, I’ll wait for the right buyer” sounds reasonable. And sometimes it’s true. Other times it’s just get-evenitis dressed up as patience. And from the outside, the two look exactly alike.

The card market hands your head every excuse the stock market doesn’t.

And there’s one more layer. With scarce and ultra-rare cards, many lean on CardLadder Value as an “objective” number. But it’s precisely the rarest pieces the index often underprices. It doesn’t apply across the board — but when it happens, even the reference point you’re basing your decision on sits below reality. And that only feeds the disposition effect: “hold” is whispered to you by both the bias and an underpriced index.

Two examples from my portfolio

Theory is nice. Now two cards from my investment collection — each showing one half of the bias. And with one of them I’ll tell you straight: I don’t know which side of the line I’m on.

A winner sold too early — Kaboom. This is Exhibit A, and you already know it from the last article, so briefly. A 2018 Panini Kaboom Messi Gold, one of ten copies, PSA 10. I bought it brilliantly, sold it in 2022 into the post-covid slump at a profit — but far below what it’s probably worth today. I took a sure gain now. It cost me all the growth that came after. A textbook disposition effect.

You can’t buy the same card back — and if you could, certainly not for what you sold it for.

A held losing position — or a thesis? A 2016-17 Donruss Optic Giannis Black 1/1, BGS 9.5. I bought it during covid, fairly expensive. Today its price is highly uncertain — by current CardLadder Value roughly a third of what I paid, and CL Value tends to run conservative on cards this rare. I’ve held it for four years, still hoping it climbs.

Notice that word: hoping. That’s exactly the language get-evenitis speaks. “It still has potential, I’m just waiting for the right moment.” That’s how everyone sounds who’s holding a loss and won’t admit it. A bias never presents itself as a bias — it always dresses up as a thesis.

So I asked myself a question I’ll put to you in a moment: if I didn’t own Giannis today and had the same cash — would I buy him at the current price as a fresh position? For Giannis, my answer is yes. And why, the next section settles.

When holding a loss is NOT a mistake

Now the most important distinction in this whole article — otherwise it collapses into the naive advice “always sell whatever’s in the red.” That would be wrong. The disposition effect is about the REASON, not the action. Holding a losing position can be perfectly rational. It depends on why.

The thesis hasn’t changed, only the price. When the fundamentals still hold and only the current price has dropped, holding is right — that’s not bias, that’s patience. For rare, irreplaceable positions it’s doubly true.

Illiquidity as a fact, not an excuse. For genuinely rare cards, “wait for the right buyer” is a real approach. But only when you can separate it from rationalization. The test is simple: would you sell it today at fair value if someone offered it? If yes, you’re holding for the future, not for the purchase price — and that’s fine. If it bothers you to sell “below what you paid,” you’re holding because of get-evenitis.

Taxes. Odean saw this in the data too: in December the ratio flips — people suddenly realize more losses than gains, because tax optimization overrides the bias. Realizing a loss can make legitimate tax sense. Sometimes selling at a loss is the smarter move, not a capitulation.

And here I come back to Giannis. My answer “I’d buy him again” wasn’t a defense — it was a test, and Giannis passed it. I hold him because the thesis is alive: he’s deeply undervalued against the market, he’s an active player with a clear catalyst (he wants out of the Bucks, and where he lands is the open question), and he’s still a 1/1. That isn’t get-evenitis. That’s a thesis with a defined decision point.

The hard part isn’t knowing the rule. The hard part is telling a good reason from a good excuse.

What to do about it — my antidote

Most articles write “set your rules in advance and stick to them” here. True, but empty. Here’s what I actually do — and it isn’t a slogan, it’s a decision framework I run every position through.

The purchase price doesn’t decide. The catalyst does. Instead of asking “what did I pay?” I ask “what moves this card next?” And I sort catalysts into three types:

A live catalyst. An active player, a near and concrete event that can move the value (a trade, a title, an MVP season). Giannis 1/1: waiting on his destination after the Bucks. Holding makes sense because the decision point is close and binary.

An exhausted catalyst. No clear future trigger. The card holds its price but goes nowhere. This is where get-evenitis attacks hardest — and where a hard rule has to step in. I hold a card in my portfolio of a player who no longer plays and whose market hasn’t moved in years: direct comps are still the same, the last time a card identical in grade sold, a few months ago, it went for the same money as before. No catalyst. Inside, I want it to climb at least a few thousand — but that’s get-evenitis now, not analysis. So I have a clear rule for this card: I won’t wait forever. Soon I’ll send it to auction and close the position.

A macro catalyst. A big event that lifts not a single player but a whole segment — a World Cup, an Olympics. A different logic than for an individual; we’ll save that one for another time.

And here’s the hardest part, not the technical one: the loss has to be accepted, written into a cell in Excel — because until it’s written down, it isn’t real. This one will have to be. Capital frozen in a stagnant losing position isn’t working; even the smallest proceeds I move elsewhere, where there is a catalyst.

I mention that exhausted position here only as an example of the mechanism. It has its own story — far deeper, a different market, a direct comparison with Kaboom, and the question of why the market values some careers higher than others even when the numbers say otherwise. Several factors play into it — and one of them is how a player is remembered. That one gets its own article.

Which card in your collection is an “open account” you refuse to close — and is it a thesis, or get-evenitis?

Write to me; I read every reply.

Next time: how big events — the World Cup, a week away — move card prices. FOMO, the other side of this coin, will have to wait. Which, for a piece about the fear of missing out, is actually pretty funny.

Subscribe now

— Geminded

Late summer 2025. I’m coming back from a work trip abroad. Out of curiosity, I scroll through a few recent auction results. A card I sold three years ago is, at that moment, worth more than twenty times what I sold it for. I sit there, stunned. I’d boarded the right train — and clearly got off a few stops early.

This is the story of two cards — one I sold sooner than I should have, and one I bought this year. And of a mistake I don’t want to repeat.

Through Geminded I want to write about sports and other cards as a serious alternative asset. Analytically, on a data-driven basis. With my own portfolio on the line. From a European perspective — one this category still badly lacks.

No speculation without data, no hype, no clickbait rankings.

Specific positions, specific reasoning, specific deals — including the ones that went wrong.

This is the first of them.

Late 2020 — the covid-era boom

The collectibles market is climbing month after month. I bought a 2018 Panini Kaboom Messi Gold — the parallel limited to 10 copies, my copy graded PSA 10 (Pop 3). Kaboom was already an established insert in basketball, but in other sports it was only just gaining traction. The price wasn’t small, but I knew right away it was a winner.

Late 2022 — the post-covid slump

The covid bubble has burst and the whole collectibles market is falling — soccer cards included. The World Cup in Qatar is coming and Argentina advances to the knockout stage. I believe the price will go up. I sell.

I make money — and not a little — but far below my original estimate. Before the auction I’d had an offer of $50,000. I turned it down, figuring the auction would bring more. It didn’t (by more than a third). I still came out ahead on the sale, but only because of an exceptionally good buy two years earlier.

Late summer 2025 — late comps

Over the summer of 2025 a message landed on my WhatsApp asking whether I still had the card. And shortly after, comparable sales started to appear.

A direct comp — the same card selling again — hasn’t happened for mine since 2022. A horizontal comp (same card, different grade): a 2018 Messi Kaboom Gold in PSA 9 sold for $385,084 in a private sale in August 2025. A vertical comp (same set, different player): a 2018 LeBron Kaboom in BGS 9.5 sold at Goldin for $353,800 in November 2025.

At that point I can see my card is worth well above what I sold it for. Maybe somewhere around $750,000 or more.

The proceeds from the 2022 sale went exactly where I needed them at the time. A specific personal goal that couldn’t be postponed and that I couldn’t have afforded without that exit. So I don’t question the sale itself.

What can be questioned is how I arrived at it. And the price I paid for getting there.

What Kaboom taught me — why standard exit logic fails on scarce cards

Scarce cards don’t trade on the same logic as common ones. And when you sell them with a specific goal in mind, you usually pay for that difference — with a delay.

A card with a population in the hundreds behaves like standard goods — more copies, stable prices between sales, frequent comps.

A card limited to 10, with a population of 3 in the top grade, is a thin market — fewer holders, years between sales, bigger price jumps.

A true 1of1 has nothing left to compare against. Every sale is its own benchmark.

The consequence for exit logic is this. For scarce positions it isn’t enough to set a target price and sell when it’s reached. You can’t buy the same card back. The target you set today may not match what the card is worth in three years. That’s true of every card — but with low Pop it’s true many times over.

It doesn’t mean every such sale is a mistake. It means that for irreplaceable positions, a target price is a weaker guide than you think at the moment you set it. The narrative around the card shifts — and your exit plan should shift with it.

February 2026 — second attempt, different rules

The first test of that principle. I’m back, and this time without compromises.

In my investment collection I have a new Messi: a 2024 Panini Prizm Copa America Gold Wave PSA 10. The set has four 1of1s in total (Black, Nebula, Black Pulsar, Gold Wave), and mine is probably tier 4 among them — the lowest priced of the four (given the color, the pattern, and market preference). Even so, it’s the only card that exists in this exact form.

Gold Wave isn’t anywhere near the same price league as Kaboom Gold. Kaboom Gold sits far higher in Messi’s catalog. What both cards share is how they trade — both sell against a key narrative event (back then the soccer World Cup in Qatar, this year the World Cup in the US, Mexico and Canada).

For the Copa America Gold Wave, no prior PSA 10 sale exists — the only transaction in this card is my own purchase. Within the same set, though, there’s a single horizontal comp: another 1of1, the Black Prizm in PSA 9, sold at auction for $68,320 in December 2024. The CardLadder Value for this variant today (05/26 — author’s note) sits around $180,000.

But these numbers need to be read with caution. The Black Prizm sold shortly after the 2024 set’s release, when prices on freshly released cards tend to be inflated by early hype. The genuinely realizable price today may not match the CL Value. It isn’t a firm benchmark — a reference point, nothing more.

Exit rules for this position — what I’m doing differently

Two rules I’m trading Gold Wave by. I used neither on Kaboom.

First: no auction format. Not now, at least. Even with good preparation — CL Value, recent comps, the player’s index — an auction on a card with no direct or horizontal comps carries residual risk. The final price can badly undershoot a calibrated estimate, and there’s no backing out without a reputational cost.

A Best Offer (BO) format lets me decide as I go. If the right offer doesn’t come, the card stays in the vault.

An auction may make sense later, once comparable sales accumulate — another 1of1 from the same set, or cards from similarly styled sets.

Second: hold, not a bet on a single catalyst. If the World Cup doesn’t bring the right exit, I keep the card. Copa America 2028. Messi’s gradual exit from the national team. The end of a career, usually followed by index stabilization and another growth phase. The narrative continues. There’s no rule that I have to sell just because a tournament happened.

What can go wrong — the risks I’m not ignoring

Liquidity in this price class is low. Globally it’s a few hundred serious buyers and a handful of institutional collectors. Most in the US, some in Asia. And Europe? There’s certainly no line of cash-ready buyers forming here.

Misreading Messi’s exit. The “last big tournament” thesis assumes WC 2026 will be the finale of Messi’s national-team career. He’s announced — and changed — his intention to leave before. If he keeps going — Copa America 2028, where he’ll be 41 — the peak narrative moves forward. The exit window for Gold Wave slides out, and I hold the card longer than I’m currently counting on.

Current position

• The card is in the vault with an active BO listing on Fanatics Collect.

• I’m waiting for the right offer; I’m not actively chasing a buyer.

• For a 1of1 with no direct comp, a stop-loss doesn’t apply.

For irreplaceable positions, the asymmetry holds. Sell too early and the gap between your sale price and the future value can never be closed — you can’t buy the same card back. Sell too late and you only lose a slice of the peak, but you held the card the whole time.

I could no longer say yes to that 2025 offer. The card was gone. What I do control is not repeating the same mistake I made with Kaboom. And understanding why I made it in the first place.

Has it ever happened to you that you made the right decision — and still regret it to this day?

And who do you think wins this year’s World Cup — and why exactly Argentina?

Reply directly to this email; I read every response.

In the next article we’ll look at the disposition effect — the cognitive trap that systematically pushes investors to sell winners too early. The trap I walked straight into with Kaboom.

Subscribe now

— Geminded