OK--mate -I was doing some short-cut points. Now let me put it in plain English--for your convenience. Does Google say --it hides real PR from public? Or you read it on a SEO forum/blog written by a SEO guru? If Google says it --please give me the URL of that page. But if you are referring to some articles written by self-declared/styled ( Sorry I see no school/institute that gives one official title as SEO expert, in my view anybody can claim to be SEO expert) -- then just forget it. That theory is nothing but crap. Practical example -- Check the directory - http://www.linksjuice.com --it is PR6 and PR5 innerpages (currently I think it lost inner-page PR as Terry just recently re-wrote the URLs to static URLs from Dynamic) This directory went online just few weeks before last PR update ( please check whois) --so the owner had just few weeks time to buy links. And during January update --it achieved strong PR6 with 80% innerpages getting PR5. So my question to you is ---when did Google hide actual PR for linksjuice? There was absolutely no time --for that. So your theory/ or rather I should say that hidden PR theory by those frustrated SEO experts is a crap. The toolbar will show you live PR as is what it is. I hope you understand my English now. If not --please feel free --I will write using old grammatical norms. Thanks
What is the cost if you rent a text link on a PR6 home page ... maybe $30-40 a month? So some of the higher ranking sites are already paying close to $500 a year renting similar PR6 links. That is why bid directories can command such high prices. By the way you will see even higher prices when they add next years budget to the current bids.
Bidding directories which don't cheat by adding their own or friends sites without paying, should pay off. Like they always say, the value of something is what somebody is willing to pay for it.