Bidding on your own names at NameJet...?

[webquest]

Once in awhile I see people bidding on their own domains at NJ. I would think it would be frowned upon.

Today's seems more obvious than normal. Or am I missing something here?

Airlinejobs.com owned by Andy Booth at Booth.com and high bidder is BQDNcom (James Booth).

3 bids down we see Boothcom as a bidder.

Same thing with MovieZone.com. Owned by Andy Booth in which he currently appears to be the high bidder.

High Bid: $2,475 USD by boothcom

They actually won their own domain airplanesforsale.com. Im guessing it didnt get as high as they wanted so needed to protect it.

Bidder Amount Date
bqdncom $2,001 7/17/2017 12:23 PM
boothcom $1,950 7/17/2017 12:23 PM

 

[mr-x]

This isn't a new practice, it's just unethical.

3. Seller Bidding Sellers who bid at their own absolute auctions create concern in the real estate auction industry. Sellers are prohibited from bidding at their own absolute auction.154 The court in Pyles v. Goller provides an analysis of why.155 On the day of the auction, only the appellee, Goller, and an unknown bidder had registered to bid at the auction.156 However, prior to the auction, the sellers informed the auctioneer that they were considering bidding on the property themselves.157 The auctioneer later testified that “it was his understanding that ‘[at] an absolute auction, the owner does not have the ability to bid on his own property.’”158 Despite these reservations, the auctioneer allowed the sellers to bid at the auction and never announced this fact.159

https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/acrel.sit...DEA/Hammond-F08-Good_Real_Estate_Auctions.pdf

 

[domain hacks]

They bid on each other domains, they like each other posts...oh, the humanity!!

 

[Rick Schwartz]

This is TOTAL BULLSHIT!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

 

[xn--v4h.com]

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

I'm not your biggest fan but you made good points here.

 

[betthelot]

This risk is the opportunity cost. I really am surprised nobody understands that!!!!!!

If i put xyz.com in auction and its about to sell for $10,000 and I bid $10,100 then i have made the decision that i rather have the domain name xyz.com than the $10,000 (minus auction commission). If I rather have $10,000 then i let someone else win.

Free market capitalism 101.

Hi Andrew, I understand your theory that allowing the owner to bid on a no reserve auction creates the most perfectly priced market. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought.
What is against your model is that in an auction environment a major piece of information that bidders use to assess the value of an asset is 'DO OTHERS THINK THE SAME'.
It helps to validate or give confidence for them to bid higher. Now if the other bidder is the owner most would feel they are being duped, because owners often over value their own assets and therefore winning against the owner means you have more chance of falling prey to the winner's curse i.e. paying over market value because of incomplete information.
There is no doubt, owners bidding incognito achieves the highest auction prices. Does that truly mean perfectly priced market? No, and here is why: you sacrifice the good will of the auction platform once it becomes clear the auction house is allowing owners to bid and therefore long term, bidders lose confidence and stop bidding in fear they are bidding against the owner. Initially, prices fetched will be higher but as soon as the full information is known to other bidders they will be more circumspect in fear of the winners curse and loss of trust in the auction house.

 

[urlurl]

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

Yes 110% agree...or the winning bidders should at least have the option of buying the names after subtracting all the suspected bids.

 

[Grilled]

They bid on each other domains, they like each other posts...oh, the humanity!!

ShillBrothers.com and ShillDomains.com available for handreg.

If no evidence is provided, the Booths may want to reg these domains for broker protection. Brokered by the ShillBrothers, I mean BoothBrothers...

 

[mr-x]

Unless Both Bros. can prove they didn't own these names, they should be awarded to the last good faith bid.




What does state law say about the seller bidding? First, almost all state law says that if the seller may only bid at a “with reserve” type auction. Secondly, that if the seller wants to reserve the right to bid, that such must be disclosed to the other bidders. Third, that if the seller bids without such disclosure, that the high bidder on property on which the seller bid can take the property at the last good faith bid prior to the seller bidding.

This is TOTAL BULLsh*t!!
These are scams not auctions.
If you want to set up a system for owners to bid, then do it in the light of day!
Namejet should shut this down immediately AND a complete audit should be done!!
Bidders should have the option to walk away from tainted deals!

 

[mr-x]

Hi all - Thanks for the heads-up. We are currently investigating this matter. We obviously do not condone any kind of shill bidding on NameJet, so we take this very seriously. I will post an update when I have one. Thanks again.

-JT

Unless Booth can prove they didn't own these names, they should be awarded to the last legit bidder.

 

[hookbox]

If Namejet actually enforces their own rules and ends this bullshit then names are going to get real cheap, real fast.

I would love to know how many auctions I got fucked on!

 

[Name Trader]

It's not technically a shill:
"Let’s look first at the word, “shill.” Shill means basically to falsely advocate a position in attempts to entice others do follow that lead. For example, Robert opens a music store in Seattle, Washington and Robert enlists his friends and family to blog about how wonderful the service is at this new music store — even though none have even set foot in Robert’s new store."

Therefore, if you are fully aware the owner is sitting next to you bidding on his own stuff, then that's not really a shill because he's not falsely advocating anything. It's out in the open.

Therefore it's a shill bid if you are not aware of who the owner is?

 

[Grilled]

Links to Booth domains being brokered by another NJ seller...

WrestlingWorld.com
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Auctions/StandardDetails.aspx?auctionid=3956036&cat=

MovieZone.com
http://www.namejet.com/pages/auctions/standarddetails.aspx?auctionid=3955604

MeatLoadRecipe.com
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Auctions/StandardDetails.aspx?auctionid=3955617&cat=

LACollege.com
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Auctions/StandardDetails.aspx?auctionid=3955636&cat=

AirlineJobs.com
http://www.namejet.com/Pages/Auctions/StandardDetails.aspx?auctionid=3955790&cat=

Again and for the last time, I am NOT supporting shill bidding. I'm supporting the IDEA of openly allowing owners to participate in auctions which have NO RESERVE. Everyone has a fair and equal shot at buying the asset. Where is the flaw?

This is like asking @MediaOptions to broker a no reserve auction (list as no reserve to get more interested) then if the seller doesn't like the results, the seller bids on MediaOptions auction. The seller pays NameJet, NameJet pays MediaOptions, then MediaOptions pays the seller.

It's sickening to know how often this behavior happens. Ever wonder why certain brokers consistently get more at auction? Shill bidding. Disguised in a multitude of ways.

 

[Beezy]

House of cards is about to crumble.

 

[mr-x]

This is like asking @MediaOptions to broker a no reserve auction (list as no reserve to get more interested) then if the seller doesn't like the results, the seller bids on MediaOptions auction. The seller pays NameJet, NameJet pays MediaOptions, then MediaOptions pays the seller.

It's sickening to know how often this behavior happens. Ever wonder why certain brokers consistently get more at auction? Shill bidding. Disguised in a multitude of ways.

Also against the law. If proven, some of these domains could be awarded to the last good faith bidder. Regardless of @NameJetGM rules.

 

[Grilled]

Also against the law. If proven, some of these domains could be awarded to the last good faith bidder. Regardless of @NameJetGM rules.

There appears to be sufficient proof. (wish I could say more )

 

[offthehandle]

https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/11/25/what-is-shill-bidding/

For honest auction participants — both buyers and sellers — shill bidding damages the auction process by instilling distrust in the practice. Buyers may avoid auctions where they believe shill bidding is tolerated. Sellers may find lower prices where their items are sold at auctions which potential bidders are avoiding.

Too, auction buyers pay artificially inflated prices by either basing their bids on shill bidders, and/or being pushed by shill bidders to pay more.

For the shill bidder, the consequences can range from being barred from participating in auctions, to civil and and even criminal charges; fines alone to-date have been as high as $400,000 for shill bidding. Most every case of shill bidding resulting in civil charges has involved some type of online auction, where the identity of the bidders is more easily concealed.

Shill bidding is a crime and auctioneers need to do everything they can to help eliminate it from the auction industry.

https://mikebrandlyauctioneer.wordpress.com/2010/08/24/can-the-seller-bid-at-auction/

What does state law say about the seller bidding? First, almost all state law says that if the seller may only bid at a “with reserve” type auction. Secondly, that if the seller wants to reserve the right to bid, that such must be disclosed to the other bidders. Third, that if the seller bids without such disclosure, that the high bidder on property on which the seller bid can take the property at the last good faith bid prior to the seller bidding.

However, there is a consistent exception to all of this, which state law and the courts have upheld. At a forced sale, no matter the type of auction, the seller may bid without any disclosure. Such auctions are often court-ordered events, such as foreclosures, repossessions and the like. We discussed this in more detail in our article about Auctions and Forced Sales.

Auction bidders detest the seller (the owner) bidding on property in which they (the bidders) are interested. Few things deter bidders from an auction to any larger degree than sellers bidding, or otherwise protecting their property from bidders.

Here are more quotes from laws.

http://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/law-auctions

 

[RWD]

NJ

The ball is in your court...

Please do the right thing here.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

Therefore it's a shill bid if you are not aware of who the owner is?

Yes shills are based on deception. If the allegations are true on this thread then it's a shill . But Andrew was presenting a somewhat related theory at the worst possible time imo.

 

[Keith DeBoer]

@MediaOptions I think you're proposing an auction set up that could resolve the dysfunctional time wasting system we currently have with reserve auctions where the reserve amount is often undisclosed. The hidden reserve often curtails bidding and participation in the auction. It's a round about way for the owner to bid up the auction to a pre-determined level or take the domain back after domainers have spent time watching and making good faith bids.

I assume in your suggested system that the owner of the domain is clearly and obviously identified as the domain owner at all steps of the auction process. In this scenario, bidders are free to walk away and allow the owner to repurchase his/her domain and pay the commission if the owner feels they are not getting a good enough market value for their domain. This would be a replacement for the reserve system. Yes?

My take is that you do NOT support any system whereby the domain owner -- or his/her representative -- is allowed to make bids in a non-transparent fashion.

Your proposal is a bit hard for many of us to swallow because of the emotional charge associated with shill bidding. But if that danger was removed then I think it would become a lot more palatable to a lot of people.

Peace.

 

[xn--v4h.com]

Hi Andrew, I understand your theory that allowing the owner to bid on a no reserve auction creates the most perfectly priced market. It's clear you have given this a lot of thought.
What is against your model is that in an auction environment a major piece of information that bidders use to assess the value of an asset is 'DO OTHERS THINK THE SAME'.
It helps to validate or give confidence for them to bid higher. Now if the other bidder is the owner most would feel they are being duped, because owners often over value their own assets and therefore winning against the owner means you have more chance of falling prey to the winner's curse i.e. paying over market value because of incomplete information.
There is no doubt, owners bidding incognito achieves the highest auction prices. Does that truly mean perfectly priced market? No, and here is why: you sacrifice the good will of the auction platform once it becomes clear the auction house is allowing owners to bid and therefore long term, bidders lose confidence and stop bidding in fear they are bidding against the owner. Initially, prices fetched will be higher but as soon as the full information is known to other bidders they will be more circumspect in fear of the winners curse and loss of trust in the auction house.

Well explained