The other llll.com countdown

[seven]

You don't have to be a scientition to know what's about to happen. Look at the cycle we have recently seen:

1. all llll.coms sell out
2. llll.com prices soar
3. most llll.nets are snapped up
4. premium llll.nets rise
5. llll.com prices drop
6. llll.net prices drop

What will happen:

7. premium llll.nets will go unrenewed and become available (if this hasn't happened already)
8. llll.coms will go unrenewed and become available

Your average ugly llll.com is going for about $9-$11 right now. Even that price can't maintain. There are simply too many of them with no practical use or no end users seeking them.

Through no fault of its own, domaining is about to incur a rough and cold blizzard. Domains you wouldn't think would drop will drop and following, the fat off your portfolios will be gone.

If you can afford to hold the fort down and buy great domains on falling prices, then you'll be at a tremendous advantage. What even the downturn of the economy can't stop is the conversion to online sales and online marketing by mainstream brick and mortars as well as individuals. These types will be forced into more efficient operations and find what we already know: the Internet is awesome and it cuts business overhead.

Hold on to the quality generics and practical domains. Premium llll.coms will always have relevance and the .nets will too one day, but that day is not today. Forget about the qzvu.com's if they don't have a specific use.

It's not that many domains aren't good, but there will be less cash to go around.

Anyways - my prediction llll.coms will be available within 6-8 months. I'm sure some of you have already said as much.

 

[Nem0]

Heh, I just wrote a 3000 word rant on my blog about the LLLL.com buyout and the question of it holding :lol:

If all works out, I should have about 2500 non-eBay LLLL.com sales by the end of this month to add to that list, so it'll hopefully balance it out.

Cool, I'll check your rant out in a bit.
Actually, eBay sales have still been holding steady (to me) except for some sales by two particular sellers.
I'm about to post the massive list of eBay sales from the past couple days (in the main LLLL.com thread) - surprisingly most of the sales did ok despite the large number of them.

 

[snoop]

Yeah and yet again you can only pick on the lowest sales from 'ol eBay there. During a month that has been absolutely flooded with LLLL.com by a handful of ignorant sellers.

After 18 months the same tired arguments are being made, minimum means minimum.

 

[Nem0]

After 18 months the same tired arguments are being made, minimum means minimum.

Just take your negative crap somewhere else then and don't comment.

Talk about tiring

 

[snoop]

Just take your negative crap somewhere else then and don't comment.

Talk about tiring

Here is a post I read just before in the .mobi forum (by member fundraiser), it is a timely post that applies just as well to the LLLL.com segment as .mobi in my view,

Posts in blind support of an extension are far more damaging to members than an "extension basher" could ever be. A naysayer will never have an affect on the actual use of and market for a domain extension in the real world. However, allowing members to go over the top with wild speculation over the value of a new extension can directly impact the finances of inexperienced domainers who don't get to hear the other side of the argument. This pump and dump happens with every new extension. Even as values drop, someone who over-invested tries to convince a newbie why there is still great value and when a responsible member drops in to call BS, the bashing card is played

Given what has happened to the LLLL.com, and how much money has been lost in it, especially the cheaper names where the norm is 100% loss it is probably time for people to stop complaining about "negative crap".

 

[Nem0]

That's just about all you dish out though.. negative crap. Gets old. I have probably read over 300 negative posts by you regarding LLLL.com and probably not even three posts by you portraying anything positive about LLLL.com. Hello? There are thousands of positives going on within the LLLL.com niche every week. And regarding that little quote you just pasted, sorry but no one is "going over the top with wild speculation" regarding LLLL.com - we are telling it like it is. The niche is holding steady and it has been for quite a while. The only time it doesn't hold steady (in persons eyes such as yourself) is when some sellers at a certain little place called eBay make mistakes in their listings which causes a handful of low sales, or when eBay is absolutely flooded with these names. That's the only time you speak up about this niche, that's the only time you attack the low-end value and that's the only way you can do it because you are quite irrational when it comes to analyzing the whole picture and you only seem to focus on just the negative parts of things. It's called character and balance, try investing in some of those instead.

And we're not talking .mobi here, keep your bad comparison over there.

 

[snoop]

That's just about all you dish out though.. negative crap. Gets old. I have probably read over 300 negative posts by you regarding LLLL.com and probably not even three posts by you portraying anything positive about LLLL.com. Hello? There are thousands of positives going on within the LLLL.com niche every week.

I've been negative on LLLL.com since early 2008 and it is fairly apparent what has happened since then, I'm not sure I see the logic is suggesting I should have been more positive.

And regarding that little quote you just pasted, sorry but no one is "going over the top with wild speculation" regarding LLLL.com - we are telling it like it is. The niche is holding steady and it has been for quite a while

There is still alot of hot air surrounding these names in my view. The above post is an example of it, these names have not been "holding steady for a while now", prices have continued to decline.

And we're not talking .mobi here, keep your bad comparison over there.

Meanwhile the .mobi guys say "we are nothing like .tv'ers" and the .tv'er say, "we are nothing like the LLLL.com people". *It is all hype*, you and others have been feeding the same line that everything is fine all the way down.

I predict that even if the buy does fail you and others will still be telling people everything is ok and the market is "steady".

 

[Nem0]

I've been negative on LLLL.com since early 2008

Uh yeah, negative on LLLL.com and everything else.

There is still alot of hot air surrounding these names in my view. The above post is an example of it, these names have not been "holding steady for a while now", prices have continued to decline.

The low-end has been holding steady for 5-6 months. Where has it gone down? Ohhh that's right, you only count eBay sales with dozens of variables that occasionally create a handful of low sales. THAT'S where they have went down. My bad.

I predict that even if the buy does fail you and others will still be telling people everything is ok and the market is "steady".

Of course that's what you predict, if it is negative it will surely be a part of your prognostication. But again the market is holding steady. Perhaps I should have just specified the low-end of the market though, since that is mainly what we've been talking about and what you always cherry-pick to get to your silly minimums. Believe me if the buyout fails I'll be the first to say it.

You are so worthless to debate with because of that tunnel vision you have. (Yes that's some more hot air by me, as you so eloquently pointed out a bit ago that I spew out).

Good thing I'm eating ribeye and watching Apprentice and can't really lay the verbal smackdown on ya right now like I usually do when you are way off base :p

 

[-REECE-]

Even if the buyout does fail, there will be another one -- that much is clear from DYYO.com data. I actually crunched the numbers on the past 300+ eBay sales Snoop and the median sale price was $11.50, so provided the person bought in pre-buyout, they actually didn't lose any more than they would have investing in other short domain segments like LLL.coms. If they sold at a venue other than eBay, they would most likely have broken even or turned a slight profit. Now I'm not going to say that's a great return after holding onto a domain for 18+ months, however it really isn't out of line with the losses we've seen in other domain segments. I thought the losses were bigger myself until I crunched the numbers. Those who bought in post-buyout have of course for the most part lost a substantial portion of their investment.

Being the mod in the .mobi forum, I must say that the .mobi forum is nothing like the LLLL.com discussions in the Short Domain Discussion forum and frankly, I'm surprised you'd compare the two, seeing as you're an active poster in both forums and know as well as I do that there are people in the .mobi forum who actually think .mobi will overtake .com and people who completely discount the fact that 75% of mobile websites do not use .mobi.

I don't see anyone in this forum lately who disagrees with irrefutable data. If you present someone with facts that something has fallen, nobody here is going to argue with that (try doing the same thing in the .mobi forum!). This section has optimism -- maybe too much, we'll see with time, however it is certainly a far cry from the blind faith of some .mobi supporters.

I've been negative on LLLL.com since early 2008 and it is fairly apparent what has happened since then, I'm not sure I see the logic is suggesting I should have been more positive.

There is still alot of hot air surrounding these names in my view. The above post is an example of it, these names have not been "holding steady for a while now", prices have continued to decline.

Meanwhile the .mobi guys say "we are nothing like .tv'ers" and the .tv'er say, "we are nothing like the LLLL.com people". *It is all hype*, you and others have been feeding the same line that everything is fine all the way down.

I predict that even if the buy does fail you and others will still be telling people everything is ok and the market is "steady".

Pretty respectable price on a bulk lot: http://www.namepros.com/domains-for-sale-make-offer/544178-53-llll-coms-50-start-godaddy.html

As I have said many times before, eBay sales tend to be outlier sales. Many of the domains in the link above certainly are of minimum wholesale quality, minus the fact that they're a few months from expiration. Not exactly great domains and they still saw $7 per on 50 of them.

 

[snoop]

actually crunched the numbers on the past 300+ eBay sales Snoop and the median sale price was $11.50, so provided the person bought in pre-buyout, they actually didn't lose any more than they would have investing in other short domain segments like LLL.coms.

Reece, if they bought prebuyout how much do you calculate they would have lost? I calculate they would have got $9.84 after fees from the "median sale" which is about what they would have spent in recent months renewing the name, ie their initial investment has been wiped out. (see calcs below)

If they sold at a venue other than eBay, they would most likely have broken even or turned a slight profit.

What other venue?

Now I'm not going to say that's a great return after holding onto a domain for 18+ months, however it really isn't out of line with the losses we've seen in other domain segments.

Let's compare it with say LLL.com which is the example you have given.

The people who bought at the peak

LLL.com - those people would have paid $7600 say and now that name is worth $3500, it is 55% loss.

LLLL.com - The people who bought at the peak of LLLL.com paid $60 and now have an asset worth a couple of dollars. They've also paid a renewal fee. Assuming a minimum of say $2 that is an ROI of -111%, they've lost the lot and then lost even more when the decided to renew. If you'd like to think that $60 invesment is now worth $11.50 ($9.84 after fees) they've lost 97% of that $60.

The people who bought at the bottom

LLL.com - the real bottom was about 2002 so lets just assume they bought just before the LLLL.com buyout, back then the minimum was around $5500 so they've lost about 36%.

LLLL.com - They've bought a name in late 2007 for $8, spent $9 on renewals for a name that is now worth $2. Of the that $8 they've lost the lot, plus of the recent renewal ($9) they've lost most of that as well. $8 has turned into -$7. However if you'd like to think that name is worth $11.50 ($9.84 after fees) they've got 84 cents left of that original $8 investment, ie a loss of 89.50%.

Being the mod in the .mobi forum, I must say that the .mobi forum is nothing like the LLLL.com discussions in the Short Domain Discussion forum and frankly, I'm surprised you'd compare the two, seeing as you're an active poster in both forums and know as well as I do that there are people in the .mobi forum who actually think .mobi will overtake .com and people who completely discount the fact that 75% of mobile websites do not use .mobi.

It is exactly the same kind of posting and always has been. The denial based argument have been running strong through all these areas for a long time.

I don't see anyone in this forum lately who disagrees with irrefutable data. If you present someone with facts that something has fallen, nobody here is going to argue with that (try doing the same thing in the .mobi forum!).

Look at some of the arguments being presented in the main LLLL.com thread, people claiming the minimum isn't what the cheapest names sell for (this argument has been going for over a year), people writing off ebay yet those same people are selling names on ebay at the same point in time (Nemo), people arguing the minimum needs to be replaced with other statistical measures (only becomes an issue when prices fall).

 

[Domainace]

Up or down, I'll leave to you guys. But either way, the lowest domains don't mean much. I got two very poorly listed llll.coms on Ebay for $4 and $3. I immediately put them back up for auction. They just sold for $9 and $12.50 respectively. I would be surprised if I got much less. I would be less surprised if one sold for $25 or $30 or more, as happens often enough to make it fun.

When I see a an LLLL sell for $4, I get upset. Not because it means the market has dropped, but because I missed a bargain.

 

[-REECE-]

Snoop, as I posted in my previous post, the median I gave was for buyout LLLL.coms, so half of the people who bought these buyout LLLL.coms are not seeing $2 for them, but rather $11.50+ ($10 or so like you said when you factor in the eBay fees). As for venues which sell better, TDNAM sells a fair bit better on average, even when you factor in the $5 fee.

Honestly Snoop, pretending the average LLLL.com is selling for $2 is pretty much like saying the average LLL.com is worth $500 because I few people over at iREIT don't know how to price LLL.coms... Wouldn't that be a little preposterous to propose?

Taking the $10 real average after fees, we end up with having spent $7 on renewal in 2007 and $8 in 2008 (no short domain name investor was paying 8 and 9, c'mon Snoop, that's just making the losses look bigger than they actually are).

So they paid $15 and now have $10 -- loss of 50%, much more in line with LLL.coms than the data you've presented. I couldn't care less what the minimum is to be honest Snoop and I never have. I've always defined the minimum to be the bottom 5% of LLLL.coms, which means 95% of LLLL.coms (including many buyout domains) are not going to sell for the minimum -- not anywhere close to the minimum, matter of fact. That's obvious -- crunch the data yourself if you think I'm misreporting the numbers. Yes, you might very well end up with a $2 minimum, however 50% of these bad LLLL.coms are still selling for $11.50+ which actually would have been quite similar to the performance of the LLL.com market had they not recently appreciated by about $500.

The people who bought at the bottom
LLL.com - the real bottom was about 2002 so lets just assume they bought just before the LLLL.com buyout, back then the minimum was around $5500 so they've lost about 36%.

LLLL.com - They've bought a name in late 2007 for $8, spent $9 on renewals for a name that is now worth $2. Of the that $8 they've lost the lot, plus of the recent renewal ($9) they've lost most of that as well. $8 has turned into -$7. However if you'd like to think that name is worth $11.50 ($9.84 after fees) they've got 84 cents left of that original $8 investment, ie a loss of 89.50%.



It is exactly the same kind of posting and always has been. The denial based argument have been running strong through all these areas for a long time.



Look at some of the arguments being presented in the main LLLL.com thread, people claiming the minimum isn't what the cheapest names sell for (this argument has been going for over a year), people writing off ebay yet those same people are selling names on ebay at the same point in time (Nemo), people arguing the minimum needs to be replaced with other statistical measures (only becomes an issue when prices fall).

 

[snoop]

Honestly Snoop, pretending the average LLLL.com is selling for $2 is pretty much like saying the average LLL.com is worth $500 because I few people over at iREIT don't know how to price LLL.coms... Wouldn't that be a little preposterous to propose?

Reece I'm not pretending the average is $2. I'm saying the *minimum* is about $2, just like the *minimum* was $60.

Taking the $10 real average after fees, we end up with having spent $7 on renewal in 2007 and $8 in 2008 (no short domain name investor was paying 8 and 9, c'mon Snoop, that's just making the losses look bigger than they actually are).

So they paid $15 and now have $10 -- loss of 50%, much more in line with LLL.coms than the data you've presented.

This is a very dubious way of doing a calculation because they've recently spent the renewal. The purchase price was not $15, it was $8.

Basically this is what you are arguing,

(hypothetical scenario)

Name bought for $8
364 days later value is $1

Loss equals 88%

Next day the owner pays renewal of $9

Sells name for $10

According to your logic the loss is now 10/17 = 42% rather than 88%.

In the above scenario the loss is not 42%, you don't add back on what you've just spent to calculate your purchase price. Need to look at their initial investment, otherwise you could just renew the name for 10 years sell it for 10X reg fee and claim you've lost "only 10%". It is playing with numbers and does not change the fact that the person has lost all of their initial investment, the renewal doesn't reduce the loss.

I couldn't care less what the minimum is to be honest Snoop and I never have.

When prices were high that is the main number people focused on. It is the one you highlighted the most and the one people talked here about the most.

Nowdays talking about the minimum is nearing a taboo subject. People don't want to talk about it (not because it is so low...no not all.....it is because it is actually innaccurate! It is disorting things to talk about it and was never a good measure anyway!).

Here is a good example from you 18 months ago,

LLLL.com prices going through the roof!

Almost everything on TDNAM went for ~ $40+ today (once renewal fees are added in). TDNAM seems to often lead the pack… Something to perhaps look forward to seeing elsewhere within the coming days… Wouldn’t it be nice to see a $30 min wholesale by Xmas

LLLL.com prices going through the roof! « 4 Letter Noob

Does that sounds like someone who never did care about minimums?

 

[-REECE-]

Snoop, as for my 4 Letter Noob post, I must say I admire the effort of going into Archive.org for that :]

Of course one should be happy if the minimum wholesale is high -- if the minimum wholesale is high and we use the minimum wholesale as a benchmark of the 5th percentile, that means that at the very least, 95% of sales are high (defining "high" to mean $60+).

When sales are low, it doesn't tell us anything -- so 5% of LLLL.coms sell for $2, what does that mean for the other 95%. It doesn't give us anywhere near the same extent of information as when the minimum wholesale is high.

A high minimum wholesale means: $60 < good double premium prices < triple premium prices < triple premiums with repeat letters or a strong semi-premium letter

A low minimum wholesale suggests that:

near expiration bad LLLL.com < $2 < bad LLLL.com recently renewed < good double premium < triple premium < triple premium with a strong semi-premium letter or repeat letters.

Can you see what I mean? When the market is at a $60 minimum, we know that all those other categories are worth $60+, so we know they've all appreciated as well. On the other hand, a falling minimum wholesale doesn't necessarily mean anything for the LLLL.coms of above minimum wholesale quality.

 

[snoop]

When the market is at a $60 minimum, we know that all those other categories are worth $60+, so we know they've all appreciated as well. On the other hand, a falling minimum wholesale doesn't necessarily mean anything for the LLLL.coms of above minimum wholesale quality.

A $2 minimum tells us the LLLL.com market has fallen dramatically just like a $60 minimum told us how much it had risen. You can't just use it when it suits and ignore when it doesn't.

 

[-REECE-]

I've compiled plenty of evidence that the rise and fall of LLLL.coms were both very different. When LLLL.coms first rose, we may have had a minimum wholesale of $60, however double premiums were fetching no more than single premiums and even triple premiums were only fetching around $80 (eg. about 30% more).

If you compare that to today, that would be like triple premiums selling for $2.60 if the minimum wholesale is $2 -- clearly there are big differences between the rise and fall when it comes to the price difference between the minimum wholesale and triple premiums.

FWIW, a good triple premium (eg. +U/W) typically fetches around $30+ today, or about 15 times the minimum wholesale. Back at peak, a triple premium + U/W was about $140-$150, only about 2.5 times the minimum wholesale.

A $2 minimum tells us the LLLL.com market has fallen dramatically just like a $60 minimum told us how much it had risen. You can't just use it when it suits and ignore when it doesn't.

 

[snoop]

I've compiled plenty of evidence that the rise and fall of LLLL.coms were both very different. When LLLL.coms first rose, we may have had a minimum wholesale of $60, however double premiums were fetching no more than single premiums and even triple premiums were only fetching around $80 (eg. about 30% more).

If you compare that to today, that would be like triple premiums selling for $2.60 if the minimum wholesale is $2 -- clearly there are big differences between the rise and fall when it comes to the price difference between the minimum wholesale and triple premiums.

FWIW, a good triple premium (eg. +U/W) typically fetches around $30+ today, or about 15 times the minimum wholesale. Back at peak, a triple premium + U/W was about $140-$150, only about 2.5 times the minimum wholesale.

I don't see why they'd ever be expected to rise or fall at the same rate when the reg fee is such an issue for the cheaper names. Instead of saying "15 times minimum wholesale" it is probably better to think "$28 dollars more than minimum wholesale" and compare that to how it was in the past.

I think we've discussed many times that the premium names have fallen less than the low quality names, eg quads down about 80% versus 100% loss for the low quality names. It all comes back to registration fees, and the fact that the cheaper names really are not worth renewing. That doesn't mean the better quality stuff is somehow in a league of its own, and we can now throw out the minimum. The minimum still tells the story, just like it showed how the market had boomed when 18 months ago, it now shows how it has crashed. The minimum is crystal clear, obviously that is a problem for some.

 

[bmugford]

The whole minimum thing is BS to start with. Back when the "minimum" was $60 or whatever I picked up some LLLL.com for under $35 at various venues. What was the "minimum" for Quads, because I picked up HSOH.com at NJ for $270 near the peak.

If you are going to include outliers, then the minimum never was what has been claimed.

Brad

 

[snoop]

The whole minimum thing is BS to start with. Back when the "minimum" was $60 or whatever I picked up some LLLL.com for under $35 at various venues. What was the "minimum" for Quads, because I picked up HSOH.com at NJ for $270 near the peak.

If you are going to include outliers, then the minimum never was what has been claimed.

Brad

We've had this debate before, if it isn't auction data ignore it in my view.

 

[bmugford]

Is NJ not an auction? HSOH.com $270 near the peak. What was the "minimum" for Quads then?

I am not sure why you are so vested in being negative about LLLL.com and just about everything else. If you spent the time you are wasting here trying to find end users for your domains you might be better off.

Brad

We've had this debate before, if it isn't auction data ignore it in my view.

 

[Nem0]

I am not sure why you are so vested in being negative about LLLL.com and just about everything else. If you spent the time you are wasting here trying to find end users for your domains you might be better off.

Brad

Yeah no doubt , I'm still way cracking up at the thought of snoop pouring over Reece's old blog (actually going into archive where he must have searched and searched!) to try and find some ammunition to support his "cause". That just speaks volumes. People's views on things change all the time; what's the big deal if Reece isn't all that concerned with minimums now compared to almost two years ago? To spend so much time like that to find the most ticky-tack thing to nitpick about -- wow.