Tucows Stock isn't having a great start to 2018 [Down from $70 on Jan 2nd to $56.xx per share] $TCX

Discussion in 'Domain Industry News' started by Grilled, Jan 8, 2018.

Replies:
19
Views:
449

  1. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    Looking at the 5 day chart, $TCX has gone from $70 per share on January 2nd, 2018, to $56.xx today.

    upload_2018-1-8_12-15-43.png

    Not sure if the market has been down in 2018, but looking at just the Nasdaq, they are up per the 5 day chart.

    upload_2018-1-8_12-18-29.png

    Will Tucows stock recover from this apparent downslope?

    Their one year chart appears to show significant growth. ie $TCX was $37.95 at the start of the below chart on January 9th, 2017.

    upload_2018-1-8_12-20-18.png

    Looking even further, at the Tucows 5 year stock chart [below], price per share was $6.40 to on January 11th, 2013.
    upload_2018-1-8_12-35-13.png

    *** This is not stock market or financial advice. I am not qualified in this field. Opinions welcomed. I am simply noting charts. And do not know the reason behind the charts increases/decreases. The screenshots are from google***

    I looked up these stock prices after reading a DNW article HERE, titled "Short seller targets Tucows with scathing report." The DNW article references a report from Copperfield Research HERE. Copperfield Research recently sent out a series of related tweets HERE For those who don't know, Tucows is 50/50 owner is NameJet.com HERE

    EDIT: In the 10 minutes since creating this thread, Tucows price per share has jumped to $57.85. ***stock prices flunctuate, check current price HERE
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. Celebrating

    Celebrating Girl, who likes Anime VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Posts:
    770
    Likes Received:
    897
    dont like tucows. not cheapest.
    how to be a partner - unknown.

    maybe stocks going to $30.00
    but i trust crypto's
     
  3. CryptoInvestor

    CryptoInvestor Supportive Member NamePros Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Posts:
    356
    Likes Received:
    254
    Oh well! Move to Crypto :) haha even the smallest crypto gains make stock gains look weak
     
  4. Celebrating

    Celebrating Girl, who likes Anime VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Posts:
    770
    Likes Received:
    897
    i dont trust stocks. cryptomoney its future. btc - main example
     
  5. CryptoInvestor

    CryptoInvestor Supportive Member NamePros Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Posts:
    356
    Likes Received:
    254
    The crypto market can be just as easily manipulated though unfortunately. I think we’ve got QUITE a few more speedbumps before crypto takes over. Bitcoin is literally only here anymore because of its value. Its useless for its main purpose, a P2P, feeless, instant currency. Its just a hold of value for now, and unfortunately, it holds HEAVY weight compared to other cryptos. I think that WHEN bitcoin dies down, it will be because the people behind it change some more stupid sh*t, or because of MASSIVE FOMO
     
  6. Celebrating

    Celebrating Girl, who likes Anime VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Posts:
    770
    Likes Received:
    897
    Don't know about you, but as for me - that the exchange shares that bitcoin everywhere you can manipulate the price. Is money.
     
  7. DomainVP

    DomainVP Domain Expert Business Account VIP

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Posts:
    3,196
    Likes Received:
    11,555
    853 "crypto" domains registered just yesterday.

    I think crypto is sucking up digital investing right now. Would not be shocked if GD numbers are similar through 2018.

    Perfect time to short-sell registries that have stocks on the exchanges.
     
  8. offthehandle

    offthehandle .--. .- -.-- .- ...--- Business Account VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Posts:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    2,703
    Wow, pretty scathing report, insiders getting rid of $21 Million worth of their holdings. and even the shill bidding incident.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/368...-Child-Porn-A-Hidden-Lawsuit-as-Insiders-Dump

    "Based on litigation exhibits, the Tucows management team knew as early as January 20th, 2017 that material business would be transferred to Namecheap. After this revelation, from February 10th through December 15th, 2017, nine different Section 16 insiders (including both Co-Chairmen of the Board and both CFOs) filed twenty-six different Form 4’s disclosing sales with the SEC. In total, insiders sold 401,960 shares for at least $21,269,138 of proceeds while management hid the pending adverse loss of the Namecheap domains that would, in Tucows’ own words, “wreak havoc and confusion."

    "We believe Tucows may be using a recently acquired 50% stake in a subsidiary joint venture called NameJet to manipulate bidding on domain sales. Amid concerns about shill bidding,
    we believe it is odd that Tucows provides no information on NameJet in any of its SEC filings since acquiring eNom. Go ahead and Google “NameJet scam” and see how many hits come up.

    20,000+ results on google.

    But the BBB says they are accredited.
    CM Capture 87.jpg
    https://www.namepros.com/threads/bidding-on-your-own-names-at-namejet.1030874/
     
  9. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    After a few days of stock decreases, TCX closed with a gain today.

    upload_2018-1-12_15-46-50.png

    In regards to the Namejet subset of the report, I am confused to what Copperfield Research is alleging. I am unsure if Copperfield Research has a full understanding of the shill bidding concerns. Notice, they state, "We believe Tucows may be using a recently acquired 50% stake in a subsidiary joint ventured called NameJet to manipulate bidding on domain sales."

    upload_2018-1-12_15-49-52.png

    Now, maybe I am misreading copperfield research, but to me, it appears they are saying Tucows is using NameJet to manipulate bidding in domain sales. The NamePros bidding on your own names at namejet thread consisted of what is believed to be third party namejet sellers (ie other domainers), receiving bids from their friend(s) and/or family member(s) on their own auctions.To my knowledge, it wasn't discussed, at least not at length, if at all, the possibility of Tucows or Web.com (the other 50% owner) bidding on their own auctions.

    Per Tucows history, HERE, they launched YummyNames in 2008. Per this 2013 article on DomainInvesting.com HERE, Tucows used NameJet to auction some domains prior to the acquisition.

    Recently, NameJet had a cancelled auction for Yon.com, as detailed in the bidding on you own names at namejet thread on page 63 HERE. WHOIS info appears to show the domain owned by company: Tucows.com. The auction was cancelled prior to the auction ending. I am not sure why.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018 at 6:11 PM
  10. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Business Member Business Account ★★★★★★★★★★

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    448
    Likes Received:
    512
    Who is that Copperfield who "researched" tucows? I remember some other similar investigation, a few years ago, the "researchers" issued tons of press releases about dropcatching registrars "Enom 123", "Enom 14" etc and in their wisdom they found that these registrars were setup to send more $$$ to icann in exchange to a privilege of registering pharmacy-related domains (used to sell generics) without being shutdown by Icann. A perfect example how some "researches" post their findings without even a basic understanding of a field they are trying to research.

    As matter of fact, tucows is a respected registrar that has its own customers base, resellers that are selling to endusers. Even with higher reseller prices, they still serve a lot of resellers most notably due to good api, integrations etc. They did not participate in NameJet setup afaik. It would be interesting to find what (if any) influence they have now in aspects of current daily operations @ NameJet, but I can hardly beleive that the purpose of their acquisition was to manipulate bidding.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018 at 6:36 PM
  11. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    +1... something I have been wondering as well.

    +1... That's one area of the report I am also questioning. I have not done any research into Tucows NJ auctions. I would assume that chinese proxy handles such as first won a lot of their auctions, just like first has won a lot of NJ auctions. I'm not even 100% confident who/what first is, as I have heard conflicting theories.

    Who is behind first, and third party auction proxies? Are third party auction proxies being monitored for compliance? It appears NJ had some serious compliance issues, ie having a system that allowed sellers to bid on their own auctions -- to a degree appearing without detection. And since that major issue slipped past them, I am unsure of what else their compliance department may be overlooking.

    I have no reason to believe this would be the case, but if somebody from Tucows, NameJet, Web.com, or a similar insider were to be bidding via proxy, with the intent to manipulate bidding, there could be catastrophic ripple effects to the integrity of domain auctions. Hence, another reason why, for transparency purposes, some don't think proxy bidding from third party auctions should be allowed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018 at 7:04 PM
  12. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Business Member Business Account ★★★★★★★★★★

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    448
    Likes Received:
    512
    They will never change this. Tons of $$$ is coming from China through the proxies. With this income, auctions houses will hire the best lawyers if necessary - but they will never shut them down. They cannot reasonably expect that those bidders will start using auction systems directly - both due to the language barrier and specific currency regulations in China. So I'd guess we have to live with this proxy bidding forever...
     
  13. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    Why can't NameJet just build an international interface for Chinese clients? If this is not possible, then for many reasons possibly including legal liability, they need to ensure a better job maintaining the integrity of their auctions to include routine audits that monitor unnatural behavior. If NameJet is struggling to maintain compliance via their own bidders/sellers, how can they ensure their third party auction affiliates are taking proper compliance measures?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018 at 7:01 PM
  14. tonyk2000

    tonyk2000 Business Member Business Account ★★★★★★★★★★

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Posts:
    448
    Likes Received:
    512
    Currency regulations. Chinese buyers need to pay in local currency. They would have difficulties sending $$$ abroad. NJ needs to be paid in USD. For which purpose, CN-based intermediary exists. The intermediary is able to receive local payments in China. It is also somehow able to send USD to U.S., possibly using other companies in different countries. Who knows, it may well be that domains are not even the main or only business activity of mentioned Chinese proxy companies.
     
  15. offthehandle

    offthehandle .--. .- -.-- .- ...--- Business Account VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Posts:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    2,703
  16. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    Well... if they are to exist, it would be nice if it was transparent.

    Notice how now NameJet lists if an auction is a expiry, or direct auction now...?

    It would be nice if they took that a step further. If direct lister, why not acknowledge if it's being sold by auction subsidiary such as Tucows. Or something of that nature.

    And regards to bidders, if they aren't going to include auction history attached to each bidder, would it be a unreasonable or unnecessary for namejet to list if a bidder is an (a) individual bidder, or (b) proxy auction bidder. If proxy auction bidder, then be transparent as to what proxy auction bid is originating from?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2018 at 7:18 PM
  17. Cal2

    Cal2 Established Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Posts:
    319
    Likes Received:
    304
  18. offthehandle

    offthehandle .--. .- -.-- .- ...--- Business Account VIP

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2016
    Posts:
    1,581
    Likes Received:
    2,703
  19. Cal2

    Cal2 Established Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2014
    Posts:
    319
    Likes Received:
    304
    I followed it some, as I had time.

    Glad you don't accept BBB ratings unquestioningly. Wish all others would do the same. I know people who've been burnt $ wise because they trusted BBB ratings.
     
  20. Grilled

    Grilled logged out VIP

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2015
    Posts:
    3,857
    Likes Received:
    4,731
    When I say compliance, one thing I am eluding to, is how would NameJet know if a domain owner was using one of these third party auction proxies to shill bid on their own domain? NameJet claims to have rules against shill bidding, yet by allowing sellers who have bid on their own domains to continue to be allowed to sell, it gives the appearance that they are not enforcing this rule. Previous shill bidding examples suggest they are negligent in monitoring shill bidding within their platform.

    If First or TwoTwo are third party auction proxy handles, then what happens if a bidder on a third party handle doesn't pay?

    I assume, when a regular namejet bidder doesn't pay, their account will eventually get suspended, and/or cancelled. Yet, I don't assume they would cancel one of their biggest buyers due to a few of their buyers not paying...

    I just saw an example of a 4L.com won by TwoTwo for $2,100 in 2016. Yet, the WHOIS is in same person who sold the domain to TwoTwo at NameJet, and the seller has recently offered that domain to another, via social media. The optics don't look good. If you were to believe TwoTwo pays for all their NJ auction wins, then it would appear the seller had re-acquired the 4L.com from the buyer. Which there is nothing wrong with that should it be the case, just as long as TwoTwo's buyer wasn't/isn't related to (and/or doing business with) the seller. The thing is, if NJ doesn't have access to TwoTwo's bidder information, then how is shill bidding and other compliance measures to be monitored?

    Another thing to consider, is Tucows is a new addition to being an owner of NameJet. How much liability do they have to any previous questionable activity that may have occurred under NameJets previous ownership? ie they may have acquired a mess. And this type of mess may not look good to Tucows, or their shareholders.

    The allegation that Tucows may have purchased NameJet to manipulate bidding on domain sales would have monumental consequences if proven true, given Tucows, also sells inventory on NJ. I haven't seen evidence to confirm this. Nor have I seen (or know) if a proper audit has been done to NameJet sales, that could prove, or deny this allegation.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2018 at 3:05 PM

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:

Share This Page

Loading...