CREDITCARDS.COM Domain Name Purchased for $2.75 Million

[Leading Names]

Market Wire (press release) - USA
AUSTIN, TX -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 07/20/2004 -- CreditCards.com, the domain
name, has been purchased for $2.75 million by ClickSuccess, LP, an
Austin-based
firm ...

http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release_html_b1?release_id=70166

Thanks
Rob

 

[MediaHound]

Wow that's great news. Thanks for that link!

 

[MediaHound]

Looks like they got creditcard.com as well. Try typing it in.

 

[Leading Names]

Wow that's great news. Thanks for that link!

np, SOLD to cheap IMO.

- Rob

 

[Leading Names]

creditcards.com OVT 3434

PPC revenue would be amazing.

 

[MediaHound]

Surely if advertised properly, most major top banking firms would have laid out over 10x more. That's a ridiculously low price for a set of high caliber domains such as that.

 

[draqon]

domains don't sell for 20 million, ever.

 

[freestyler]

domains don't sell for 20 million, ever.

Quote from today's article at ft.com

" In a deal that lets Microsoft avoid the risk of its Windows trademark being overturned in court, the software giant has agreed to pay $20m to buy Lindows' internet domain names "

 

[draqon]

i knew someone was going to point that out, so i took the liberty of confirming that it was FOR THE TRADEMARK that they paid most of the money. The domain name was fifty times less important.

 

[Duke]

There are several things about this reported sale that bother me.

#1 - The "news" comes from a public relations wire service - anyone can have a press release disseminated by them by paying for it. It would be completely different if it were from Associated Press or Reuters.

#2 - The WhoIs record shows there has been no change since July 1, 2004 - if it has changed hands, the record does not show it.

#3 - The current own listed (CreditCards.com LP) is in Austin, Texas. The new "buyer" , another LP, also just happens to be in Austin, Texas. Quite a coincidence for one of the biggest sales of all time.

#4 - Could the report of a monster transaction just be a way to massively goose up traffic to the site which would obviously provide a great revenue boost?

No doubt this is an extremely valuable name. I just have to wonder under the circumstances if a real change of ownership occurred.

 

[MediaHound]

There are several things about this reported sale that bother me.

#1 is that the news come from a public relations wire service - anyone can have a press release disseminated by paying for it.....

I found myself deleting a lot of advertising from the release when posting it to my site. I may have to agree with you on this one. Seems to possibly be a BS claim.

 

[shepherd2]

I spoke to the owners of creditcards.com in the past a number of times. We were, back then, talking about going in business together. Two years ago it was making about 30k/month without any work involved. he had one of the university kids in Boston do some afterhours work for him.
It was definitely a steal for that price. Those who understand domains will see that and those who don't, oh well.. sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Duke]

That's not the question. It very well could have been a steal at 2.75 million. But there is currently no evidence a sale took place at any price.

 

[gogeorge]

There are several things about this reported sale that bother me.

#1 - The "news" comes from a public relations wire service - anyone can have a press release disseminated by them by paying for it. It would be completely different if it were from Associated Press or Reuters.

#2 - The WhoIs record shows there has been no change since July 1, 2004 - if it has changed hands, the record does not show it.

#3 - The current own listed (CreditCards.com LP) is in Austin, Texas. The new "buyer" , another LP, also just happens to be in Austin, Texas. Quite a coincidence for one of the biggest sales of all time.

#4 - Could the report of a monster transaction just be a way to massively goose up traffic to the site which would obviously provide a great revenue boost?

No doubt this is an extremely valuable name. I just have to wonder under the circumstances if a real change of ownership occurred.

One should check to see if the company directors or board of directors have the same people. Other companies have set up shell companies just so they can make very large reported sales for the sake of the stock market for instance.

One company I know of was also in Texas doing internet telephony. They created real sales using company stock instead of cash that would be written off several months later.

 

[shepherd2]

Duke my friend.
As you know most deals go completely unreported. The whois on this name has been changed to new owners, the site has been changed, and they made their announcement.
Are you looking for bank/wire copies?

 

[actnow]

You speculate that it makes $30K a month.

Therefore, it sold for 7.5 times its annual earnings.

If it was me, I would have taken the offer.

If, you can put the money in the bank and receive an annual
return on investments of at least 5%. You would receive
an annual check of $ 135,000.

The cash is a concrete asset. The value of the domain could
fluctuate.

It also depends if this is the only domain they own. Or, do they
have add'l domains. (It is a question of asset diversification.)

 

[Duke]

Duke my friend.
As you know most deals go completely unreported. The whois on this name has been changed to new owners, the site has been changed, and they made their announcement.
Are you looking for bank/wire copies?

The last WhoIs update was a little over 1 year ago. They're just now getting around to reporting it?

I would also put a litle more credence in if it came from a real news source rather than a PR company that will distribute anyone's release for $60. At this point, no legitimate news service is confirming a sale.

Are the people named in the release, the people you know when you had discussions with them?

 

[actnow]

As you know most deals go completely unreported.
..........Are you looking for bank/wire copies?

Duke is raising the question because some firms in the past have stated that
a major asset is being sold. But, it could be a "PR" game.

Or, the seller might be doing this to establish a base market value.

They might be in negotiations with someone else. And, they are using
this to make the other company to make a solid (or higher) offer.

However, if one of these companies are a publicly traded company. You can
be guaranteed that the deal is legit. If both companies are privately owned,
then the Sarbanes-Ox Act would not effect them.

 

[Duke]

Duke is raising the question because some firms in the past have stated that
a major asset is being sold. But, it could be a "PR" game.

Or, the seller might be doing this to establish a base market value.

They might be in negotiations with someone else. And, they are using
this to make the other company to make a solid (or higher) offer.

However, if one of these companies are a publicly traded company. You can
be guaranteed that the deal is legit. If both companies are privately owned,
then the Sarbanes-Ox Act would not effect them.

Or, they could be looking for the tremendous payday they would reap from getting their URL into the mainstream press. I'm sure they get an excellent referral fee for every visitor that clicks through to one of their card partners.

I am not alledging the sale is not legit - just pointing out that I have seen no proof that it was.

 

[shepherd2]

Duke, YGM.