L-L-L.com's and N-N-N.com's relative value against LLL.com's and NNN.com's

[nameadvertising.com]

http://b-a-r.com sold for $3k plus.

 

[Bill Roy]

Sorry I have been away from this thread for so long (I actually forgot about it :disappointed.

The thing that really surprises me is no matter what the extension of a domain is, the name of a domain, etc., it is the number of domainers, and especially experienced domainers who do not look at the ROI (return on investment)!

If a domain name, any domain name, can be purchased and return a 1,000% profit in a few months then that is a damn good investment, FULL STOP!

As an information analyst this is what I look at.

If others think it is not a good investment it is no skin off my nose.

God this is a great business to be in! :approve:

 

[000]

BILLBO,
You opened this thread by reporting a 600-1000% increase in market value of L-L-L and N-N-N dot coms since last summer, and asking members to forecast ahead. Some forecasts were less than bullish. You then expressed surprise at the number of experienced domainers who do not look at ROI.

Consider the possibility that ROI is exactly what experienced domainers look at. It's fine to celebrate past performance, but to extrapolate phenomenal growth rates into the future is unrealistic and often signals a pump and dump scheme.

 

[Bill Roy]

000, so this is not what is done with LLL.com's? NNN.com's? etc.?

Perhaps you could tell us what forecasts are worth while? Oh, but of course they must not be based on past performance! :lol::lol::lol:

 

[000]

Domain forums reflect the wild west nature of our industry. All domain categories are subject to exaggerated pitches and pumping. There is no Securities & Exchange Commission to govern domain trading. Few domainers want more regulation. Some would like to see more self restraint. Pump and dumpers provide a useful service "teaching" in the school of hard knocks, but they also attract bureaucrats looking for new territory to "manage".

I have no domain investment forecast to recommend, but I'll repeat my previous statement: to extrapolate phenomenal growth rates into the future is unrealistic and often signals a pump and dump scheme.

 

[s2006]

I believe L-L-L.com's will increase in value but its up to people like us to create the demand by setting up websites with a l-l-l.com domain name. If it becomes a common place and users begin to type in the hyphens like it were normal, than the domains will increase in value. .TV domains have experienced an increase in value helped by the .tv extension but because more and more people are using the .tv domains for websites and promoting them

 

[000]

This thread opened on 4-December-2007. May 2008 has arrived. Recent L-L-L.com minimum sales prices reported by bluebecker:
b-k-u $18 eBay April 2008
b-m-k $20 eBay April 2008
b-r-u $22 eBay April 2008
e-z-y $26 DNF April 2008
g-q-u $21 NP April 2008
k-e-z $13 Snap April 2008
l-y-t $13 Snap April 2008
m-q-u $21 NP April 2008
m-z-r $18 TDNAM April 2008
s-x-z $26 DNF April 2008
v-f-g $15 Snap April 2008
y-e-k $26 DNF April 2008
The L-L-L bottom line fell from $50 in December 2007 to less than $25 today, a decrease of 50%. Meanwhile the LLL.com minimum sales price reported by 3character rose from $6000 on 1-December-2007 to $7300 on 1-May-2008, an increase of 22%. The present cost of an L-L-L is 0.34% of an LLL (25/7300).

There are fewer reports of N-N-N sales due to smaller population. Recent bottom line N-N-N.com sales reported by bluebecker:
0-0-9 $69 Namejet April 2008
3-5-2 $59 Namejet March 2008
8-6-8 $65 NP March 2008
8-7-8 $40 NP February 2008
Also 4-7-9 is currently for sale on DNF, BIN price reduced from $45 to $40, no takers. The N-N-N bottom line dropped from $80 in December 2007 to $69 today, a decrease of 14%. Meanwhile the NNN.com minimum sales price reported by 3character grew from $6500 on 1-December-2007 to $7800 on 1-May-2008, an increase of 20%. The present cost of an N-N-N is 0.88% of an NNN (69/7800).

The thing that really surprises me is no matter what the extension of a domain is, the name of a domain, etc., it is the number of domainers, and especially experienced domainers who do not look at the ROI (return on investment)!

Thank you BILLBO for alerting us to the risk of trend projections and the importance of ROI. Late entry in rapidly ascending markets adds risk, not safety. Risk grows further if the asset in question has no underlying earnings.

 

[Credit]

Thanks 000 - just like I thought they would..I see some going for $12 on tdnam all the time.

 

[Deleted member 70843]

000 why have you picked a few low sales from bluebecker.com ? when they have been higher ?

L-L-L.com SnapNames.com Reseller Sales History

t-c-o.com sold for $155 April 2008
h-o-r.com sold for $84 April 2008
e-f-i.com sold for $134 April 2008
t-i-a.com sold for $140 April 2008
o-p-c.com sold for $80 April 2008


High Dollar End User/Reseller Sales History

b-i-d.com sold for $711 via namejet.com April 2008
d-d-d.com sold for $650 via namepros.com April 2008
c-t-c.com sold for $2,088 via afternic.com February 2008


L-L-L.com Tdnam.com Reseller Sales History

l-u-b.com sold for $90 April 2008
p-o-z.com sold for $46 April 2008
m-n-u.comm sold for $46 April 2008
s-u-l.com sold for $130 April 2008
d-r-g.com sold for $98 April 2008
j-i-j.com sold for $45 April 2008


L-L-L.com NameJet.com Reseller Sales History

g-w-t.com sold for $69 April 2008
f-s-m.com sold for $99 April 2008
s-s-g.com sold for $69 April 2008
u-m-l.com sold for $159 April 2008
m-x-t.com sold for $71 April 2008


so in fact the L-L-L.com market has risen once again.


Regards,

Chris

Bluebecker.com

 

[ktechsite]

yes i totally agree lately i have seen good increase L-L-L prices

 

[000]

000 why have you picked a few low sales from bluebecker.com ? when they have been higher ?

I picked a few low sales from bluebecker and the minimum sales price reported by 3character because this thread started with a discussion of bottom line price:

The present bottom line for each seems to be $50 - $80 respectively, this represents an increase in profit of 600 - 1,000% over reg fees, and thus the highest rated movers on the domaining aftermarket.

Minimum selling price is useful to compare different categories of domain names. It is possible to compare categories using a wider range of sales data such as:
cpc.com Moniker $200,000 February 2008
173.com Moniker $302,000 February 2008
770.com Sedo $343,000 April 2008
An irresponsible analyst could look at these and claim that LLL.com and NNN.com prices have skyrocketed. On the other hand, consider:
seo.com private $5,000,000 June 2007
sex.com DNJ $14,000,000 January 2006
Another analyst might argue that these 2 sales signaled a market peak and that LLL.com prices are plummeting.

Wide price range comparisons require complex analysis that is unlikely to be found on a domain forum. Low end sales trends are a simple indicator of market direction and strength. Good luck and thank you for publishing bluebecker sales data.

 

[Credit]

Agreed with 000. Minimum wholesale price has fallen.

 

[Deleted member 70843]

I just read the title ( L-L-L.com's and N-N-N.com's relative value against LLL.com's and NNN.com's )

L-L-L.com shouldnt really be compared to LLL.com as both are two different niches but work the same way.
Even tho the oldest L-L-L.com that we know of was registered in
1994, L-L-L.com is still a new type of niche to domainers but not to end users.

atm people are cherry picking the so called premium letters and leaving the less desirable
letters for others to pick up cheap as with any market it starts from the bottom as it did with LLL.com

Now if the topic was about has the L-L-L.com prices increased in value i would say yes.

Thank you for your interesting post 000

 

[ktechsite]

DNJournal

c-n-g.com 4488$ Afternic


awesome sale

 

[theinvestor]

Who is selling LLL.com for $6000?

 

[ktechsite]

Would also like to know tht.

I posted in this thread as it seems DNF members have forgotten about L-L-L.com and N-N-N.com