What is StockMarket.com Worth? | DomainInvesting.com
101 Domain

Poll: What is StockMarket.com Worth?

41

There have been quite a few notable financial .com domain names sold in the past few years for large sums of money. I understand there have been other private deals that aren’t included among the public sales, and there have also been several large deals that involved underlying businesses. For instance, MutualFunds.com and MutualFund.com were recently acquired for an undisclosed price.

Some of the recent (past 5 years) notable (and public) financial .com domain name sales include the following:

  • Invest.com – $5,000,000 (unconfirmed)
  • Investing.com – $2,450,000
  • PersonalLoans.com – $1,000,000
  • ReverseMortgages.com – $600,000
  • Finances.com – $500,000
  • Dollars.com – 381,150
  • Payment.com $250,000
  • Consolidation.com – $220,000

In my article about the reported sale of Invest.com for $5 million, someone asked what StockMarket.com might be worth if it were to be sold. In my opinion, StockMarket.com is an exceptional domain name, and it is more targeted than Invest.com and Investing.com. Some might say that being more targeted would make this domain name more appealing, and I will leave it to readers to opine on its value.

At the present time, StockMarket.com is a website that is operated by domain industry development company Left Of The Dot. According to its website, “Stockmarket.com is a leading provider of investment research for North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. We provide a range of products and services for our members who tend to be individual investors.”

I have set up a poll below seeking your valuation of StockMarket.com. You are also welcome to share feedback about why you feel it’s worth the amount of money you chose in the poll.


About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.


Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (41)

    Dave Mead

    Elliot,

    I don’t think StockMarket.com is in the same league as Invest.com, Investing.com, or even PersonalLoans.com. StockMarket.com is both too generic and too specific at the same time.

    Too generic: It’s not a very inspiring brand name. Its most obvious use is for financial news, and there are already a bunch of better established sites with more brand recognition. A cooler generic for such a site would be something like WallStreet.com. Much more brandable. Also, I don’t think StockMarket.com is a particularly good name for a financial platform, for example.

    Too specific: The stock market is just one kind of market. It’s a bit harder to apply this brand name to other areas. Plus, there is a lot of capital nowadays seeking alternative investments. People are investing in things like comic books, bitcoin, and whiskey. It’s harder to cover these things with such a name. The owners of Invest.com can easily transition into new markets with their domain. This is the hallmark of a powerful brand, and I believe that’s why they bought it.

    December 2nd, 2014 at 4:22 pm

    Jeff Edelman

    Wow. The guys at LeftOfTheDot.com are operating it? I see that I’m in the minority here. But I sincerely believe it’s a 5 million dollar plus domain. This domain is definitely worth that much to a major financial firm that has a significant wealth management division. Such a firm should be able to acquire enough new wealth management business to make such a purchase profitable. The average person has little knowledge about the stock market. Stockmarket.com is where people should be able to get up-to-date info on stock quotes, lots of education about specific companies, general info about the stock market, and it is a place where they should be able to find investment advisors. It’s through the investment advisors that this becomes a 5 million plus domain. That’s where the money is.

    December 2nd, 2014 at 4:23 pm

    Shane Cultra

    I don’t think StockMarket.com is a million dollar name. The stock markets have spent millions getting you to remember their name. Nasdaq for instance. I can’t think of one stock market that would rebrand. This isn’t a product either. It is a place. I don’t think a place is as valuable as a singular verb, action, or product in the financial markets. I agree with David that there are instances that a name may be too generic. This brand will be stockmarket.com and IMO not purchased by an existing stock market.

    Addressing Jeff’s idea. There are a million places to get all the things he’s mentioned and it’s being done very very well. If it were an upgrade for one of these sites I would agree with his price assessment but I don’t think Motley Fool is going to rebrand as StockMarket.com. Neither is yahoo, google, or marketwatch.

    All that being said, if I owned it I would hold out for a million plus because there are people in the financial world that throw millions around and seven figures means absolutely nothing in the scheme of things. In short, my answers are do I think it’s worth a million? No. Do I think it will sell for over a million? Yes

    December 2nd, 2014 at 5:54 pm

      Jason Franklin

      Nasdaq would not have to rebrand to buy or want this name. Look at Loans.com that forwards to Bank of America, that they paid $3,000,000 for in 2000. It still forwards too. Owning this name they could simply forward it to whichever market, or whichever domain name or business they’ve already branded.

      In reply to Shane Cultra | December 2nd, 2014 at 6:06 pm

      Jason Franklin

      Well Loans.com did forward just a few weeks ago, but now it doesn’t. That’s odd. Maybe they forgot to renew… Hopefully not. That’s interesting. Still though, you don’t have to rebrand to own a domain like StockMarket.com

      In reply to Jason Franklin | December 2nd, 2014 at 6:10 pm

      John

      $3 mil was also a dirt cheap steal for that one, even back then. In fact, especially back then.

      In reply to Jason Franklin | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Jason Franklin

    I would agree with Jeff that StockMarket.com (with 1 Million plus exact searches) is a 5M plus domain name to the right buyer. Obviously there are a lot of different opinions and things to take into consideration when buying a domain name, but if you are a major player / business operating in the stock market sector, I don’t see another better option. Stocks.com is the only name that comes close referring to stocks, but StockMarket.com is a homerun name no doubt.

    December 2nd, 2014 at 6:01 pm

    William

    I could see lots of buyers for this name other than an actual stock exchanges. A prop firm might like it as a brand, someone might want it to build a trader community or it could be used as a stock trading educational site. Retail brokers might like it too. So yeah, I could see it attracting seven figure offers.

    December 2nd, 2014 at 7:16 pm

    CN

    Well I see it can be branded as an investment destination. In many parts of the world, investments = stock markets so if you are investing it usually means investing in stock markets! Hence, someone in such markets may pay up a high price for the domain. I also agree that its not a product that can be sold but a place, so pricing may or may not be up to mark depending on who the buyer is.

    December 2nd, 2014 at 10:09 pm

    John

    >”In my article about the reported sale of Invest.com for $5 million, someone asked what StockMarket.com might be worth if it were to be sold. In my opinion, StockMarket.com is an exceptional domain name, and it is more targeted than Invest.com and Investing.com.”

    Now, Elliot, are you trying to hurt my feelings here by not also mentioning that “someone” also said the following, or are you just doing so without even trying?:

    “About the same, give or take a few dollars. You have people who may beat the false drum about shorter vs. longer, but that’s a very misguided error and bias. “Stock Market” is even superior to “Stocks” on some levels, especially in terms of mental prominence and top-of-mind recognition. “Stock market” is the absolute authoritative phrase that conjures up and conveys every single aspect of the matter that people are looking for, not “stocks.” Imagine the brand on a TV commercial. A brand like “Stocks(dot) com” would seem a little bit goofy, whereas “StockMarket.com” would appear much more serious, authoritative, compelling.”

    December 3rd, 2014 at 2:35 am

      Elliot Silver

      No… I am crowdsourcing the value of the domain name based on that single comment, without any thought to subsequent comments.

      In reply to John | December 3rd, 2014 at 7:36 am

      John

      :) I hope you liked my co-opted and modified Tolkien quote further down here. Pretty priceless if you ask me, just like StockMarket.com.

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 8:59 am

    John

    Now as one may see, I just signed up for a “gravatar” after Elliot showed me the way, and Raider lent her endorsement. I must say I like it. And as I also mentioned in another thread, the name of the service is particularly fitting in light of the “gravitas” I bring to *bear* (pun intended – see my “gravatar”).

    Without further ado, I must say that if the first poster here Dave Mead doesn’t state one of the best reasons why it’s a $5 million-plus domain in trying to argue against it, I don’t know what does.

    December 3rd, 2014 at 2:40 am

    John

    People need to step outside the box: shorter does not *always* mean better or more valuable, and *sometimes* longer *is* better and more valuable. “StockMarket” is one of those times. What does it convey to potential prospects? Everything. Everything stocks, everything mutual funds, everything closely related. It is the one and only *best* authoritative top-of-mind term, the king of them all. Perfectly brandable, perfectly generic, perfectly suited and perfect in every way. Better than the shorter Stocks.com and a host of others you can name. For what it is, and what it covers, as in – a realm of “investing” and “investment” the size of most of the planet, it captures and compels the attention and imagination of all humanity in the developed world. Yes, there is currency, precious metals, (uhum) collectibles, etc., but there is one best of the best term for the stock markets of the world – one term to rule them, one term to bind them, one term to bring them all, and in the market find them.

    December 3rd, 2014 at 2:52 am

    Scott Alliy

    We have owned PublicCompanyNews.com for 10 years and while the name is not in the league of stock market.com it is relevant to the discussion since we have had zero inquiries from any investment news publishers. This may indicate that house brands like wsj morningstar forbes bloomberg trump generic brands like StockMarket.comor PublicCompanyNews.com when it comes to user search and acceptance.
    This recognized brand preference therefore may negatively affect the value of some multiple keyword generic investment domains

    December 3rd, 2014 at 3:36 am

      Elliot Silver

      With all due respect, I think that is comparing apples to oranges and one experience would have nothing to do with the other.

      In reply to Scott Alliy | December 3rd, 2014 at 7:38 am

      John

      Elliot often seems to be deliberately being a gracious host here and perhaps exercising a certain amount of retraint, as this is his blog. Probably all of us can admit to having regged many really bad domains after we first started in the industry which we thought must be valuable at the time, but over time we learned what is valuable and what is not. So, without trying to be unpleasant to you in any way, but also without pulling any punches or soft-pedaling the truth, I will tell you with all sincerity that a domain like “PublicCompanyNews” is so worthless in my estimation (I’ve been active closer to 15 years than 10 now) that I would never even have paid reg fee for it if it was available. If you offered it to me for free now, I wouldn’t even take it. If you offered me a little money to take it from you now, I would take the money and let the domain drop. From the rich to below middle class, millions upon millions of people think of “stock market.” Virtually nobody would ever care or has ever thought of “Public Company News.” So apples and oranges is a good way of putting it, and it putting it as mildly as saying Mt. Everest is a rock projection you might notice just up ahead.

      In reply to Scott Alliy | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:10 am

      scott alliy

      Opinions are great and worth the electronic ink (that includes mine) used to write them on a blog. Facts are different however. Fact is news directories have value ergo news domains also have value. For the record PublicCompanyNews.com was once a developed site and got decent traffic.

      Fact is I have recently turned down a solid mid 4 figure offer from a buyer that has been hounding me for years for the name eventsindustrynews.com. Apparently I saw something in that longtail news name that John is unable to see.

      Fact is I used to run a stock investing portal long before I purchased publiccompanynews.com which BTW was my reason for purchasing the name.

      Could have something to do with do with my experience in the events industry and marketing experience since 1980s and internet marketing and domain investing life since mid 1990.

      Certainly Johns opinion of PublicCompanyNews.com may ultimately prove right and seems to have merit at the moment. John (I am guessing tongue in cheek) is not the ideal buyer for the name PubliccompanyNews.com however. stay tuned.

      P

      In reply to John | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:28 am

      Elliot Silver

      “Fact is I have recently turned down a solid mid 4 figure offer from a buyer that has been hounding me for years for the name eventsindustrynews.com. Apparently I saw something in that longtail news name that John is unable to see.”

      Why would you turn down “a solid mid 4 figure offer” for a domain name like that? I would have taken it and run… and that comes from a bit of event domain experience myself (I own EventPlanner.com, EventManagement.com, EventDecor.com and a few others).

      In reply to scott alliy | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:33 am

      scott alliy

      hi Elliot,

      Did you notice that PCN.com is for sale on it looks to be DNS landing page? would make a great combination with public company news.com as the bi-line and pcn.com as the site address.

      With respect to stockmarket.com I would be looking for public company news more often that stock market as a generic keyword search.

      I would have that opinion however since I bought the name to develop it into an investment news portal originally.

      Cant’t build and develop em all when you own thousands of names as you know.

      Cheers
      SA

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:35 am

      Elliot Silver

      Why not try and buy it?

      December 3rd, 2014 at 11:43 am

      scott alliy

      two reasons we would not be interested in the three letter domain at this time.
      1) price (Estibot appraisal 60k)
      2) end user demand for a public company news site to compete with the likes of the aforementioned established public company news providing sites is not high at this time.

      Glad to see the opinions on your blog on this subject are civil and best luck to owners of the exact match domain StockMarket.com

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 11:56 am

      scott alliy

      because I was embezzled from by a rogue business partner which proceeded to compete with our own events industry core business and profit producer.

      Therefore I know the value of a domain name as protection from competition.

      I would be insane to sell this incredible insurance asset to a competitor (which this buyer is BTW)

      Certainly you’ve seen the certified domain name standards we created and which is available on either the publiccompanynews or eventindustrynews pages.

      There really is no substitute for experience as the saying goes and this guy that got burned now protects our events product with 1000 domain names relating to our industry and the services we offer.

      BTW the current min and suggested price is available to view on the eventindustrynews.com for sale page. and for the record their current offer is not far from the min asking price.

      Michael berkens said it best recently “Time is money” domain investment is my hobby not my income. I can wait.

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:41 am

      Elliot Silver

      The beauty (and potential pitfall) of domain investing is you can wait for an acceptable offer forever, and you will never be wrong.

      In reply to scott alliy | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:42 am

      John

      Scott, you’re still comparing apples and oranges, and you seem to be in a bit of denial here.

      >”PublicCompanyNews.com was once a developed site and got decent traffic.”

      Developed site getting some traffic vs. intrinsic domain value represents a vast world of difference, even more so than the apple and the orange.

      >”Fact is I have recently turned down a solid mid 4 figure offer from a buyer that has been hounding me for years for the name eventsindustrynews.com. Apparently I saw something in that longtail news name that John is unable to see.”

      This, too, is merely an apples and oranges comparison. Nobody is saying by any means that all “*news.com’s” are worthless, and certainly nobody is saying “longtail” domains are worthless. Not only are many *news.com’s going to be very valuable, but also many long ones and long domains. It also happens that I happen to know that “events” is very hot and very valuable, but “publiccompanynews” standing on its own as merely an undeveloped domain is simply denial. If you read my other post in this thread, you would also see me saying the opposite about longer vs. shorter. If you looked at my other posts going back months, you would also see I’ve probably been one of the biggest proponents of “long” and debunkers of the stuck-inside-the-box “long vs. short” misguided myth and prejudice, if not the biggest.

      In reply to scott alliy | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:44 am

      John

      lol

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:44 am

      John

      (My “lol” was for this: “The beauty (and potential pitfall) of the domain space is you can wait for an acceptable offer forever, and you will never be wrong.”)

      In reply to Elliot Silver | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:47 am

      John

      “Google”: intrinsic domain value, $0; developed site getting some traffic, $ billions.

      “Yahoo”: intrinsic domain value, $0; developed site getting some traffic, $ billions.

      Etc….

      lol

      In reply to John | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:57 am

    Voltaire

    Interesting commentary re Stockmarket.com. Yes, imo, too, its a very valuable property.

    Stocks are the lifeblood of every major company – and the lifeline for untold millions of people. What happens on the stockmarket(s) determines what happens to an entire economy, and to a whole society…In the hands of the right financial player, Stockmarket.com would be a blockbuster brand, imo. Worth every cent of a 7 figure value.

    (Full disclosure: We own STOCKPRICE.COM)

    .

    December 3rd, 2014 at 6:34 am

      John

      StockPrice is a killer one, too. Just as “StockMarket” is the king that rules them, yours is still royalty and worth a royal price.

      In reply to Voltaire | December 3rd, 2014 at 9:14 am

    Dean

    I own Wallstreetmerger.com. I have had “experts” value it all over the map. Wish I could find a way to really evaluate. I own several “financial” domains that seem in the same boat.

    December 3rd, 2014 at 11:41 am

      John

      All you really need is a mind open and receptive to the voice of reason. I’m no different. We’ve probably all occasionally hung onto certain ones thinking surely they must be valuable, especially if they are combined with one of the most valuable terms there is. But this one is a dog. I love real dogs, so I certainly don’t want to insult dogs with the analogy. Just ask yourself who the audience is, who’s going to even care about this esoteric and unbelievably infrequently appearing phrase online. It’s really there to see if you look, but all of us, self-included, can fall into the trap of not wanting to “let go” in the case of certain ones. So yes, if an event almost as rare as winning the lottery happens where someone in a certain field, let’s say someone practicing corporate law in NYC for instance, might possibly develop a fancy for it, then sure, you might actually be able to sell it eventually for $x, x x x or so. Furthermore, if you want to spend you life pounding the pavement by contacting such people, you may actually be able to hook someone interested. But is it worth it to spend you life that way? Is it really likely this one will land any fish? Is the general public the least bit interested in this phrase. I would say definitely no, but you can certainly spend your life that way if you want, and just maybe you’ll get a modest result, but probably not.

      In reply to Dean | December 3rd, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    Dean

    Thank you for your honest reply John. So how about commonly used phrases? I purchased Obamacaredebacle.com. That phrase is heard numerous times daily on the news and in articles. I would be interested in your opinion of this domain. Thanks, Dean

    December 3rd, 2014 at 6:56 pm

      John

      This’ll be my honest answer *without* first doing any research at all, except I did look at your whois. This opinion can be subject to revision if I actually researched the topic a bit, but frankly I doubt it.

      Dean, it’s just not enough that a phrase or saying exists, it also has to have real commercial value and potential, and be popular. In this case, my hunch is that this phrase only shows up on the traditionally “conservative” stations like Fox if it really does show up at all. In other media outlets, is anyone really referring to it as a “debacle”? My impression is that a large segment of people are now glad it’s available.

      So, willing to give an off the cuff opinion without researching the specific topic, I would say that barring any truly compelling and convincing information to the contrary, to which I am currently open-minded about hearing, you appear to have fallen into the trap of being led to believe that just because a phrase actually exists and has a modicum of familiarity and usage in some dimension of society, it must therefore be valuable and worth pursuing as a domain name. Unfortunately, however, that will often leave you flat with all the air out of your tires, and some money out of your pocket. Even someone can come up with the convincing goods forcing a revision for this specific domain, the principle still applies.

      Mind you, I’m on your side here – this is well intended and candid in every way. You will not get that in every domain forum, however, so beware of “appraisal” threads. I left the forums years ago now. One of the most cutthroat places you can sometimes go, especially the appraisal threads.

      So, you don’t want to throw your time and money away on ones like those, or ones that violate the principle even if that one can be shown to have real value (which I doubt). You want phrases that not only exist, not only have some degree of common usage and popularity, but also have real commercial value and potential in terms of brandability and commercial usability. Only two of those attributes without the value part is valueless compared to your time and money. Let them drop, move on, and focus on more valuable names. I just had an offer between $10K and $20K for one I regged not that long ago using those principles. The buyer may be backing out however, still waiting to hear.

      In reply to Dean | December 3rd, 2014 at 7:56 pm

      John

      And p.s., it was one of those unsolicited offers out of the blue, as I am not a “domainer” here like others are, but more of someone who just regs, buys, and publishers, far far less one who ever sells or tries to.

      In reply to Dean | December 3rd, 2014 at 7:59 pm

      John

      Though I admit I would like to make a few nice sales.

      In reply to Dean | December 3rd, 2014 at 8:00 pm

      Dean

      Thanks again John. I am a novice in this in every aspect and like you, I am not really a “domainer”. I have about 125 domains I have purchased over the years (a small handful I have turned into successful businesses) others are tuned towards those businesses. I have sold a few “out of the blue” like you suggest. I owned several (4) my(cityname)info.com and I sold those as a package for $8k to an inquirer. I have sold a couple others in the $2k range. At this point I have made more than I have spent on all the domains (good thing I am not counting on domain income to pay bills!). My biggest issue is that because I am a novice I am not sure if I have a Gem in the mix that could bring what I see other domains that I see sell for big dollars (that I do not understand the value based on the name).

      In reply to John | December 4th, 2014 at 8:52 am

      John

      Interesting, and good that you don’t depend on domains now. In your current state there are bound to be too many people smelling blood in the water if you were really holding any gems. I hate to say it, but it’s there. There are also the well intended people who are doing a lot of good that helps everyone, too, even though they also have their own interests at the same time. This and other blogs and similar sites are often like that. If you do go to any of the forums, just go in with eyes wide open, and especially avoid the so-called “appraisal” section threads like the plague, at least in terms of you posting and asking for any. Those particular sub-forum sections tend to be the bloodiest and most blatant shark dens, and the last thing you even want is one of your domains even being mentioned there, unless you own a top domain that no one could ever get away with bamboozling about and you are just in the mood for some temporary fun.

      In reply to Dean | December 4th, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    John Lyotier

    Hey Elliot,

    Interesting conversation you have going on here (I should have checked my Google news alerts earlier, and I could have jumped into the fray).

    Yes, it was great to see the rumored sale pricing for Invest.com (also an awesome name) as this further solidified the market for these ultra-premium generic financial names.

    Whenever we tackle a new brand, we do so knowing that the brand has the opportunity to define and takeover an entire market segment. What is interesting about this particular asset is that the scope of the transactions and stakes involved are huge for those involved (that is… the stock markets themselves, the market makers, and the listing companies).

    Whereas Invest and Investing are retail focussed, what we had been exploring with this particular brand was much more institutional. If you consider that the listing fee for a company on the NYSE is $250k (with renewing yearly listing fees capped at $500k), the competition and stakes for companies hitting the public markets is not small.

    There are also an entire collection or new breed of stock markets that are emerging… and thus, needing to compete for public attention (take a look at http://aequitasinnovations.com/ to see a new model operating under a horrible domain name).

    Core to each of these — whether you are a new stock market, or established player — is building trust within the market. One of the best things about super-premium generic domains is that market leadership is bestowed upon the owner by default.

    It is interesting timing for this discussion as we have been trying to determine our direction for this particular brand given that so much of our resources are tied up with launching our Yo.com initiative (to which I still owe you the inside scoop as promised back in June). Given the size of that project, and our belief that we can disrupt the multi-trillion telecommunications market, we are worried that we may not be able to do the brand justice at this point.

    Perhaps I will wait a few more days to see what the community thinks the intrinsic value is at this point, then decide what our next move shall be. :)

    Keep Well.
    John
    Co-Founder, Left of the Dot

    December 4th, 2014 at 12:58 am

      John

      Well I hope at least you liked my co-opted and modified Tolkien quote for your domain. It was particularly enjoyable for me. 😉

      In reply to John Lyotier | December 4th, 2014 at 1:21 am

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *

Website