There are plenty of reasons to avoid internet stock message boards. Â One of the biggest is that’s where “pump-and-dumpers” hang out. Â They are a group of people — most ignorant, some not — who have bought into a stock at very low prices and are trying to hype the stock to get it to rise high enough for them to flip their shares. Â
The other type of people on these boards are people who were foolish enough to buy into the stock at higher prices, only to see their investment going down the tube. Â They remain steadfast, though, convinced that they are just a few months away from striking it rich.Â
One such stock is Live Current Media (OTCBB: LIVC.OB). Â This pink-sheet stock owns a bunch of domain names. Â That’s it. Â They sell product through one of them, and have been trying to develop others. Â Unfortunately, it’s a flawed business model. Â Domain names have no intrinsic value. Â They only have value if they are developed and monetized, which is a lot harder than it sounds. Â The lesson though, is not about the company so much as the messages on the stock board. Â What you find it a group of cheerleaders who, when pressed to provide specific reasons and financial analysis for why they think the stock has value, avoid the question. Â
When someone comes on the board to lay out a specific case against the stock, he is razzed and jeered at — rather than engaged in intelligent dialogue.  That alone should tell you what you need to know about the stock. On the cheerleader side you have posters Carl10231961, who makes pie-in-the-sky stock price predictions (“Going to $10!”) with no basis for the prediction.  There’s TEXAS_stock, who ends each post with “Go Live Current’, as if it were a high school football team and him a blushing virginal senior in short skirt and tight sweater. Â
Finally there’s stock_portfolio2003, who responds to intelligent posts with scatological screeds on anyone that dares present a con argument. Â Swimming against the tide is lmsmedley, who provides detailed analysis. Â Here’s what he had to say:Â ”As the saying goes, “There is a difference between a business plan and a business”.
The basic premise of the business is questionable. There’s little evidence that an intuitive domain name translates to revenue. It takes a lot to develop & advertise a website, to offer something to people that (as Marc Cuban says) “solves a problem that someone is willing to pay for”.
Intelligent and successful investors look at what has transpired so far:
1) They have a modestly successful perfume business online, but even with this intuitive domain name, they have less than .01% of the fragrance market. Having an obvious domain name does not guarantee anything.
2) In 2008, the new managers increased their salaries FOURFOLD, raiding a cash-poor company of almost $4 million that could have been used for operations. If they had not had their own self-interest in mind, they would not have found themselves in need of raising additional capital.Â
3) What have they done to earn those inflated fees?
4) As killermyca pointed out, they made cricket agreements with no way to pay for them.Â
5) They wanted to sell 6 domain names, and sold one for $500,000 — instead of the $6 – 10 million they “expectedâ€. Why? NO CAPITAL. Dreamworks can’t raise the capital they needed for their new incarnation — and that’s Steven Spielberg! In addition, there is little evidence (cited above) that having an obvious domain name means anything. A savvy domain name buyer recognizes this. Â
6) They had to “raise” $1MM because they had already raided the coffers. 25% of this capital came from the owners — putting their undeserved salary back into the company — so they could take it out again. And did just that by firing the COO and paying him off $300,000!
7) They said they expected to raise another million within 15 days of that Nov. announcement. They did not raise a dime. Smart investors recognize all the flaw, not to mention that even secured investments can’t get funded right now!
8) Their only hope is that they attract millions to their websites during — I might add — only a six-week period. Only if advertisers are willing to put up decent money will they see any kind of revenue. Contrary to other people who seem to think advertisers will pay $20 CPM (pipe dream), they will be lucky to get $5….maybe. With FIFTY MILLION PAGE VIEWS, that would be $2.5 million. Nice, but since that amounts to LESS THAN MANAGEMENT’S ANNUAL SALARY, why would any idiot believe this will somehow make the company valuable?
9) And they are supposed to accomplish all this when advertising has been cut back by record amounts.Â
10) They have negative working capital. NEGATIVE WORKING CAPITAL, folks. That means they don’t have the money to run the business. You can have all the “plans” you want. You have to have the money to execute them.
11) They themselves have said there is substantial doubt that they will remain a going concern.These are all lessons for investors to take heed of. You should also note that when supporters, hypesters, and pumpers of a penny stock refuse to directly address these issues — especially for the most ludicrous, laughable reasons — then you have been provided with all the information you need to make an informed decision.  Do your own due diligence. ” When someone posts an opinion that detailed, it’s worth taking note.  When the replies don’t address any of the points but instead attack the posters character, among other things, that should tip you off.Â
Reminder: This is not a solicitation or suggestion to buy or sell any security. Â Always do your own due diligence and work with a financial advisor.Â

















24 users commented in " Why You Should Avoid Penny Stocks "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackSeems like a great article. Makes me frustrated, 2.5 million in executive pay for a company that is not making money…
Let them go bankrupt and liquidate their domain names.
[...] wrote an excellent piece about what ails Live Current Media (see previous article). In it he writes: [Live Current] owns a [...]
A great article. Shows a perfect example. Feel sorry for maggots like stock-portfolio2003. His posts show a desperate man sniping at anyone that comes near.
Domain names do have intrinsic value based on type-in or direct navigation traffic (Search via address bar) that is monetized via pay-per-click ads. For example, many users looking for ‘laptops’, instead of using search engines, will type ‘laptop.com’ into the address bar and be directed to a page filled with PPC ads. When users click on these ads the domain name owner makes money. Millions of users browse the web in this fashion and it is extremely lucrative especially if you own popular, single-word, generic domain names.
Not correct. The guy said “intrinsic value”. Domain names are like diamonds, which also have no intrinsic value. They are just rocks. They are not precious. What gave diamonds value was 1) great marketing and 2) an artificial monopoly created by DeBeers.
Same thing with domain names. On their own, they are worth nothing. What you suggest still requires marketing, infrastructure, and expense. The domain name owner does not generate sufficient revenue to create a sustainable business that others would pay for.
Stock_Portfolio2003 is flapping around like a monkey on Ritalin now. Notice how he does not offer any argument for the company, just like the author pointed out? All he does is attack the person, not the argument.
Looooooooooooser!!!
@Jake
Domain names DO have intrinsic value because they get free traffic! Please re-read my post and the explanation of type-in traffic. You do not have to do anything to get this traffic. It is natural because many users come to domains such as laptop.com using the address bar, not Google. The only expense is the cost to register a domain name which is about 8 bucks.
But the revenue generated is miniscule.
@ Jake & M Mayer.
To say that domains have no “intrinsic value” just shows that you guys have not done any research about the “intrinsic value” of domain names. Generic domain names are a license to print money, an automatic ATM machine. If you have the right domain names nothing else is required to make money, one laptop pc is all thats needed, no offices, no staff, no expenses/overhead, no nothing. Thats not to say that Livecurrent is a great example. Livecurrent is the best example that i have ever seen of how to lose and destroy money that is related to domain names. This name Cricket.com is worth a considerable amount of dollars $mm,s plus. Even though the US visitor count means little for the term Cricket. The market for this name is the UK, Australia, India, Pakistan and other nations where the game is a religion. The stats below are US visitors only! no dough there for Cricket. Hard to monetize everywhere but the UK and Australia. India & Pakistan have litte value to a PPC company, and thats where the dough is even in these harsh economic times.
Cricket.com 169,978 U.S. visitors per month
Perhaps a real-world example of how much someone has made with this concept would be in order.
@ Matt Jacobson
“real-world example” Thats like asking for the keys to someones bank vault. That information is rarely made public. Prime examples of recent domain name sales might be more relevant though. Travelzoo Purchases Fly.com Domain Name for $1.8 Million. http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-30-2009/0004963560&EDATE=
Toys.com has just sold for – $1.25 Million.
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/02/05/toyscom-birthdayscom-hobbiescom-sold-at-auction/
Uh uh. No way. You don’t get to play that game here.
However, we do need to refine our definitions.
The question should be whether domain names have objective intrinsic value.
The answer is no.
Neither do diamonds.
However, some domain names may have subjective intrinsic value.
I may not see value in a certain domain name, but you might.
If you have money and want to be a sucker, you can purchase it.
If you decide to buy into the diamond myth, you do the same.
Finally, if generic names were a “license to print money”, then Live Current Media would be making quite a bit more money with their names than they have — which so far has been zero, save perfume.com and the sale of Malaysia.com.
If generic names were a “license to print money”, then a stable and lucrative market would exist for them. It doesn’t. Never has. It’s like the Pet Rock fad.
A diamond is precious because 1) A marketing company said so, and 2) Supply is restricted. Hence, subjective value.
Fly.com is not intrinsically valuable. It requires development. That takes money. Travelzoo already has a brand name associated with itself. Therefore, the development associated with Fly.com may be less expensive if they can attach it to the Travelzoo brand name.
To say that having a domain name, and setting up a PPC business will yield any significant income is unsupportable at best, and outright false at worst.
Most people do searches to find what they need.
If they land on a page that does not get them exactly what they want, they leave. They are not going to stick around to click on an advertisement. Hence, the PPC rate of under 1%.
@ Jake
Jake, do you know what type in traffic is? It’s traffic that comes to a domain directly from the users typing in a domain name in the address bar. Believe it or not, great one word generic domains such as business.com and others receive plenty of type in traffic which makes them intrinsically valuable. This is indisputable and not well known outside the domaining community as you have demonstrated.
previous post was actually @ Matthew Mayer, but to address Jake’s point, the revenue is not miniscule which is why there is an entire industry dedicated to domaining. Do some research and you’ll find out that domaining is extremely profitable.
Most people are missing the definition of “intrinsic value” here, or at least overestimating how much of the value is intrinsic and how much is extrinsic.
The value of a domain name is largely extrinsic — i.e. it’s dependent on the buyer’s perception. Let’s take David’s Rate.com, for example, and assume that he can make $2,000 every month without doing anything other than parking it. Do you think he’d sell that domain for even a very generous 10X valuation ($240,000)? I don’t think so. I think you’d have to move into seven figures before it became enticing, and I think there would be interested buyers far above $240,000. That’s significant extrinsic value.
However, the argument is that the $2,000/month constitutes intrinsic value. That’s not true, either.
The $2,000/month doesn’t come from the domain name itself, but from the extrinsic value of advertisers who are willing to pay to have people click on their advertisements. Because there is not yet an established, stable market for domain names, the only value in a domain name is what money you can make with it with virtually no effort.
For Rate.com today, that number is apparently $2,000/month. However, that number has been on a very real, very significant slide as all real domainers know. And in theory, that number could fall all the way to $0. If it did, the domain would have no value at all other than the extrinsic value assigned by someone who wanted to buy it.
Now in reality, will that number ever slide to $0? I sure hope not. However, the fact that what it can earn is solely based on extrinsic factors like the existence of parking companies and advertisers, and not intrinsic factors like value assigned by a true market, means that by the definition of “intrinsic value” it has none.
@ shane, doesn’t a domain have intrinsic value based on the natural type-in traffic it receives for free?
Check out the weekly verifiable Domain Name Sales:
http://www.dnjournal.com/domainsales.htm
Clearly Matthew Mayer knows sod all about Domain Names!
Thanks, this is a great article. But there are so many opportunities out there!
Don
donstk88@gmail.com
So one example of a scam company means that ALL investment boards and ALL OTCBB stocks are not to be trusted??
What you fail to mention is that the micro-investment area of the stock market is THE LARGEST portion of the stock market, that THIS IS WHERE BUSINESSES START. Yeah, there’s a lot of risk involved, yeah, you have to do your homework but if you can use a little common sense you can help a lot of small businesses and make a lot of money in the process.
Research, research, research, this is what it takes, not some set-and-forget-it fool. Do you set-and-forget your child? Your favorite plants in your garden? Then why would you set-and-forget your financial future? Research these stocks before you buy and buy for the right reasons and you will make PLENTY of money in penny stocks.
I do agree for the most part that most hype about penny stocks is so large shareholders can pump and dump it with a large flip. However, penny stocks can be worth your time, if it is an industry that has yet to be defined. For instance, there has been talk about President Obama lifting the ban on stem cell research. This would enable companies to receive federal funding and increase revenue. Thus, higher stock value. One company that I researched after hearing this potential news was Advanced Cell Technology (ACTC). It doesn’t take much to invest in a penny stock. I mean… come on! $100 – $300 wont break the bank especially if you strike gold and get a 1000% return.
Thanks for the updating penny stocks news. They must have dropped the fees recently.
Thanks for the updating penny stocks news. They must have dropped the fees recently.
I have a web site where I give investment advise on penny stocks. I have had much success over the years because I thoroughly research all my stock selections very carefully before I buy a stock. I would like to comment about penny stock promoters theirs definitely good reasons to not take advise from a web site that recommends stocks trading under 50 cents. generally speaking although their are exceptions stocks trading under 1 dollar are usually bad investments. I have had great success over the years with stocks trading between 1 dollar and 10 dollars a share. I would like to suggest a stock that I like here it trades around 4 dollars a share the company is in the retail appliance business. the company is very profitable’ with much less risk than most stocks trading under 5 dollars this is an excellent company what I would call a diamond in the ruff’ any competent investment professional would have great respect for anyone that could find such a good company trading at only 4 dollars a share. I think the stock could get to 20 dollars a share over the next five years. the company Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. symbol {ARCI} and its subsidiaries sell household appliances through a chain of company-owned factory outlet stores under the name ApplianceSmart in the United States and Canada. Its stores offer special-buy appliances, including close-outs, factory overruns, floor samples, returned or exchanged items, open-carton items, and scratch and dent appliances. As of March 18, 2010, the company operated 19 factory outlets, including 6 in the Minneapolis/St. Paul market; 1 in Rochester, Minn., market; 4 in the Columbus, Ohio, market; 6 in the Atlanta market; and 2 in San Antonio, Texas. It also provides recycling services for electric utility energy efficiency programs; and sells scrap materials, such as metal and plastics, and reclaimed chlorofluorocarbons refrigerants from appliances it collects and recycles. The company has a joint venture agreement with Diagnostico y Administracion de Logistica Inversa, S.A. de C.V. to operate a refrigerator recycling program sponsored by the Mexican government. Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. was founded in 1976 and is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Hey, I have recently started investing in penny stocks and found they are quite amazing. However, they are really risky as there are stock promoters where they load up millions of shares slowly and when the smaller buyers buy the stock, then big players started to dump it and make profit from that. So I think it is pretty hard, but I will give a try.
Leave A Reply