Mediaboss Marketing

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - South African stocks edged down on Thursday, as shares of Assore and other commodities firms were hit by concerns of overheated valuations, while Investec slumped after it said it expected lower full-year earnings.

Shares of media and e-commerce firm Naspers jumped for a second day, hitting a record high, after Chinese internet giant Tencent Holdings Ltd, in which Naspers holds a 30 percent stake, posted a rise in fourth-quarter net profit.

"Futures investors, who are trader types, probably are rather happy to stay on the sidelines at this stage because of what has happened over the last few days," said Byron Lotter, a portfolio manager at Vestact Asset Management.

"I think this rally is sustainable long term. Equities still have quite a long way to go, there is still a lot of liquidity out there that still needs to be pumped into the equity markets."

South Africa's blue-chip Top-40 index fell 0.61 percent to 30,334.04. The broader All-share index also edged 0.61 percent lower to 34,215.30.

Shares of base metals miner Assore fell 1.6 percent to 250 rand. Its shares have jumped 23 percent over the last three months.

Shares of Investec, which is also listed in London, fell 3.28 percent to 47.55 rand, making it the top loser on the Top-40 index.

The $2 billion bank said full-year earnings probably fell as much as 27 percent, hurt by a poorly performing investment bank and a loss in its Australian unit.

Shares of Harmony Gold fell 2.62 percent to 85.06 rand and brewer SABMiller shed 2.08 percent to close at 311.41 rand.

Decliners outnumbered advancers by 172 to 118. A total of 67 stocks were unchanged.

See the article here:
S.Africa stocks retreat from two-day gains

15-03-2012 01:51 Mr. Sung Bonna, CEO of Bonna Realty Group, was invited for sharing his insights on 2012 Cambodia Real Estate Outlook on CTN Channel in Internet Talk Programme. Check it out 🙂

Read more from the original source:
Mr. Sung Bonna's Interview on CTN [Internet Talk Programme].mp4 - Video

The open house you want to schedule actually will help your real estate agent more than you.

That's one secret Reader's Digest says your agent won't mention. The iconic page-turner interviewed a handful of real estate types across the country to come up with a list for its April issue.

South Florida agents generally agree with the tips on open houses and commissions, though they insist that some of the other secrets and strategies in the piece aren't exactly inside information.

Local agents say open houses aren't effective anymore in the age of the Internet. Nearly nine of 10 buyers hunt for houses online, according to a 2011 study from the National Association of Realtors.

While an open house makes the seller feel good, it's unlikely the home will sell to someone who attended the event, agents say.

"It does give the seller some exposure, but the real motivation for a Realtor wanting to do them is to pick up clients," said Terry Story of Coldwell Banker in Boca Raton.

Open houses typically attract neighbors looking to see how your house compares to theirs. Those who meander through likely aren't qualified buyers, said Marisa DiLenge, an agent for Better Homes and Gardens Real Estate Florida 1st in Broward County.

What's more, there's a security issue, DiLenge said. Some burglars may pose as buyers to find out what valuables are in the home. And DiLenge said she's not comfortable with the prospect of being alone in a property with a stranger.

"In 20 years of doing this, I've sold only one house on an open house," she said. "For me, it's not worth it."

Boca Raton-based Lang Realty isn't dismissing the power of the open house. The firm is holding a one-day event at 300 properties from Boca to Port St. Lucie on March 25.

Follow this link:
Open houses don't work and other real estate secrets

Retrieving a lost domain name isn't a big deal if you know to approach the right person at the right time

BANGALORE, INDIA: The true worth of losing a website is hardly realized until you know for sure that it cannot be easily salvaged. The ensuing unstoppable freaky thoughts can sap your mind. What if a stranger is posting incongruous stuff that's a departure from your unique identity. Much worse, what if it is being owned by porn makers? OMG! You are name jacked.

Something of that sort happened to Delia Ephron, a writer. She recalls those moments in her blog: "I hadnt looked at my Web site in a while, but I figured that, with a novel coming out, I should bring it up to date. So I Googled http://www.deliaephron.com (I never had gotten around to bookmarking it) and it wasnt there. Instead there was a message: This domain is for sale."

She felt violated and was desperate to get the name back as it represented her life, her hard work, her accomplishments, point of view and more. After months of unrestrained court cases, and facing the harsh reality of the virtual world, she won in the end. She got back her identity, her website, not before going on a domain-buying frenzy. Now, she is the owner of deliaephron.net, deliaephron.name and also delia-ephron.com. Did you just think that her domains are too complicated to be taken away? Perhaps that wasn't the criteria at all.

Not everyone could be as lucky as Delia. Domain name thefts aren't uncommon in the world where every name you look for seems competitive given the rush for sensible and easily-remembered names that seamlessly associate with one's identity. However, it is not entirely impossible to get back the lost name and the website, though it rarely comes for free.

When a person registers a domain name it is mandatory to pay a yearly fee to the domain names registry just to keep the name associated with their IP address. Losing domain names could be the result of failure to renew it on time or someone fraudulently taking control of it without legally buying it.

In the first case, it is never too late to renew it with the registry of domain names, but not before checking if it's already up on sale or being auctioned. If it's on sale, most appropriate would be to bid to buy it.

But if someone has already bought the domain and using it, then it requires some really nice etiquette to get it back. Use your charm, try to convince the person why you want it back. It's highly likely that a request to the new owner works if he has bought it with the sole intention of reselling. So, just find out how much is your name worth, offer to buy it yourself, he would be more than happy to sell it. You shell out his price and own back your domain.

Apart from this, what if your domain name is stolen, I mean taken away fraudulently or if you are name-jacked? Companies losing control of their domains might face serious consequences.

In the know-all Internet age, it shouldn't be too tedious to know the hosting company of the website. Tools like Netcraft generously show up the hosting company names. For example domain name registrars Net 4 and Verisigngives you the entire details about the website-- registration date, hosting company, server etc.

Read more:
How to find your lost website

When a sniper ends the life of soldier Paul Bumer in Remarque's "All Quiet on the Western Front," a laconic situation report from the frontlines recounts an unusually quiet day. In the grand scheme of things, nothing worth reporting has happened. Reading David Kravets' recent article in Wired brought this upsetting ending to mind. U.S. authorities taking down individual domains based on copyright infringement charges is the online equivalent of Remarque's allied snipers: picking off the occasional domain for better or worse has little effect on the overall situation.

The domain community, however, feels differently. Searching for "domain seizure" on Twitter brings up thousands of hits. A domain name website created some buzz by issuing a press release yesterday which "downgraded" its "rating" for the .COM and the .NET TLD from AAA to AA, due to these seizures posing "a threat to any .com domain and the Internet DNS in general."

Crunching real market data, I think these opinions are hyperbolic, and these fears are irrational. Domain registrations are stronger than ever (according to Verisign's Domain Name Industry Brief), and people are not reluctant to register new .COM and .NET domains. Data from the secondary domain market do not show any justification for this claim either.

Figures from Sedo.com, the largest domain marketplace worldwide, show neither a reduction in sales volume (which usually precedes a decline in market prices) nor in sales prices. On the contrary, February showed a very strong upward trend in the total number of transactions, as well as domain prices reaching close to an all-time high (IDNX.com).

If hard numbers still don't convince you, we should take a quick "Tour d 'Europe:"

There is no doubt that the advances of US authorities are problematic. In the U.S., they will certainly be perceived as attempts to censor the Internet. However, concluding that .COM and .NET domains are therefore "precarious" investments is borderline hysterical. Admittedly, if you want to run a file-sharing website with a lenient approach to traditional copyright issues, a domain that is in reach of U.S. authorities is probably not the best choice. Neither is a .CO.UK, a .DE, an .FR or an .ES. But we knew that already, didn't we? The perceived threat of the Feds stealing your domain is no viable threat at all.

All data shows that domain investors have not walked away from U.S.-governed registries as a result of the recent seizures. Uncle Sam will, most likely, continue to leave the world's domain investors alone. All but a handful of domains will manage to evade the cross-hairs, and .COM and .NET values will continue to survive and flourish.

Disclaimer: The seizing of domain names as a way to enforce copyright claims is more than dubious, and I like many working in the world of domain names am not supporting any ideas of government entities deciding which sites remain online and which ones don't. The reaction among the Internet community to the recent SOPA bill should be proof enough that this is the prevailing opinion online. However, claiming that this has an effect on the investment performance of .COM and .NET domains is far-fetched, if not absurd.

By Thies Lindenthal, Product Manager for Domain Pricing, Sedo.com

Related topics: Domain Names, Internet Governance, Law, Top-Level Domains

Original post:
All Quiet on the Virtual Front: Why Domain Investors' Fear of the Feds is Irrational