An OPEN Letter to Yahoo's Chairman & Board.
An OPEN Letter to Yahoo's Chairman & Board. Thanks Yahoo. Your once "fun" Yahoo Finance chat boards have now been contaminated by Corporate protectors, it seem? Thanks (also) for deleting all those "positive " posts of mine from yesterday posted on the Looksmart (LOOK) board on your Yahoo Finance site. It's called CENSORSHIP in many parts of the world that we live in. Perhaps it's just a way of life, for you people? And a note to the Looksmart (LOOK) board's "watch-dog " ..... You and your fellow US citizens should be totally ashamed of what is going on over there in the 'good ole' US of A. (Seriously). And at a time when the world is (now) suddenly going soft on China, (the Games?), and I guess it's purely to ensure a "commercial " success of being assured. (To sell more Coca Cola?) - Shame!! Yes. It may well be that we should never let the truth get in the way of a commercial proposition, maybe? And on Yahoo, other posters may now be living in the fear of (that they too), having their own (any positive) posts removed by the 'censorship machine'. On behalf of Looksmart directly (?) or, is it simply a financial mafia (the corrupt power) of the US, that's possibly behind all of this? Yahoo not only (selectively) removed post of a 'positive' nature from yesterday, (that's called CENSORSHIP), in effect, it had only left behind those posts that show Looksmart in a dim light. My access had then been completely barred earlier on today (following just the one post), showing that this corrupt practice remains. Looksmart (and it's report) is nothing short of a disgrace and others (especially other shareholders who may dial in), are entitled to hear of my reasons, as to why this is so. But just as all references to GREED is good - GORDON GEKKO (BAD) posted were swiftly removed, this link (below) to the NY Times' article (that I had referenced yesterday), clearly spells it out the real and grave situation (on the 2nd page), where they say: < Perhaps corporations will reform themselves, but so far they show no signs of changing their ways. And you have to wonder: Who will save that malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A.? > From: "Greed Is Bad" - New York Times http://query.nytim es.com/gst/fullpag e.html?res=9804E5D 8103AF937A35755C0A 9649C8B63 There is way too much to hilite that is WRONG from within today's Looksmart Report in this post. IMHO. But it's clear that semantics will always win the day in a climate of ignorance that has almost become a culture. One where many of it's members (of this society) appear to now struggle to know the difference between what is true or, clearly false. Along with those others, who are so obviously unable to understand, the doing of what is right from what is wrong. And the saying, that "Liars use Double Talk to Lie about Lies" is even said to be, 'just a matter of semantics'. OMG !!! I can't believe it!! I will repeat that last sentence from the previous page (quote taken) from the NY Times' article: "Who will save that malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A."? :) (Tuesday | post #1)
Google UP - Yahoo smashed - Why?
< And an ideal OPEN Exchange (Looksmart have both an Ads/Pubs Network and an OPEN Exchange), is one being a completely "independent " INTERCONNECTOR of the many Ads Networks Globally, that find they have advertisers & publishers wanting (or, deciding that they have a need) to "interconnect " outside their own, respective Ads/Pubs (own) Network. > The marketplace is "alive" with the "rush" on the scene of Ads/Pubs Networks, National Advertiser and Publisher Exchanges and OPEN Exchanges (much like the very kind that Looksmart have), that operate on a Global scale. Looksmart's Advertiser Network is already "unique" in it's very independence of the Co NOT owning it's own consumer (publisher), sites. (Owned property Furl.net will be "placed" in the next announced move, IMHO). Looksmart, with a simple "controlling stake" merge with a Co like Banks.com (BNX) could then achieve the ONLY independently operating Global Advertiser and Publisher Exchanges, with BOTH totally transparent and being separate fully accountable entities on the web. BNX (unbelievably?) have a current market cap, of (would you believe?), less than $9M. With an (all script issue) "double" of that value being offered (for a 60% "stake" in Banks.com), Looksmart would then conceivably see itself, (now under a refreshingly new-look and a permanent "brand" of LOOK.com), then getting to indirectly retain control of those direct/indirect revenue generators, in Furl.net, and a "special purpose use" of both Wisenut & the 181 Vertical sites of old. (Through Banks.com - http://www.upspira l.com/). It's not rocket science. But it would then see both the "LOOK (Global) Advertiser Solutions" and the "LOOK (Global) Publisher Solutions" offerings as being so far ahead of the BIG Three (who do enjoy a 90% share of all Ads revenues), with both of it's "independentl y run operations" standing out like beacons, for any/many (Globally based) advertisers and publishers to then join their respective accountable LOOK.com Network, and in complete confidence. But only an opinion, as always. Can CEO Ted West et al (the "powers to be" of Looksmart), see this "win-win-win " situation scenario, I wonder? LOOK are "definitely " in the "right sector" but as for being the "right stock" (?), that may be a decision that individuals will have to make. (Insiders of Looksmart have already made their own decisions, in that regard.) :) LMC (Jun 14, 2008 | post #3)
Google UP - Yahoo smashed - Why?
Continued from the previous post ...... But the "truth" of the matter has yet to be reported (factually) and is very much like as was put in my previous post, prior to this one. ##Google’s $83 Million Escape Clause: SEC Filing Spells Out Details Of Yahoo-Google Deal## http://www.techcru nch.com/2008/06/13 /googles-83-millio n-escape-clause-se c-filing-spells-ou t-details-of-yahoo -google-deal/ Change is upon us. No longer will advertisers be "fleeced " by the BIG Search Co's (in both price and favorable reports prepared for them, by the very SAME companies). And yes, many "third party publishers" will certainly see a drop in what they have been accustomed to, for so long now. (When understanding the fact, that it has always been in the interest of these same BIG search Co's to ensure publishers were served high cost Ads - The higher the cost, the higher percentage returns for those same SE's! With the "BIG Three" [being Google/Yahoo/MSN] controlling up to 90% of the total Ads spend, up until to now.) This Google/Yahoo "deal" has simply been a means of introducing the "new" (totally efficient) way of Advertiser/Publish er relationships, going forward. But that's not the "story" the market has been told. Auction based "buying and selling" of Ads (from both ends) will get to provide the ultimate in level playing fields. Publishers (being sites) with "unique" (quality) type vertical content that attracts a certain "user" demographic in their audience, will be much sought after by Advertisers. And particularly those that will tend (want) to "out-bid " each other, to gain their "spot" in front of their target audience. And Publishers will soon quickly then get to guage their own (content) appeal (to advertisers) and will get to "set their own bid/cost prices" for advertisers to then decide to either accept or, simply move onto the next best thing. So, this new "push-pull " EXCHANGE between publishers and advertisers (operating at both ends) is an ongoing (7/24) AUTOMATIC process ......And (both) Advertisers and Publishers can 1stly get to join an Ads Network they feel may best suit their own demographics. (A best, "Mix and match" of products and services with either relevant content or, a publisher's "user" base? - The likes of a Fat Profit or, a CMCMarkets with a ShareCafe.com) - The "beauty" being is, that THEY (both) get to decide! They get to "control " their own destiny. And an ideal OPEN Exchange (Looksmart have both an Ads/Pubs Network and an OPEN Exchange), is one being a completely "independent " INTERCONNECTOR of the many Ads Networks Globally, that find they have advertisers & publishers wanting (or, deciding that they have a need) to "interconnect " outside their own, respective Ads/Pubs (own) Network. Operators (setting either the "bid or, ask" rates) at both ends will (need to) become proficient and the "best" will save or, win fortunes for (each) their own representation, simply based on their skills & better reading of the market, of "supply & demand". The "weight" of scale in a growing (and a more organised and diverse) 'long tail' or, what may be considered as the fragment end of the marketplace will produce a reduction in "average " CPM/CPC costs and both publishers and advertisers should understand why, accordingly. But all, only an opinion as always. :) LMC (Jun 13, 2008 | post #2)
Google UP - Yahoo smashed - Why?
http://www.shareca fe.com.au/board_po stview.asp?a=PVS &boardID=2117 &sym=LOK&p ostID=469749 < A source has said that in order to allay antitrust concerns, the Yahoo-Google ad deal would involve an open bidding process in which Microsoft also could participate, with the ad being delivered by the company that would generate the most revenue..... > <"The process is non-exclusive, meaning others could join in the bidding to place ads, a factor that could make a deal easier to pass regulatory approval." > The "spin" surrounding the Yahoo/Google announced "deal" never ceases to amaze me. And it's that good, that Yahoo's share-price value has now declined from a price of $26.33 down to an intraday low of $21.75....A "drop" of some $4.58 per share (21%), before closing @ $23.47pps.. The "Pied Piper" (Mike Arrington of TechCrunch) says (in his opening sentence) today, that: "I don’t believe that there is anything Yahoo could do at this point to further destroy their business that would surprise me." (Full story - Link) ##Massive Destruction Of Shareholder Value, Employee Morale and Internet Balance Of Power## http://www.techcru nch.com/2008/06/13 /massive-destructi on-of-shareholder- value-employee-mor ale-and-internet-h ealth/ Also contained (in his other thoughts expressed above), are the following few "pearl-ers " like: "I never thought these people were actually insane. Handing Google a monopoly in search marketing was just a ploy, I thought...." "Yahoo’s hatred of Microsoft runs so deep that they were actually, in the end, willing to destroy the future of their company just to keep it independent for a short while longer." "Without them, [Microsoft/Yahoo] Google would continue to keep the lion’s share of search marketing dollars to themselves, and distribute next to nothing to third party publishers." And lastly, ..."The delicate power balance among the big players was disrupted today in a big way, and the consequences will be felt over the coming months and years. We needed a competitive market in search to ensure the health of the Internet. Now, it’s nearly impossible to see how that can happen." And as a result of much (plenty), of this (indirect type) "positive spin", Google has risen during the same period by up to $28.82 per share (from a low of $546.88 yesterday, to today's intra-day high of $575.70) before closing @ $571.51 come 4.00pm. But the "truth" of the matter has yet to be reported (factually) and is very much like as was put in my previous post, (Linked above), prior to this one. Continued ..... (Jun 13, 2008 | post #1)
Looksmart's 2nd "real terms" PROFIT in Q1 - 2008
Yahoo constantly ban "words" that the Co apparently don't like being published ...(it seems?) What's offensive about this post here, I ask? (And as can be seen, I have "split" many words to attempt to get past the "filter" ) __________________ _____ Re: Incidentally - Those 80 1,092 "tre asury shares"? 0 second(s) ago chapter_sev... < My understanding is that these 80 1,092 "tre asury shares" can be re-sold. IF Ted decides to sell them @ $13.51cps, another $8, 920,000 NETT then "jumps in", free of any costs, whatsoever. (Maybe, some brokerage?) > It surely puts a "whole new perspective" on Q1 - 2008, too? No? Ted has "taken a punt" on behalf of shareholders knowing it is a "no brainer". Yes, that's certainly clever. And someone said (I read it somewhere?), that: "Operating expenses excluding stock based compensation came in about $400,000 better than we had anticipated. The company did book $0.3 million in expenses for losses on discontinued operations and thus the GAAP net loss for the quarter came to $0.5 million or about $600,000 better than we had anticipated. On a cash basis, the net earnings total-ed $1.28 million of roughly $0.06 per share" IF you were to deduct the "current " market value of those 80 1,092 "tre asury shares" (against the cost of them), you may then see just where my "real" (Net) profit for the quarter, then comes from. HMMmm? :) ps; We now "banning " the mention of "trea sury shares", it seems? Must be the total of them, then or, both? How sad is this all becoming? Sentiment : Strong Buy __________________ _____ The post was in reply to this one .... http://messages.fi nance.yahoo.com/St ocks_%28A_to_Z%29/ Stocks_L/threadvie w?m=tm&bn=1082 8&tid=176840 &mid=176840 &tof=1&frt =2 Geeze it's sad!!! :) (May 6, 2008 | post #3)
Looksmart UPGRADE to $10.50pps .....
According to this post from the big "O", over on IV ...... Oh, that's "Jon", incidentally .... ROFLMFAO !!!! __________________ ______________ In response to msg 2549 by cccaptain Recs: 0 Re: +$1.16m of EBITDA in Q1:O Thanks captain for sharing your hard work on this board. I have just re-read the MDB report on LOOK: < The better than expected results have caused us to revise our earnings model for the remainder of 2008. We now believe the company is on pace to generate more than $75 million in revenues and cash earnings of $0.39 per share for the 2008 year. We believe management’s new focus on the LookSmart Ad Network is meeting with great success and that the share price is beginning to reflect the rapidly expanding bottom line results. Therefore, we are maintaining our Buy rating and raising our target price to $10.50.... LookSmart currently trades with a market capitalization of roughly $78.2 million (17 million shares at a current price of $4.60) with $32.8 million in cash, giving the company an enterprise value of roughly $45 million. We feel that this valuation remains low as a result of the market’s misperception that there is little value in second tier search properties and the fact that the company has struggled to grow revenues during the past two years. In addition, the company has not been able to generate profits since the loss of the MSN contract back in 2003. Now with an annual revenue run rate of more than $70 million and the fact that the company is no longer burning cash we feel the company can eventually command a valuation in line with other profitable internet related enterprises (at least 3X to 6X revenues). For now, given the missteps of the past and the fact that the financial turn is still early, we feel a fair valuation would be at least 2X the 2008 revenue estimate plus the cash position. 3X our $75 million revenue estimate for 2008 equates to a per share value of $8.80. We are conservatively adding another $1.70 per share to account for the cash position to reach a fair market value of $10.50 per share. Additionally, we believe an earnings valuation of 30X the 2008 cash estimate would also provide a fair valuation measure. 30X our $0.39 per share earnings estimate equates to a fair value of $11.70 > I recommend that anybody wishing to invest in LOOK buy and digest the MDB report. It is brilliant. I am encouraged. Captain, we agree that LOOK is stunningly undervalued. And so does this analyst. Rgds O Erhomenos __________________ ______________ http://www.investo rvillage.com/smbd. asp?mb=3240&mn =2555&pt=msg &mid=4715573 Thanks "O" - Hold on tight, shareholders!! :) (May 6, 2008 | post #1)
Yahoo Finance bans positive posts ....
ALL positive posts on Looksmart's Q1-2008 Report that were made yesterday over on Yahoo Finance were removed. How sad is that, I ask? CENSORSHIP !!! SAD (May 6, 2008 | post #1)
Looksmart's 2nd "real terms" PROFIT in Q1 - 2008
And Yahoo finance have done what they normally do with any of my posts that are too "close to the bone" .... Simply "remove" them !! Shame on Yahoo Finance !!!!! :) LMC (May 6, 2008 | post #2)
From within that excellent article .... "For example, you may visit many sites about Walla Walla, Wash., and vintage cars. That narrows down the possibilities if you happen to be the only person in Walla Walla driving a 1957 Chevy". I think it's brilliant! And in reading an article on Chevy vintage cars, following that initial few searches made (and assuming that you even live in Walla Walla), there may be every likelyhood that you could even be presented with an Ad coming from a "seller" of a 1957 Chevy living nearby. As I have written, I think it's brilliant and after-all, I am not required to click on that Ad and then (worse still), be forced to buy that car. But IF I was in the market for that type of car (a product or, a service) I'd only be too happy to be presented with Ads on the topic or, other suitables, that may be related to my interest. This then clearly saves me plenty of time hunting around, should this be the case. Yes .... It's terrific - Brilliant !! :) (May 6, 2008 | post #1)
Looksmart's 2nd "real terms" PROFIT in Q1 - 2008
It would surely come as a surprise to some to read of how Looksmart not only have improved it's "cash" position Q/Q and (in effect), has actually had a "real terms" Net Profitable, 2nd Quarter! Read on. Looksmart advised the market earlier today, that: < The Company ended the quarter with approximately $32.8 million in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments, a decrease of approximately $23.4 million from approximately $56.2 million on December 31, 2007. The company used approximately $20.8 million in cash to repurchase shares in a modified Dutch Auction tender offer and open market stock buyback during the first quarter of 2008. > The Co had also advised, that...... < During the first quarter of 2008, pursuant to its previously announced authorization to buy back up to $5 million of its outstanding common stock through December 31, 2008, the Company repurchased 801,092 shares of its common stock at an average price of $3.51 per share, for a total expenditure of approximately $2.8 million. The number of shares of common stock outstanding at the end of the first quarter of 2008 was 16,977,854, net of 801,092 treasury shares. > Let's have a look at those numbers now: CASH - $56.2M - End of Q4 - 2007 -LESS - $20.8M - Dutch Auction repurchase of shares CASH - $35.4M -LESS - $2.80M - Cost of 801,092 "treasury shares" (@ av cost of $3.51pps) ____________ Total - $32.6M As, we hsve been told that....."The Company ended the quarter with approximately $32.8 million in cash..."..the Co has clearly improved it's "cash" position by an amount of $0.02M during the quarter. And on yesterday's close (@ $4.59) and in assuming that those 801,092 "treasury shares" were sold at this figure, another (approx) $3,68M could then be 'added to' the stated end of quarter "cash" figure of $32.8 million, with a (then) "realistic " (improved) cash position (for Q1 - 2008), of approx. $36.48M. This would then, further increase the quarter's improved "cash" figure (upwards), from $0.02M, to show a "real" Q/Q "cash" increase then, of $1.08M So, rather than reading reports of a Q1 "loss" from continuing operations of $0.01 per share, ($0.05 better than the First Call consensus of $0.06) and reports telling of how Looksmart cut its first quarter loss to $488,000 (from a loss of $3.4 million in the same quarter a year ago), they may very well have been "screaming out" to the Market, of Looksmart's ($1.08 LESS $488,000) Q1 - 2008 Net PROFIT, of $592,000 ..... And, it's only the 2nd "profitable " quarter, in the Co's history. Now isn't THAT, something to "cheer" about? Yes, of course it is, but I guess thst it's all about ........the "picture we care to paint" and the "colours " in that picture........ that others care to see.....Go LOOK !! (All, IMHO, as always) :) NOTE: According to Wikipedia, ..... If the "treasury stock" is sold for more than cost, then the paid-in capital treasury stock is the account that is increased not retained earnings. In auditing financial statements, it is a common practice to check for this error to detect possible attempts to "cook the books". http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Treasur y_stock (May 6, 2008 | post #1)
WHY is "general news" items being placed and discussed within the Search Engine Forum, I ask? Wouldn't this have the effect of "driving those who may be interested" in discussing search engines (and related matters to search), AWAY? :) (May 2, 2008 | post #1)
Olympics