A reply (from me) to another member within a private Google...

A reply (from me) to another member within a private Google Group board, where Looksmart shareholders post thoughts on the stock daily ....... We are discussing the market's lack of response to an announced "partnership" with FoxTV Sites, within Looksmart's CC on thursday ....

Thanks for your reply Mike .....

< ........and sadly Ross the stock market flicked it off much the same way they did when it was revealed they were working with Viacom and NYT. >

Yes, if the stock market only knew of it, then it may have been a different story, possibly. Ask yourself ..... How many people in both stockmarkets happen to listen to Looksmart's CC (let alone actual Looksmart shareholders) and of them, how many of them would know the significance of a "new" partner for Looksmart, (in Fox TV Sites) .... And that there are 35 of these sites, in all !!

Had David Hills posted an announcement that told the market of this "new" partnership, and told the market of a strategy (if there is one) fully involving publisher & media Co's and one surrounding their millions of articles they have, is it possible then that the market may have possibly then treated Look's Q1 report friday, in a different manner? I do and I'm sure other group members would feel the same.....

In fact, with Viacom and NYT, (again) I'll say .... There was very little fanfare ... NO bold lights or, bold headings ..... Why?

....Because Dave Hills has also reminded us that his mission is to provide long term value for shareholders and that he "couldn't give a fig" about the share price value, in the short term ......If he had the latter "in mind" he would have been pumping away prior to the "reverse split", to try and avoid a need for it .... Or, at least, (on the reverse split), the low share price was then, a reasonable enough excuse, for the need to have one .... What I am saying Looksmart's shareprice value has been "kept" down at these levels for a more important reason. And that this "real" reason (a Murdoch "buy-in") will 'unfold' over the next couple of weeks, I believe .... And I don't think I am talking through my pockets!!

The fact remains that a "buy-in" wasn't possible UNLESS a 'reverse split' was enacted!!

The reverse split has now made available some 170M shares in Looksmart, (they are permitted 200M on their register) that have (& as a result of the reverse split, now) become available to make strategic purchases (some all script deals, possibly?) or, allow any such "buy-in", to go ahead, & occur.

If Looksmart was being prepared for or, there was ever a potential to be sold 'outright' and Rupert Murdoch was an interested buyer, he (naturally), would have made the purchase "lock stock & barrel", long before today, I feel.

And you have also said ..... Rupert Murdoch promised the market he would be securing his Search Engine in mid-May.

Back to the share price and it's current 'oversold' situation ..... Looksmart as per tradition enjoyed it's "usual" run-up, prior to reporting Q1 results. On the friday, a week before this event, LOOK's share price traded as low as $4.85cps ... So, the 'peak' (of $5.26c) or, close of the day before, actually represented a rise in one week, of some .41cps, or, 8.5% .....

28-Apr-06 4.88 5.01 4.85 4.96 71,100 4.96

Not convincing enough, was the market's response on friday .... Yet, activity in the A/Hrs (following the report on thursday) was "non-existent" with barely a "seller" in sight. (There were only 2 trades for around 1100 shares only, and @ the close, of $5.26cps).

So, maybe a strategy was put into place, 'overnight', for friday? Who knows??

:)
LC