upgrade in the states, page-3

And an interesting reply to Tokyo..........But after going through recent LOOK reports (both Q2 & Q3) and some posts from Texas4qld and LC (on other sites) over the past couple of hours, I have to reply to some of your points, as follows:

You wrote in your post;

"LOOK still has inherent problems and as such still has inherent downside risks".

What inherent problems are you referring to? LOOK have a completely new model and it’s obvious that the partnering of HUGE publisher & media Co's along with the growing deal with a 14M member social site in facebook.com, surely indicates they don’t exactly share your (inherent problems) concerns, that you have. Explain them, could you?

"It will NOT make a profit anytime soon for many reasons".

LOOK had revs. of $12.15M for Q3 & have forecasted a 26% - 28% rise for Q4. This will give them revenues of between $15.31M and $15.56M. And the Q3 revenue had actually INCREASED by 33%, yr on yr. What revenues do you feel LOOK will require to 1stly break even & can't you see this distinct possibility (at least), for Q1 of 2007?

Piper Jaffrey has upgraded Looksmart to a Market Perform and the Motley Fool has described it as a growth Co, earlier on, this month. Both are warranted & the market agrees. Looksmart has now risen by over $2.50 a share or, over 100% in value, (off it’s all time low), in recent times.

"....its CPC is still only 10c"

Your continual referral to CPC has been corrected in my previous post. It's wrong to speak of CPC in the terms you have done so.

"this is bottom feeder stuff and is the worst of all search companies".

Texas4qld has told you many times, (and LC has too, I must note) that Looksmart are now an online advertising and technology company & should not to be confused with Google, Yahoo MSN or, other natural search companies.

"....Its CPC volume increased but at the expense of average CPC so its doing more volume with a lesser average - pretty hard business model to sell more for less to make some"?

It's RPC volume, (CPC as you continue to refer to it as) did increase and (naturally) will then DECREASE in it's UNIT VALUE, as volume ramps up! AS IT'S (after-all), A MEASURE, AGAINST TOTAL REVENUES. I have pointed out that YAHOO has half an RPC of LOOK. (Yes, just five cents odd). Could you ever imagine what Yahoo’s revenues would be each quarter, if they were getting .10cpc? Try double!

"....LOOK still has too high TAC expenses and whilst they remain above 60% as they do, LOOK are simply paying partners more to earn less as evidenced by more clicks but less CPC".

Google pay almost 80% and LOOK's TAC is decreasing as volume increases, Right? As has been guided for, true?

"...a failed model".

WHY?

".....LOOK is still burning cash and had just $40m as at the end of Q3 and will definitely be in breach of its SBLC covenants in Q4".

With increased revenues, can you truly believe what you have said in your above statement? Honestly? If so, based on what? Tell me?

".....LOOK is trading LOWER today then it was in March 06"

In march 06 the strong rumour of a Newscorp investment in Looksmart, caused the spike, at the time. Looksmart is now rising again on it's improved results. What price would you estimate it to get to, should Newscorp finally go ahead and take a controlling stake, now?

".....LOOK is trading LOWER now then when Hills took over".

LOOK was in a mess when Hillsey took over. He now has the company growing nicely. Both it’s partners and the market agree.

"Revenues have improved slightly and are growing BUT not at a sufficient rate to offset higher TAC and operating expenses".

Looksmart advise that it's total paid clicks for the third quarter of 2006 were 100 million compared to 71 million in the third quarter of 2005, an increase of 41%.

That's not a sufficient rate for you? With Facebook.com bound to grow and new partners being announced, each quarter?

You are welcomed to reply. But please, no more mention of CPC 's in the tone you have been doing so, as it’s plainly a wrongful interpretation, ok?