That sucks. I don't know why it wasn't set up so people could shop around directly with the insurance companies. I see commercials for car insurers that let you compare their rates to others companies and find the best deal. Do you think your family's premiums and deductibles will go up?
If you look up "short and distort" on investopedia, it seems some shorts are under the misimpression that message boards are for anything more than entertainment. If you're lucky, some people long or short will direct you to actual information, which actually happens on this board, although the information is usually about U.S.politics and not the company.
You seem easily confused - why would anyone get mad at a seemingly random, forgettable assortment of characters in a new Yahoo ID that's likely to disappear in a few weeks? Especially when the ID owner is paying a dividend, soon. Thanks, look forward to receiving that!
The stock, added to the dividend you will soon be paying, based on the after hours closing price is still in the $33s. Just like when you started posting here. After all of the "bad news" you've tried to sell here. Anyway, it's pretty clear from your posting history that $33 is the magic number that is leading to all these posts from you.
We have shorts here using tenuous arguments to try to frighten a handful of retail longs who read message boards on a stock largely held by institutions. Don't believe my point on index funds, compare the top ten mutual fund holders on Apple to ANF. You will see S&P 500 index funds holding Apple and none holding ANF.
"Index membership is quite relevant to how well it follows the S&P. If you remove a company from the S&P, ETFs no longer buy it."
The point being made by MSCH, which I agree with is if you're talking about index ETFs it doesn't matter. The S&P 500 is weighted by market cap, so when you get through the top 100 companies alone, including Apple, Exxon, Microsoft, etc, one of the bottom 500 companies has such a small percentage of the pie that the number of shares any ETF or Index Fund owned or will sell is probably of little consequence.
Of course the poster's comments are absurd. According to a Motley Fool piece "Will J.C. Penney, JDS Uniphase, and U.S. Steel Leave the S&P 500?"
"Getting booted out of the S&P 500 isn't the kiss of death for companies, with some studies showing that deleted stocks actually do better after leaving the index."
I maintain the obvious point is that index membership is irrelevant to how the brand will do. If the Fool point is correct, I would wager it's because S&P is kicking a lot of companies out at the lows.
I initially responded to your information politely using facts. You respond to this stuff with condescending language, and by making up untrue quotes and attributing them to me. When people do that I will jokingly comment on their posts. It's unfortunate that you seem unable to discern the difference between that and "taking things personally." I have never lost money on ANF, and it is entertaining that as a self proclaimed fashion expert you're apparently unaware that brand is popular among celebrities. Membersonlyoriginal is the web domain. And logic dictates that whether a stock is in the index has no bearing on the success of a brand among teenagers and young adults.
"What happens when a company is dropped for the S&P 500? "companies subsequently filed for bankruptcy, leaving stock investors with nothing." Do your research!"
I did the research and it says listening to random, meaningless quotes on message boards is a bad idea!
Anyway, it sounds suspiciously like you are comparing companies to other companies, which as far as I can tell from your arguments, nobody in a market is allowed to do. Unless that company is "Members Only" which, incidentally is quite popular right now and worn by tons of celebrities. You must have missed that in all of your fashion research, huh? That's okay, we'll all take your word about fashion over Google.
Thanks for the warning! Although glad I didn't sell since that never happened.
Even after being dropped from the S&P 500, this stock is still trading in the 33s, which is where it closed right before you started posting here. So thanks for all the warnings! Although you forgot to warn us that your warnings may be meaningless!
"Everybodies already invested."
I posted earlier that Christian Science Monitor wrote that about half of Americans were invested in the market in May. My recollection was this was at a multi-year low.
I think you need greater participation among the general public to get a true bubble in any market.
Many people still distrust the markets, remember when they sold low, and think they missed this run so they'll wait for a correction. And because I think many people think this, and many people are usually wrong, I won't be surprised if they are wrong again this time and the correction does not come.
A good example I can think of is Apple. I know many people who thought they missed the boat on Apple, didn't buy as the stock went up, and then all started getting in at 5 or 6 hundred. People who feel they missed something often change their position as they continue to miss something. Probably because people compare themselves to how their neighbors and peers are doing.
Actually, just checked Mississauga only has 700,000 people. The people I know who live there have been exaggerating the city's awesomeness.
If you want to see current directors go, withhold your votes for the ones that come up for reelection online using the access code on the form mailed to shareholders before the next AGM.
Mississauga is a city with a population of over a million people, so that wasn't really the kind of "suburb" I was referring to. I do think A-list Malls and Premium Outlet Malls in the U.S. appear to be doing fine. And you have many U.S. cities like Detroit, Cincinnati, and Houston, as examples, where downtown turns into ghost towns at night, making it seem difficult to foresee a transition from suburbs to city any time soon.
I've been to "dead" ie near vacant malls in the US and get this phenomena. It seems America-specific. In Toronto, more people are moving to the city than the suburbs, but suburban malls are still packed. Perhaps due to better management as many are owned by the teacher's pension plan. They are actually *paying* Sears millions to end their leases early and tear down the Sears stores to add better tenants. The malls keep attracting young customers with stadium seating movie theaters and upgraded food courts. It seems the smart malls are ahead of the game.
Probably true, but about half of Americans still own stock directly or indirectly. Source: Christian Science Monitor May 2013
ANF also has more higher margin stores outside America now than it did in 2009.
The company has made money every year during the worst of the great recession/recovery, and the 2001 recession, including charges. I wouldn't be surprised if the charges they take this fiscal year allow that trend to continue. As for the horrific economy, there are presumably a lot of parents making good money on the stock market this year - certainly better than 2009, when ANF wrote off Ruehl (similar in store count to Gilly Hicks) and refused to discount for a prolonged period while the competition was discounting.
Should have said it appears that the "$88 million obstacle was reduced to $6 million" if I am understanding this correctly. But if anyone else has any counter interpretations or other things to consider from the filings, feel free to post.
This is what I see as important from the 8-K:
"There is no retention or sign-on grant, and the formula for semi-annual equity grants contained in the 2008 Agreement has been eliminated. Instead, the 2013 Agreement provides that Mr. Jeffries is eligible to receive long-term incentive awards each year with a target value of $6,000,000, as measured for accounting purposes."
Compare this to the proxy in May 16, 2013:
"For termination with “Good Reason” or “Not for Cause” subject to a change of control, the $88,024,081 includes the value of any outstanding Semi-Annual Grants ($7,151,381), plus the full value of the Retention
Grant from the effective date of the Jeffries Agreement through the end date of the Jeffries Agreement ($80,872,700)."
If I'm understanding this correctly, and I just quickly glanced through it, it seems that an $88 million obstacle to any future takeover has been eliminated, but of course do your own due diligence. While I think this company could have succeeded without Jeffries, if his employment being an obstacle to any potential takeover is reduced, then I am glad to see that.