I will come back if I see this stock hold in the 16-17 price range for at least a quarter. I just can't stomach watching it continuously bleed out. I made a decent profit thus far, but don't want to lose it based on how #$%$ the rest of my portfolio is looking right now.
Call me pessimistic, but I can't watch my gains slowly erode as this stock continues to bleed out. Thanks for all of your insight fellow shareholders. Perhaps I will come back when/if good news is forthcoming.
I was wondering when you were going to crawl out from under the bridge. You disappeared when the stock was up and only come back when it dips. Your like a bad ex wife who only comes around when she needs more money
You use words too loosely which weakens your argument. "Undoubtedlely?" That's a heavy analysis. Perhaps DHS should defer to your expertise in these matters.
I can't argue with someone who quotes wiki now can I? Ansar al shariah claimed responsibility on twitter and Facebook within hours of the consulate attack. AQ continues to use 9/11 propaganda in their newsletter more than ten years after the attack. Your weak argument fails to recognize how important propaganda is to jihadists' campaign. It is a central component of their strategy.
A week from now you may be lambasting me saying how right you were. However, you shouldn't discard some domestic white nutcase either. I also wouldn't be so bullish on siga because of this attack. It's a lot easier to put some nails in a pressure cooker than scoop up camelpox and let it loose on our streets. Please at least try to keep things in perspective here
"Keep in mind, that a radical-right anarchist would not have attacked Senator Wicker, a conservative Republican from Mississippi"
Detective John McClain: "Thank you for solving the case Isaac_DJ. We couldn't prove Islamists were behind the attack without your keen deductive reasoning. Job well done John!"
Are you kidding me? UBL got on the hot mic hours after the towers fell. Ansar al-Sharia took responsibility for the Libyan attack. You couldn't be more wrong!!!
This is one of the most ridiculous comments I have read on these boards (and I have read a ton). The Federal Government will blame whoever is responsible and not rush conclusions just to appease the public's demand for information.
Islamic terrorists generally take responsibility for their attacks. It is a central component of their information operations. Here, no one has claimed responsibility.
You can't imagine why non-Islamic terrorists would try to maxximize casualties by packing bombs with nails and bbs? Why not? It is highly effective, cheap and easy to make. I recommend you take a look at the 96' Olympic attacks this elusive white whale that you speak of.
Your comments are unintelligent and lack any reasoning whatsoever. Stick to the cartoons and let the experts figure out what transpired in Boston.
I agree with you that the stores should be successful in malls. However, this won't yield the type of return investors are looking for. They don't even offer franchise opportunities so I question how much growth potential this brand really has.
The problem is the cost. While Crumbs does have the cupcake market cornered, their problem lies in how expensive their product is (go check out a store for yourself). The BOD is realizing this, as evidenced by their decision to close underperforming stores which I can only speculate are not in wealthy enough neighborhoods/areas. I just don't see huge growth potential with this company because they are pricing themselves out of major markets. If Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks (long-time the subject of buyout rumors) enters the cupcake market then I don't believe Crumbs will be able to hold on.
Sentiment: Strong Sell
It is unclear from the oral briefs and judge comments which jurisdiction's law governs.
Agreed. The jurisdiction issue (NY v. Delaware) could raise a Federal Question though, no? The jurisdiction appears to be closely tied to the available remedy for relief
Supreme Court Judge: “On the issue of remedy…isn’t there something inherently problematic about a cause of action for breaching the duty to negotiate in good faith? Even under Delaware law, we have firmly and uniformly held that damages cannot be speculative. But there is something inherently speculative on any attempt to get a remedy on the cause of action on which you prevailed because it presupposes that there would be some kind of successful outcome to the negotiation, which in fact may or may not be the case, and that being true, if it is true, then that would make a reliance measure of damages fairly attractive because it would be the only remedy that wouldn’t be speculative… “
Pip Lawyer: “uhh….let’s look at other jurisdictions….”
Sentiment: Strong Buy
That's not necessarily true. You can petition for federal appeal, can't you (although unlikely here I would think)?
I imagine the Wall St crooks learned of the positive 4QTR results before the general public. That's a lot of volume compared to what we're used to. I would bet the results get released sometime today after the crooks get their bids in.