Word: sunk
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Spielberg can't be blamed for that seismic shift in the industry. Jaws only happened to inaugurate it. If the shark had sunk for good (as it threatened to during the troubled filming), another picture would have ushered in the age of the movie best sellers--maybe Star Wars, in 1977. And no one is more aware than Spielberg of his own weaknesses. When I asked him once to make the case against his films, he grinned and started the list: "They say, 'Oh, he cuts too fast; his edits are too quick; he uses wide-angle lenses; he doesn...
...involved? You could buy the perceived targets, hoping for a takeover at a fat premium. But if no deal surfaces, you're sunk. Besides, the latest deals have been "mergers of equals," which allow two banks of similar size to hook up without one paying a big premium for the other. Shareholders still get a (more modest) pop, but in both stocks, not just the target's. So you can do well owning the buying bank--say, a NationsBank, First Union or Chase Manhattan. In many cases, that will be the better long-term investment anyway. But I'd also...
...NATION, Feb. 23], but he could chain me to a wall in the deepest dungeon with rats nibbling at my feet and I would never divulge what my daughter told me in confidence. In Nazi Germany children were encouraged to squeal on their parents. Is this what we have sunk to? HARRIETT SCHUTKIN Fox Point...
...inflation, the selling price of $147 million is roughly one-fourth of the plant's construction costs. In today's dollars, the loss would be equivalent to approximately half a billion dollars--not counting the returns the University could have earned had the money been invested rather than sunk into construction costs...
...better, the two behemoths seemed an ideal match. Expensive medical technologies like genetic engineering, combined with tougher FDA requirements, have made the cost of developing a single drug between $400 and $600 million -- about four times what it was 20 years ago. A combined Glaxo and SmithKline could have sunk $3 billion into research and development, compared to $1.8 billion for Novartis AG and $1.5 billion each for Merck & Co. and Pfizer...