corvette, now we get to the heart of the flaw in your projection. The revenue projections given already take into account that SKX is increasing ad spending. Put another way, your projection is 28% higher than anyone else's projection. This speaks directly to another question that I asked. What do you think you see that everyone else is missing? It would seem that your answer is that you think the ad campaign will be extremely successful when others don't think so. I would also point out that the very assertion that the ad campaign in Q1 can drive large increases in Q1 revenues further demonstrates that you don't understand the business. Q1 revenues are basically shipments (sales) from SKX to retailers. To a much smaller extent they are also sales at the SKX retail stores. If an ad campaign is very successful it is more likely that it would show an impact for SKX in Q2 and Q3, not in Q1. In Q1 all that would happen is that the retailers that took delivery will see higher sell-through rates. To some extent it may mean that those retailers would buy more product for immediate (Q1) shipment. But, I haven't heard anything to suggest that that is occurring. Certainly nothing suggest that ad campaign is feuling a frenzy for Skechers shoes to the point that revenues will come in 28% higher than the projections.
As for your answer to my second question, that answer is a non-answer. It's the type of double-speak I would expect from some minor politician. The bottom line to me is that a) the assessment you have made is flawed (see above), and b) you cannot face up to the fact that you have been off base since you got here. We are quickly approaching the point where 'short term' doesn't apply. You have been wrong for almost six months now. If revenues come in at or near $201M, then you will have been way off base with your projection of $257M. At some point you need to be able to turn loose.
FWIW, I made my prognostication of $210 Revs and .10 EPS by nerfing those 1st qtr predictions just a touch, assuming that they might try to shove something into the last couple days to "beat the street"... On the other hand, I don't think the weather midquarter opens the door for any significant surprise to the upside, and I wouldn't flinch at a rev number of $190MM.
Absolutely on target, Pink. And to take it a step further, how can he put no faith in the most current quarter forecast (the quarter which should have been hand fed to them by now) and absolute faith in the 2004 forecast?
I think we know the answer.
corvette, thank you for at least one straight answer. Now, I have some follow up questions. While I have made it clear that I don't put any stock in analysts' opinions, I think it's fair to say that you do put alot of faith in what they have to say. For example, you are comfortable with their conensus earnings estimates for this year and next year. Look at this link (it should be familiar):
The analysts are projecting that Q1 revenues will come in around $201M, down from $245M last year. Yet you are predicting that the revenues for Q1 will come in over $257M (a 5% increase). Why do you follow one and not the other? Really, HOW can you follow one and not the other? Most importantly, if (when) revenues come in around $201M, what will you do? Are you prepared to admit that you are wrong, and will you consider getting out of the rest of your shares? What is it that you think you see that everyone else seems to be missing - basically, what do you think will drive revenues 5% higher than last year's Q1? TIA.
whenever somebody buy a stock, even he is an idiot, he still have 50% opportunity to win. there is nothing to show off for a 10% gain in a month. Could you repeat it 12 times a year? The thing is if you lost 50% over a long period of time, you must realize you did something wrong and learn from it. If you count anything on yahoo as 'fact', it only means you have no brain. I'm not saying you must lose money on SKX, but even if it rise to $15 in a year, it's nothing related to all your 'facts'.
>>>but please don't try to disagree with the numbers I post from various authoritative sources, like the Yahoo Profile and the S&P Stock Guide.
Vette, what you post is unfiltered data. It's your inability to understand and navigate the accounting documents to which I refer (OFTEN)...
>>>Anyone who can read will see how manipulative you are.
Actually, you're the manipulator...here's an example from your last spew...
"Start with the five straight years of increasing annual EPS that I saw last October when I bought my first shares." This is your manipulation to call attention away from the fact that 2002 Earnings went DOWN, and the forecast for 2003 is DOWN again.
>>> I have solid backing for my opinions. You just have insults.
Vette, you have shown as recently as yesterday that you don't understand basic financial statements. (More of that GM nonsense.) It's therefore silly for you to say you have solid backing.
As for my "just having insults", that's bull