NY times article discussing when cole haan was about to be bought out. Saif that Cole Haan accounted for $535M in sales for Nike. It doesn't say income because it made no money for Nike. Cole Haan was eventually sold for $570M for $535M in sales and no income. Using that adjustement, UGGS alone brings in 1.1B of revenues(and growing) and earns $135M in profits.
Using the same math as APAX that bought out Cole Haan, UGGS would be worth 1.22B if it made no money based on Cole Haan being bought for 1.1X its sales and no income.
But UGGS does make money lol. IT makes plenty of it. 135M to be exact, more than the entire company of Under Armour(5.3B valuation), 1/7th the income of the entire Nike company(49B valuation), 50% the amount of the entire Lululemon(9.5B valuation), 1/8th the entire company of Adidas(20.21B valuation).
I can go on forever. This is one brand of an entire company that is growing its UGGS line. It is not just reliant on one boot. The company consists of Sanuk, Tsubo, and Teva as well that will grow in time but at the very least are worth something.
Accept the market as irrational, but this is like somebody telling you your watch you know is worth $10,000 is worth $2,000. You know that the market is willing to pay $10,000 as you just witnessed the market(APAX) pay $570M for an inferior brand with half the revenues and no profits. You, we own a brand with double the revenues and growing and 135M in profits(which would be even higher if not for sheeskin costs!).