I personally understand why buying back shares at these 5 year low levels is genius. It is not as if Angel Martinez and Co. aren;t awar tha Deckers could get $40/share for the UGG brand based on the brand name and its future cash flow. Easy. So for this company to keep getting the oppurtunity to buy back shares at or a little above what just the brand name excluding future cash is worth and not to buy back as many shares as it could even using debt would be foolish.
I only make the case for the smallest of a dividend in order to create some stability for the stock by giving those less confident than I am a reason to hold and not be so shaky. In a way, to create some "security" for those people. At the same time, managements job is to create maximm shareholder value and buying back the shares at 5 year lows is the best way to create future shareholder value.
We were worth 60/share conservativey(making believe we were overvalud by 100% when we hit the all-time hgh) before we bought back 300M(24%) of our shares. We are worth in my opinion at least 70/share coservatively going foward with our current earnings hampered by sheepskin costs and "reliance" on cold weather/seasonal product.
The brand though is worth $30 conservatively even though I think for its future cash flow, that is a bargain. So $30 upside, $10 downside? Margin of safety ;)