The short version is that I think the stock will double over the next year based on the strength of Crusher sales and international growth. The company did $0.92 in EPS in 2012 and should do at least half that in 2015 vs. $0.13 Wall Street research analyst consensus.
Ok. I think we will agree to disagree about what constitutes a strong investment thesis, however, could you quantify what you meant by "imminent" in the following quotation "..it does lead back to the original reason that I became interested in Skullcandy, the fact that any way you look at it, a buyout here is imminent." Imminent means "about to happen." What evidence do you have of that? Or are you guessing about a private buyer's motivation and the company's willingness to sell?
Appreciate the defense. I'm not criticizing Charles personally. I'm commenting on his investment thesis and I do not believe an investor should buy SKUL because of the credit agreement covenants, the "imminent" buyout, because Air Raid works in snow (or at least a photo of the product in snow exists), or that CM loves the logo and is advising Hoby on product strategy. When I hear those reasons to buy, I get annoyed. That said, I wouldn't be here if I didn't think the stock was mis-priced.
CM is a perma-bull who just a few months ago said SKUL stock was going to $40 based on a mis-reading of the credit agreement covenants. Now he is openly bullish because of an extremely unlikely buyout scenario by the CEO's former employer, which he refers to as "shocking." Whenever I came across his emotionally charged commentaries ("I love the logo"), it makes me question what side I'm on. Look elsewhere for rational insight.