Indian: I'm really happy that your many positive messages have been vindicated. I'm sure you listened to the conference call today, and heard what I heard: that this company is firing on all cylinders. But it is not a "cash machine," as you say -- a concept that suggests something fairly mindless, like a cement mixer. No, it is a brilliantly-run and aggressively innovative company, thanks to Angel Martinez and those he has hired. It has been a long time since I've heard such a positive conference call. You are surely right that this stock is destined for major gains in the coming months. The only possible glitch would be a general market meltdown.
Congratulations to all long holders! Tomorrow there is likely to be some serious short covering, and the stock will enjoy a huge leap forward.
Sir: As I type, DECK has traded just 24,000 shares after more than 35 minutes of trading today. The price movement is therefore completely meaningless for any purposes whatsoever. Anyone who makes decisions about buying or selling a stock with so little volume -- no trades by large holders at all -- is making a very big mistake. What a few small investors do has no relevance, except possibly to provide support for the old adage that the small investor is always wrong.
Z: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure you didn't know something about buybacks that I didn't know. I have tended to prefer that my companies use their cash for long-term growth, such as by buying other companies and strengthening infrastructure (as DECK as done). DECK's management is always looking for the next UGG (as the former CEO put it, before you owned any of this company). That's why they bought Sanuk and Hoka, and both acquisitions appear to have been very good moves that could be big earners in the future. This seems to me to be much more valuable than merely boosting the earnings per share by buying back shares to raise the share price in the short term. But then I am not infallible.
Z: Why do you favor a buyback of shares -- merely to raise earnings per share, making it appear that real earnings have increased? Why do you think there are not more buybacks, because the boards of companies are all dumber than you?
I'm really sorry to see Zohar Ziv retire. The company took gigantic strikes during his years as COO, and we can only hope that Angel will find someone at least as effective. Of course, Angel must be the top CEO in the footwear business. How lucky we are to have him! What a master! He alone justifies a great deal of confidence in the company's future. And his comments today about various subjects, such as the invasion of Germany and the promise of HOKA, boosted my confidence all the more.
Advisorydoc: I'm happy to hear that you think you have found another winner. I don't have any good ideas at the moment, but would enjoy (and possibly profit from) knowing your latest idea. I do respect your taste in stocks!
My two biggest mistakes were not buying Apple and not buying Monster -- a number of years ago when I came very close to buying a chunk of both.
Thanks in advance!
Jimmach: Thanks very much for this report. I wish more people would give similar reports for other stores.
My own impression is that sales have been spectacular this winter.
QUARTZ -- a cutting edge Internet news source -- just published an article with this headline, below a big photo of a pair of Classic UGGs: "Why America’s brutally cold winter is a boon for boots worn by Australian surfers"
The article contains nothing new, but it might attract some attention to the company.
Z: Welcome back (with your new and more appropriate handle). Have you gone into any UGG stores in NYC or other retail outlets for UGGs and talked with the salespeople about sales? It would be useful to hear what they have to say. Thanks!
Z: Good job summarizing Angel's presentation! I just listened to it, and cannot improve on your overview. Certainly the "tone" was very positive (to use a concept from the recent Jeffries statement after a dinner with Angel et al.). It's an amazing company with what I think are wonderful instincts! There's every reason to expect major growth and revenue increases for the foreseeable future!
Z: Do what you love, not what is "needed" or what has "good hours." Look into yourself and find out what you would most interests you, and do that. It might take many years to get there, but go there.
Z: You are doing the right thing to go back to school. You will never regret it. But do not think you are old. You are extremely young, and you can do whatever you wish. My advice is to get as many degrees as you possibly can. You will be glad you did. You might end up a college professor, if you play your cards right.
Reality: Thank you. I saw the retooling story months ago. And of course the warehouse is a distribution center. I thought you said it was a "production" center.
I credit Zohar Ziv, COO, for much of this improvement. And Angel seems to have been right that DECK emerged stronger after its adverse period during the past two years. As he said, "If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger."
I also saw the Sterne Agee news -- which confirms my suspicions. And Sam Poser (their main shoe analyst) has better information than any of us.
DECK had forecast an 8 percent increase in earnings per share, as I recall. So it looks like we will be beating that figure quite handily. Earnings day should result in a nice move in the price.
Reality: No one would disagree with you about the importance of direct sales. But every indicator of sales is valuable. Also, I assumed that the big new rental facility will be a warehouse. Do you have information to the contrary?
advisorydoc: As I have noted previously on this board, much more significant is the ranking of UGGs among all women's shoes at Zappos -- not merely among all women's boots. As of a couple of minutes ago, 19 of the top 25 bestselling women's shoes are UGGs.
The Amazon rankings have also been excellent, but now Amazon is not listing UGG Classic Shorts or Talls -- the two top-selling boots -- so the rankings are deceptive. I have complained about this in the past, and today notified UGG about the problem. This hurts sales among buyers who like to buy what is most popular.
In any event, my channel checking bodes well for this quarter.
cdana: If you are asking a serious question, I will mention that yes, I have made a decent amount of money on CROX, and expect to make more. I watched CROX take its big plunge a few years after it went public -- it got as low as about 79 cents a share in 2009 -- and I started buying it at about 3.30 or 3.50 per share (in 2009), when I concluded that the company would probably survive. I paid under 10 for nearly all my shares, and have not sold any. So I am satisfied with my gain so far (way above 100 percent). For me this is not spectacular, but it is satisfactory.
It is true that the company is not expanding rapidly, but I think the basic clog is no longer a passing fad. It continues to appear on or near the top 20 bestselling shoe list (for both genders and all ages) of Amazon, for example (as I write it has the number 21 spot), and it is still very popular for small children and some adults. Its knock-off competition has largely died out, and it has expanded into a lot of other styles that sometimes make money for the company. I think a good CEO should be able to increase its profitability. If this happens, added to the buy-back of shares, Blackstone might buy more of it or even arrange a complete buy-out. One way or another, I think a price above 20 is entirely feasible. I will therefore hold my shares for the foreseeable
future. I think the downside risk is fairly small.
My own view is that the film is not so much a glorification of a con artist as a preposterous effort to display the immorality of Wall Street and, more generally, the depravity of wealthy and wealth-seeking people. It thus feeds two of the favorite targets of the losers who blame Wall Street and the wealthy for the world's problems, including their own mediocre lives. Even so, possibly the film needed lots of extreme vulgarity to add to the pleasures of that miserable audience.
Why would Scorcese do such a film? I would imagine that it satisfies his Hollywood limousine liberalism.
retired: Yes, I guess "repulsive" is a better word. But then my wife and I were actually almost fascinated by it, amazed and appalled that it could ever have been produced at all and that anyone could possibly find it enjoyable. We are not in the tiniest bit puritanical, but the amount of profanity and explicit (though childish) sex in the film is beyond anything (to our knowledge) ever to appear in a movie for mass consumption or ever even to be imagined by anyone.
By the way, we both appreciate a very wide variety of movies and other forms of cultural life, including both "Hunger Games" films. (We are also both long-time owners of LGF shares.)
retired: Thanks for your opinion. My own view is that "terrible" is not an adequately negative adjective to describe this film. I found it to be a cartoon-like farce of slapstick, drugs, and sex fit, at best, for a dim-witted adolescent. I truly cannot remember a worse pile of garbage that has had the audacity and ignorance to flatter itself by claiming to be a movie. And if this is a popular film, I wonder about the future of this society. I could say more, but do not believe this film even merits the time from me or anyone else to criticize it.