Moneynow: I am baffled by your negativity. Channel checking is commonplace in the investment business, and Piper Jaffray has no obligation to reveal their precise methods. But a report of positive news from channel checking by a leading firm such as Piper Jaffray is very good news for those who own DECK.
My own efforts to monitor UGG sales are very encouraging as well.
Advisorydoc: I think DECK acquired full ownership of Hoka less than one year ago. You are a bit unrealistic to expect the brand to be up and running (as it were) at full speed in so little time. DECK has nothing short of fantastic management, and I think you are even unfair to cast aspersions on its managers so early about the handling of this brand. But as you know, I fully agree that this brand will prove to be a highly lucrative acquisition. Doug Otto, the founder of Deckers, used to say that they were "always looking for the next UGG." I think with Hoka they have found another big winner.
My main worry is that Nike and other big running shoe companies will come out with their own version of the Hoka. I even theorize that DECK may be intentionally keeping Hoka a bit under the radar until they "own" this style of running shoe and are able to outcompete the copy cats (who are sure to come at some point).
I also believe that Teva has a lot of unrealized potential. The last president couldn't get the job done, and there is a new president now (as of about two months ago). The first president Angel hired (an Italian at the cutting edge in style) would probably have been great, but he was badly injured in a motorcycle accident right after being hired and could never take the reins. So the brand has really yet to be given a chance. As you must know, the brand just opened its first stand-alone store.
And of course Sanuk has serious potential as well.
All is well: Amazon UGG rankings are very pleasing. Among all shoes form men, women, and children, the UGG Classic Short is the top seller, and three other UGG styles rank in the top ten. (Because I know UGG Classic Tall is always the second most popular style, I include it in the top ten, even though for unknown reasons Amazon does not include it in their rankings. Last year they failed to include the Classic Short.)
Moreover, the Classic Short is first on the "most wished for" list and the "gift ideas" list (the latter meaning it ranks first in number of gift cards requested).
Other styles have been moving up the rankings as well.
At Zappos -- the top online shoe retailer -- UGGs totally dominate women's and kids' shoe sales.
The Google Trend line is very strong, too, and so is the Alexa web action measure.
Thanks very much, Reality. That completely answers my question. I admire your conscientious and highly effective pursuit of information! (In case you reply, I'm leaving my machine now, and won't see it.)
Thanks, Advisory. I found that by Googling. But I was wondering how Reality knew about it before it was posted on Yahoo! or Google DECK pages. I'm just trying to find out if I can learn about upgrades (or other analyst opinions) a bit earlier than I now learn about them.
UGG Classic Shorts has just reached the number one bestseller position -- for all shoes, including men's, women's, and children's shoes. Two other UGGs, one for children, are also in the top 20. And there is no doubt that UGG Classic Talls are in the top 20, too, but for unknown reasons they don't record sales strength of that style.
Surely shorts are doing a lot of panic covering today. People listen when Sam Poser speaks.
Reality: I've now found Sam's new target. But how did you find it so fast? Thanks!
I might add the obvious: This will give DECK a very nice boost.
Z: I wasn't talking about the competence of shorts in this or any other case, nor was I addressing their motives. I was trying to draw your attention to the effects of their behavior on the price of a stock -- beyond its initial lowering effect -- and was hoping you could see that they are something beyond evil incarnate and that they (unintentionally) help to stabilize the price of a stock.
Today, for example, I am sure many shorts are helping to protect and even raise DECK's price. I for one am glad to have them!
Z and others: I must comment that I cannot understand your hostility toward shorts and your desire to see them suffer. Certainly it is a pleasure to see that they have been wrong. But shorts make a positive contribution to stock markets in various ways, at least of few of which I can mention. One is that they reduce the volatility of a stock by moderating panics and other extreme price movements. They do this by buying a stock to cover their short position, which creates upward pressure on the price in the face of what would otherwise be a greater decline (obviously very positive for those with long positions). They also moderate rapid increases in the price by shorting the stock at those times (which reduces the likelihood of a sharp correction down when a stock goes up faster than it merits). Another contribution is that short sellers sometimes drive a stock price lower than it merits, which increases the efficiency (or rationality) of the market by allowing knowledgeable investors to buy underpriced shares and make money (which we buyers of DECK during the last year greatly enjoyed). Finally, I would note the obvious fact that when shorts are wrong and longs are right, covering by shorts enhances the upward movement of a stock price. So if you know what you are doing (especially if you have a long-term time horizon), I cannot see why you would be hostile to shorts.
When I decide to buy a stock, I am very glad if has a high level of short interest. This to me bodes all the more prosperity in the future -- if I am right about the value of the stock.
Good news! According to Google's preliminary analysis, UGGs were the most searched fashion item on Black Friday. To see the whole story, search for this headline: UGGS ARE TOP-SEARCHED FASHION ITEM ON BLACK FRIDAY 2013.
It remains to be seen whether UGGs were the top-searched item of any kind, as was the case last year. I have found no reports on that question. But merely to be the top apparel search is huge. This, however, is not really a surprise to me.
Thanks for your detailed response. I can't disagree with anything you said. I agree that Sam manifested the fad panic, but then many others (such as countless shorts) have had the same view. I too have worried about the fad issue, so I can hardly fault Sam. And, as you say, analysts are human.
Z: Glad to hear your change of heart. The DECK shares of course went down far more than was deserved, and I too made a very nice gain from buying lots of shares in the 30s and early 40s.
Because of the very small float, DECK tends to overreact to all news. All stocks overreact to news, but the ones with small floats all the more.
Reality: I wonder if you think DECK would have remained above 100 a year ago had Sam Poser said nothing. Do you think the earnings misses would have had no effect? Do you think his assessment of DECK's problems was just a delusion? Do you think he should have pretended he saw no problems -- problems that Angel readily admitted and discussed in conference calls? Do you attack criticize anyone who criticizes DECK?
Thank you, Reality. People can read a few details by googling "Poser Deckers."
I view Poser as the most sophisticated shoe analyst (of those I have read or heard). He was once a shoe buyer for a big department store chain, so he knows a lot of people and has his ear to the ground.
My guess is that he is hearing some very positive reports from his network.
Doc Ufood: Thanks for your reply. As I said above, I must leave now. I can see your reasoning about DNKN, though, in my ignorance perhaps, I am not ready to share your optimism that it could be another SBUX.
On 12-20 being too many stocks to own, I will not belabor the point. But I once owned too many stocks as well. I learned that spectacular gains come only to those who diversify very little.
Z: Thanks for your advice. I am aware of your past relationship with UA, and your present opinion of it. You might recall that I long ago complimented you on your good taste when you still owned UA (and also DECK).
I regret not having bought UA right after its IPO. I looked at its line of apparel at the time, and foolishly decided against it. But that is not the biggest mistake I have made.
In case you reply to me and I do not respond, it is because I am now leaving my computer and heading to the gym -- where I always monitor the number of UA symbols I see and watch for UA basketball shoes in the pick-up games. UA has become ever more visible during the past two years, the serious gym people are some of the biggest buyers. Some of the good basketball players are also starting to buy the UA basketball shoes.
Doc Ufood: Many thanks for your prompt reply. I didn't realize that you are "united food" as well as "advisorydoc." It was obvious to me that you were illustrating Peter Lynch's principle of investing in what you know, though I did could not determine whether you learned this from him or developed that strategy on your own (as I had, I might add, before I read his first book). Because you buy what you know (as do I), I thought maybe you would reveal the unnamed stock that you mentioned on another board, and that you might also name others. Thanks for mentioning DNKN, but I doubt if it has ten-bagger potential at this time.
I am always on the lookout for a new stock idea, and you seemed to be a possible source.
I'm surprised that your pattern is to own 12-20 stocks. My view is that the big money can best be made with a drastically smaller portfolio, and that even your degree of diversification is (as Lynch noted in the context of company expansion) really "diworsification." It worsens your chances of huge returns.
And I am greedy. I believe that what Cramer calls "pigs" are the ones who make the big money. I am so greedy that I have not bought UA -- because I fear it cannot go up enough in the next few years (though I could be wrong). But, as you know, I have owned DECK for many years, and you do not know that I also have owned LGF for many years. And I still watch UA closely, and could change my mind.
I realize you are known here as Advisorydoc: I compliment you on your present stock holdings: DECK, LGF, and UA. I do not always agree with your messages -- such as your recent idea that UA and DECK should merge -- but your stock choices are outstanding.
I am writing now to ask if you would care to mention any other companies whose shares interest you.
Thanks in advance.