Doc: I don't really see the value of a debate about Cramer. Despite my admiration for him as a person (as I previously noted), he is almost completely irrelevant to me. I only watch him when a video of him pertains to a stock I follow and shows up on Yahoo!. And in any case I would never follow a recommendation by anyone, absent my own study of the company. His main relevance to me is his possible short-term impact on the prices of stocks I follow.
I will only add that what you call "forward vision" sounds close to what I call creativity (in the context of the stock market). I believe that creativity is not adequately appreciated as an important element in investing. And I am not able to assess Cramer's degree of creativity. If he has very much creativity in the stock market, I'm not sure it would be evident on his show, given its time horizon (which I mentioned earlier).
Doc: I don't really see how it is possible to evaluate Jim Cramer's "forward vision," as you call it -- though concevably you are right. As I effectively said once before on this board, the problem with trying to evaluate Cramer's ability to assess the future is that his whole program is geared neither to a long-range nor a short, trading-range perspective on stocks. The object is to assess the value of stocks for the intermediate term -- a matter of months at most rather than years or days (much less hours). Without that intermediate term perspective, his program would be impossible. He would name his stocks to hold ten or more years, and then there would be nothing else to say -- and no "Mad Money" show. Or he would give his short-term trading advice, and there would be no appropriate audience for it. He gives people what they want: stocks for the intermediate term. But as you seem to know, the way to make huge money in the stock market is not the intermediate but the long term. You buy a stock whose long-range future looks very promising, and then you hold it until that long-range future seems to dim. So I think it is unfair to criticize Cramer for not doing something his program is not, and cannot be, designed to address. But maybe you were making a different point that I have failed to address. As I hope you know, I respect your thinking about stocks. (Note: I reposted this because it seemed otherwise unknowable that I posted it the first time.) Less
Doc: I don't really see how it is possible to evaluate Jim Cramer's "forward vision," as you call it -- though concevably you are right. As I effectively said once before on this board, the problem with trying to evaluate Cramer's ability to assess the future is that his whole program is geared neither to a long-range nor a short, trading-range perspective on stocks. The object is to assess the value of stocks for the intermediate term -- a matter of months at most rather than years or days (much less hours). Without that intermediate term perspective, his program would be impossible. He would name his stocks to hold ten or more years, and then there would be nothing else to say -- and no "Mad Money" show. Or he would give his short-term trading advice, and there would be no appropriate audience for it. He gives people what they want: stocks for the intermediate term. But as you seem to know, the way to make huge money in the stock market is not the intermediate but the long term. You buy a stock whose long-range future looks very promising, and then you hold it until that long-range future seems to dim. So I think it is unfair to criticize Cramer for not doing something his program is not, and cannot be, designed to address. But maybe you were making a different point that I have failed to address. As I hope you know, I respect your thinking about stocks.
Doc: For the record, I do not have the view that anyone should choose stocks on the basis of what Jim Cramer recommends. Of course he is often wrong, as is virtually any professional who recommends stocks for purchase or sale. My point is merely that Jim Cramer is an amazingly intelligent, knowledgeable, and energetic human being -- far superior to the vast majority of other humans on the planet. Only those who have never known the kind of ability and work required to achieve anything significant (such as Cramer has achieved in his life, from his student days forward) could possibly show contempt for Jim Cramer. Apart from his stock picks, Jim Cramer is a kind of superhuman most people rarely encounter in their everyday lives.
Today for the first time the UGG Classic Short is the top-selling women's shoe at Zappo's (the largest online shoe retailer in the world). This is a very early date for UGG to reach this level of sales -- the earliest I've ever seen -- and bodes very well for this quarter. Also, web traffic for UGGs is well ahead of last year's level at this time, which also bodes very well for this quarter. Obviously the early cold weather is part of the story, but I doubt if it fully accounts for this big surge of interest in the brand.
Does anyone else have any pertinent sales information -- on UGG or any other DECK brand? Each year I ask for sales information, but no one ever provides any. Yet this is the most important information for the creative investor.
Advisorydoc: My relative bought thé équivalent of 3,000 shares back then -- at a cost of $30,000. As you can see, those shares would now be worth over a quarter of a million dollars. But I've made simular mistakes -- not by selling prematurely but by failing to buy stocks my instincts told me to buy. (By thé way, I don't know why my messages are appearing in French, with inappropriée accents on thé "e's." I don't know how to stop it. Also, I apologize for leaving thé word "hé" out of my sentence about why many people hate Cramer. I meant to say "many hate Cramer because hé IS so successful.")
Advisorydoc: I wonder if you owned DECK years ago when Jim Cramer came on his show wearing UGG boots to sing thé praises of DECK. At that time, DECK was thé équivalent of $10 per share. I already owned it, but his présentation convinced a relative of mine (who had previously ignored me) to buy some. However, thé relative foolishly sold it when it went down a few points (against my advice).
Cramer has recommended DECK on a number of occasions.
Cramer cannot always be right, of course, but his brilliance and energy level never cease to amaze me. As you know, however, hé is continually attacked and slandered by countless mediocrities who have never achieved anything in their own lives and cannot identify a superior human being when they see one. Indeed, many hate Cramer because IS so successful. Would that they had one percent of his brainpower, ambition, and energy. The world would be richer, in more ways than one.
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.