Fool Video: Crocs and the Meaning of Insider Selling

• Report this Comment On October 09, 2007, at 3:17 PM, JJ81 wrote:

  This one is a real joke. The guy has no credibility since he said CROX would be the worst stock of 2007. Really funny he can give this opinion 10 months later without looking like a true "fool". Hoping to somehow drive the price down to look less foolish? How come you didn't ask him why Snyder has consistantly sold shares throughout the history of the stock? How come you didn't bring up the incentive pay structure that Crocs uses? You guys have been entirely wrong about Crocs and you will continue to be so and these hatchet job reports won't make a difference.

• Report this Comment On October 09, 2007, at 4:24 PM, TMFMmbop wrote:

  JJ81,

  I did not call Crocs the worst stock for 2007. In fact, that was a colleague of mine:

  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2006/12/21/worst-stock...

  I've actually been quite impressed by Crocs' ability to leverage its technology into more and more shoes. That said, 9x sales is pricey. It implies a lot of growth.

  So while I don't begrudge Snyder for selling, I don't see why anyone should ignore it when deciding what stocks to buy today. After all, there are 10,000 candidates for your money -- pick the best one.

  Tim

• Report this Comment On October 09, 2007, at 4:35 PM, JJ81 wrote:

  Sorry for signaling you out as saying it, my mistake. Interesting you bring up picking the best candidate for my money. In fact, I do believe CROX is the best candidate. What other numbers are you guys looking at? The company is growing near 200% right now. That IS a lot of growth. Anyone thinking that the growth rate will just suddenly fall of the cliff is kidding themselves. No doubt that it will slow, but current projections are only for maybe 40% next year. It will not go from 200% to 40% that quickly. The street loves and looks for strong growth and they are willing to pay for it. I guess it is just two sides of a coin and pointless to have a heated argument. You think it is expensive, but for the growth that CROX is experiencing right now, the stock is not overvalued, it is actually fairly cheap in my opinion.

• Report this Comment On October 09, 2007, at 6:43 PM, badphools wrote:

  Given the MF track record - (like calling crox the "worst stock of 2007" and ...how about that Dow 30 method that crashed and burned back in the 90's) ...you guys really appear to be on a paid mission to ignore facts (like earnings, growth, the success of new styles, the explosive growth in international sales.)

  What gives? How much are the well-connected, panic-driven, short sellers paying you folks to spout off without any of the objective analysis you normally perform? Where's your PEG analysis on CROX? You missed the boat on this one, so you're determined to contort and obviate the truth in order to make some money?

  Cmon, this garbage you're pulling is exactly why your operation is phailing - and you're having to sell out to short sellers to pay the bills. I think you are, without a doubt, taking money to bash CROX.

  You may not be in the stock (your loss), but you are on the take. How much does a gig like that pay?

  The 2 videos you've recently published were both targeted hack jobs - that paid for you and for someone that put you up to it.

  The best revenge is living well, and letting the truth emerge for Q3 earnings.

  Enjoy being dead wrong, guys! Somehow I think being long the stock is paying better than your bashing gig. See you at 100!

• Report this Comment On October 10, 2007, at 12:59 PM, smsib wrote:

  If you want to claim that you have a meaningful disclosure policy, you should disclose that Hanson, and Fool, has had a negative bias on Crocs since it went public. Their statistics have been used on your tables to try and prove points that are virtually misleading quantitative analyses for companies that are rapidly growing quarter to quarter. Throughout the year, as sales and earnings grew significantly, and the stock as well, he has continued to claim that it is overvalued. He refers to the company as though they are a one-trick pony - only selling those ugly shoes, - and no one at Fool seems to be aware that management has been extremely agile at strategically broadening their line. I think the only reference to this brand extension has been the scoffing Hanson has done at the use of croslite into apparel items. How about Bite? Ocean Minded? Women's Fashion Shoes ? Have you considered that they are slowly moving into full athletic shoes under the radar? And that most people who have tried them think they are the most comfortable shoes they have ever worn? What do you think is the potential for Crocs and performance footwear? Are you just looking to get attention for adamant statements, or do you truly try to do any real stock "analysis"? sms

• Report this Comment On October 12, 2007, at 5:27 PM, TMFSelzhanik wrote:

  Wow! You guys are kinda rough on Tim! I've thought he's been fairly wishy-washy on Crocs, not "bashing" Crocs at all. Definitely not enough to accuse him of taking money from short sellers. Ouch.

  He didn't even bring up the innocent little 2-year-old girl in Singapore who got her big toe ripped off on an escalator, partly because she was wearing rubber clogs. But I'll bring that up (http://caps.fool.com/ViewPlayer.aspx?t=01002279602522472406).

  If you're going to get frustrated by something potentially misleading, how about the mention of Netflix, Chipotle, and Starbucks in the article? What did the video have to do with those stocks?

• Report this Comment On October 18, 2007, at 2:44 AM, Ganndalf wrote:

  Down with Crocs! May they bite their own tail!

  Ganndalf

  Disclosure: Payed for by the "I hate Crocs with a Passion and I'm not Changing My Mind Society." LLC

• Report this Comment On October 18, 2007, at 12:37 PM, badphools wrote:

  ...Your link goes nowhere. (more misinformation, misdirection, eh? Doesn't surprise me.)

  There are 10,000 escalator accidents in the US annually. How many involved Crocs (specifically)?

  FOUR.

  Given the huge success of the brand - and what you migh expect statistically - I'd say the real story is - Why are there not MORE accidents with crocs?

  The other 9996 accidents involved shoes other than Crocs. Shall we ban all 9996 brands involved? Shall we just ignore that there are 75 SKU's of Crocs and ban the brand wholesale? You myopic payola whores see Crocs as ONE shoe.

  Sheesh, you guys are truly bankrupt in the ethics dept.

  Seriously, I'm calling foul. There are individuals at the motley fool (Tim being at least one) that are accepting money to mislead, misinform, and bash Crocs. This is wrong. Dead wrong.

• Report this Comment On October 18, 2007, at 10:48 PM, badphools wrote:

  Are you Fools going to step up and deny that you're not taking money from CROX short sellers?

  I'm calling you out. You're being PAID to bash crocs.

  You're purposfully ignoring material facts about Crocs and their products because you've been paid to paint a distorted, bad picture of the company.

  You won't objectively / fairly analyze the financial fundamentals because that wouldn't align with your paid mission to push the stock down.

  You've been PAID by short sellers in their desperate attempt to salvage their huge losses.

  Either deny it - or come clean and craft a formal apology.

• Report this Comment On October 19, 2007, at 2:30 AM, badphools wrote:

  Here's some objective info on insider selling at crocs. If you Fools are going to take cash to bash crocs, I'll make cash bashing you:

  Let's not speculate on the motivation of insider sells. This is uneccessary--a red herring. Rather, consider the well-documented and easily verifiable history relating to insider selling at Crocs. Recent insider sellers Smach, Snyder, Margolis, and Croghan all sold plenty of shares in prior quarters, and often they sold large #'s of shares in the month leading up to quarterly earnings releases. Many of these insiders sold far more shares in prior quarters (especially in 2006!) vs. what they have been selling lately. Also many insiders with huge positions have not sold a single share this quarter (or even this year)....

  some examples of this per SEC filings:

  Directors:

  Boedecker currently holds $473million ($473 million!!!!) worth of CROX shares (at today's closing price) and has not sold a single share since 2/13/06

  Stoffer holds $33million worth of CROX shares, last sell was 9/13/06

  Retloff holds $49million worth, last sell 9/13/06

  Sharp holds $72million worth, last sell 6/8/07

  Officers:

  Hanson holds $116million worth, last sell was 2/13/06

  Ellison holds $14million worth, last sell 2/13/06

  McCarvel holds $18million worth, last sell 8/01/07

  Snyder sold 588,376 shares for $21.00 each on February 13th 2006--the equivalent of him selling 1,176,752 of todays CROX shares for $10.50 each. He also sold 532,756 shares for $27.66 each on August 22nd 2006--the equivalent of him selling 1,065,512 of todays CROX shares for $13.83 each.

  Compare the volume of those 2006 sales (and there were MANY more 2006 sales by him and the other insiders who've sold recently!) to that of his highly publicized "automatic sales" this past quarter: a total of 210,476 shares sold in September and October 2007.

  Anyone one who suggests that the recent insider selling is some kind of "tell" is being ignorant, foolish, or purposefully deceptive. Consider the history of insider selling at Crocs (every quarter since IPO) in light of the fact that every quarterly earnings release from this company has been a beat and raise of estimates (usually by a large margin) and that the stock has appreciated substantially 7 of 8 quarters since IPO despite SOME insider selling occurring in each and every one of those quarters.

  Draw your own conclusions. So far this company rewards people who make the effort to study it's moves rather than just speculate about them.

  *If you are reviewing the SEC filings history, note that transactions prior to July 2007 reflect pre-split share prices and share amounts.

  http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/holdings.asp?mode=

• Report this Comment On October 30, 2007, at 1:58 AM, badphools wrote:

  ...see, you MF's have been facted into submission.

  CROX keeps going up because it DESERVES to appreciate.

  You post bogus / false stories / links about escalators because you're being PAID to smear Crocs using pure BS.

  Now, you crocs bashing payola whores, take your lies and misdirection, your false statements, your BS, your lack of analysis on crocs growth and diversification, your ignorance about internation growth, and choke on it.

  Look at a ticker, you morons, and keep on bashing crocs all the way to par!

  Very satisfying to see morons like you muzzled by the truth of the ticker.

• Report this Comment On October 30, 2007, at 6:01 PM, tradewatcher wrote:

  Those who foolishly choose to short this stock will see themselves standing on the sidelines tomorrow. Crox will see $80.00 a share by Thursday at noon. This is an internationally distributed product that still hasn't hit full stride. Pessimists be forewarned, earnings will provide all the proof necessary.

Add your comment.