Crocs, Inc. Case Study Report
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CROCS, INC. Case Study Report
¹
SUBMITTED TO PROF. NEIL COHEN School of Business and Public Management The George Washington University
BY Anil Kumar Cheerla
FINA 6224 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC January 26, 2011
Q1: Consider which comparable peers are good matches and use them to perform a multiples analysis, calculating and defending an estimate of Crocs value. Soln: Comparable companies analysis – Done to determine appropriate valuation multiple for Crocs, Inc. • • Selected peer group based on industry, business and financial characteristics Included explosive growth stocks such as Lulelemon & Under Armour having similar prospects for growth and ROIC as Crocs, Inc. and some mature, stabilized businesses with stable industry growth rates – Nike, Deckers & Timberland. This mix will help us provide valuation from an aggressive sales growth and maturing sales context. Some characteristics used in selection include – o Primary or at least significant portion of business revenue comes from footwear & apparel – analogous to Crocs primary business o Has product appeal to large group of customers o Has distinct product attributes (innovative/creative) and differentiation from competition o Has wide range of distribution channels o CAGR Sales growth, COGS to Sales & Significantly less debt exposure on their balance sheets o Have characteristics of high octane growth and show signs of maturity and stabilizing long-term growth similar to well established footwear brands.
•
Valuation Multiples The objective was to compare operating metrics and valuation multiples in a peer group to that of Crocs, Inc. for equity valuation. The market multiple model is based on the idea that on average, a company, over time would have roughly the same value as its peers. Assumption: The companies chosen as comparables, Deckers, Nike, Timberland, Lululemon & Under Armour reflect similar characteristics as Crocs, Inc in terms of
¹
SUBMITTED TO PROF. NEIL COHEN School of Business and Public Management The George Washington University
BY Anil Kumar Cheerla
FINA 6224 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
WASHINGTON, DC January 26, 2011
Q1: Consider which comparable peers are good matches and use them to perform a multiples analysis, calculating and defending an estimate of Crocs value. Soln: Comparable companies analysis – Done to determine appropriate valuation multiple for Crocs, Inc. • • Selected peer group based on industry, business and financial characteristics Included explosive growth stocks such as Lulelemon & Under Armour having similar prospects for growth and ROIC as Crocs, Inc. and some mature, stabilized businesses with stable industry growth rates – Nike, Deckers & Timberland. This mix will help us provide valuation from an aggressive sales growth and maturing sales context. Some characteristics used in selection include – o Primary or at least significant portion of business revenue comes from footwear & apparel – analogous to Crocs primary business o Has product appeal to large group of customers o Has distinct product attributes (innovative/creative) and differentiation from competition o Has wide range of distribution channels o CAGR Sales growth, COGS to Sales & Significantly less debt exposure on their balance sheets o Have characteristics of high octane growth and show signs of maturity and stabilizing long-term growth similar to well established footwear brands.
•
Valuation Multiples The objective was to compare operating metrics and valuation multiples in a peer group to that of Crocs, Inc. for equity valuation. The market multiple model is based on the idea that on average, a company, over time would have roughly the same value as its peers. Assumption: The companies chosen as comparables, Deckers, Nike, Timberland, Lululemon & Under Armour reflect similar characteristics as Crocs, Inc in terms of