Crocs, Inc. Case Study Report Essay

This paper was conducted as a Discussion Board Post assigned by Professor J. Reinke of: Liberty University, Graduate School of Business, Lynchburg, Virginia 24515.

Fall 2009 This case was prepared by Itir Karaesmen and Inbal Yahav of Robert H. Smith School of Business at University of Maryland, College Park. The names, locations, and other information included

This case was written by Rhonda Engleman and Jisun Yu under the supervision of Professor Andrew H. Van de Ven of the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. We also appreciate the editorial assistance of Julie Trupke and useful comments of Gyewan Moon and Margaret Schomaker. We gratefully acknowledge Stuart

in our calculations, as this company exhibited dramatic value differences to others in the sample, (likely to skew our results and prove misleading). Using the average of the revised sample field for each ratio, we inserted Torrington’s values where appropriate to generate an entity value. The findings generated two values for Torrington, 606 million and 398 million. Taking the average of these two numbers, Torrington exhibited a relative value of 502.41 million. Because of the lack of related information given in the case, and the often large differences in measures amongst competitors, different capital structures, internal management strategies, there remained many unknowns in our model. We decided it would be best to use this valuation to reaffirm our assumptions in our DCF valuation. (Please see exhibits)

These changes in prices imply the power of growth rate’s assumption over stock price because “It was growth that drew attention to the brand. It was growth that propelled the stock offering. It was growth that drove the stock price to ever greater heights.” When the growth rate is expected to increase significantly, value of the firm is increased tremendously and so is its stock price. Both the enterprise value of the firm and its stock price change in the same direction with the change in growth rate estimates.

The next step was to calculate the free cash flows for the eleven-year period. In order to do so, we used to following formula: FCF = EBIT(1-tax) + depreciation - change in NWC – CapEx. From here, we used to WACC of 13.89% previously calculated, in order to find the present value of each FCF.

With revenue from Crocs shoe sales reaching to $680 million in 2007, it is clear that the company has developed a successful strategy. Not all of the success can be contributed to the design of the product. Although their products were in high demand, there are more underlying factors that have paved the way for Crocs to be competitive in the shoe market. Crocs’ supply chain design and use of vertical integration revolutionized speed and quality of order fulfillment.

Solutions to Valuation Questions 1. Assume you expect a company’s net income to remain stable at $1,100 for all future years, and you expect all earnings to be distributed to stockholders at the end of each year, so that common equity also remains stable for all future years (assumes clean surplus). Also, assume the company’s β = 1.5, the market risk premium is 4% and the 20-30 year yield on risk free treasury bonds is 5%. Finally, assume the company has 1,000 shares of common stock outstanding. a. Use the CAPM to estimate the company’s equity cost of capital. • re = RF + β * (RM – RF) = 0.05 + 1.5 * 0.04 = 11% b. Compute the expected net distributions to stockholders for each future year. • D = NI – ΔCE = $1,100 – 0 = $1,100 c. Use the

Our estimated cost of capital, 20.81%, is lower than Ricketts’ expected return, 30%-50%, thus the investment is worthy. However, it’s higher than other pessimistic members’ expected return, 10%-15%, making the decision more complex and requiring further valuation。

1. Which of the comparable companies appears to be a good match to Crocs at the time of the case? Which would be a good match in five years? Use these multiples to provide additional estimates of the value of Crocs (in other words, calculate a value for Crocs using a current multiple and calculate a

We valued the company using four different methods; Net Present Value, Internal Rate of Return, Modified Internal Rate of Return and Profitability Index. We began with the Net Present Value, or NPV, calculation. NPV values an investment’s profitability based on the projected future cash inflows and outflows of the investment, discounted back to present value using the WACC. The calculations for NPV are presented in Appendix 2. We started by separating cash inflows and outflows by each year. We used Bob Prescott’s estimates for the revenue per year and related operating costs of cost of goods sold as

It is determined that the company worth is $856,518 with a share price of $351.03 per value as per the discounting dividend cash flow valuation approach..In appraising the anticipated premerger performance of the company, the weighted average cost of capital is computed; the worth of the WACC for FVC is 9.2% as depicted in

Secondly, the size of the market or industry influences just how realistic the calculations of the first part above are. If the market or industry size is greater than the potential for exit, then the likelihood of the calculated valuation is possible. If however, the market or industry size is less than the potential for exit, then the valuation is unrealistic and the size of the investment should be scaled back. In the RBS example, the market/industry was described to be $320MM and the market share for the company is only 10% or $32MM, the investor % of 15% would amount to $4.8MM potential exit. Under a 10x multiple,

Copyright © 2011 Harvard Business School Publishing This document is for use only with the Harvard Business Publishing ‘Case

Crocs Inc. is a U.S based shoe designer, manufacturer and retailer. It was founded in 2002 by three friends - Lyndon “Duke” Hanson, Scott Seamans and George Boedecker. Crocs shoes are manufactured from “Croslite”. They are comfortable & light weight, odour resistant, do not skid, easy to wash and do not mark surfaces. Owing to the properties of the resin, Croslite, the shoes could be manufactured in any colour. The company, however, chose bold colours.