3 Reasons to Sell CROX and 1 Stock to Buy Instead
Crocs has gotten torched over the last six months - since October 2024, its stock price has dropped 29.2% to $96.76 per share. This may have investors wondering how to approach the situation.
Is now the time to buy Crocs, or should you be careful about including it in your portfolio? See what our analysts have to say in our full research report, it's free.
Even though the stock has become cheaper, we don't have much confidence in Crocs. Here are three reasons why you should be careful with CROX and a stock we'd rather own.
Founded in 2002, Crocs (NASDAQ:CROX) sells casual footwear and is known for its iconic clog shoe.
In addition to reported revenue, constant currency revenue is a useful data point for analyzing Footwear companies. This metric excludes currency movements, which are outside of Crocs's control and are not indicative of underlying demand.
Over the last two years, Crocs's constant currency revenue averaged 8.2% year-on-year growth. This performance was underwhelming and suggests it might have to lower prices or invest in product improvements to accelerate growth, factors that can hinder near-term profitability.
If you've followed StockStory for a while, you know we emphasize free cash flow. Why, you ask? We believe that in the end, cash is king, and you can't use accounting profits to pay the bills.
Over the next year, analysts predict Crocs's cash conversion will fall. Their consensus estimates imply its free cash flow margin of 22.5% for the last 12 months will decrease to 19.6%.
ROIC, or return on invested capital, is a metric showing how much operating profit a company generates relative to the money it has raised (debt and equity).
We like to invest in businesses with high returns, but the trend in a company's ROIC is what often surprises the market and moves the stock price. Unfortunately, Crocs's ROIC has decreased significantly over the last few years. We like what management has done in the past, but its declining returns are perhaps a symptom of fewer profitable growth opportunities.
Crocs isn't a terrible business, but it doesn't pass our quality test. Following the recent decline, the stock trades at 8× forward price-to-earnings (or $96.76 per share). While this valuation is fair, the upside isn't great compared to the potential downside. We're fairly confident there are better investments elsewhere. We'd recommend looking at a fast-growing restaurant franchise with an A+ ranch dressing sauce.
The market surged in 2024 and reached record highs after Donald Trump's presidential victory in November, but questions about new economic policies are adding much uncertainty for 2025.
While the crowd speculates what might happen next, we're homing in on the companies that can succeed regardless of the political or macroeconomic environment. Put yourself in the driver's seat and build a durable portfolio by checking out our Top 5 Strong Momentum Stocks for this week. This is a curated list of our High Quality stocks that have generated a market-beating return of 175% over the last five years.
Stocks that made our list in 2019 include now familiar names such as Nvidia (+2,183% between December 2019 and December 2024) as well as under-the-radar businesses like Sterling Infrastructure (+1,096% five-year return). Find your next big winner with StockStory today for free.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Diamondback Energy (FANG) Rises Higher Than Market: Key Facts
In the latest trading session, Diamondback Energy (FANG) closed at $145.57, marking a +2.42% move from the previous day. The stock outperformed the S&P 500, which registered a daily gain of 0.55%. Elsewhere, the Dow saw an upswing of 0.25%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq appreciated by 0.63%. The energy exploration and production company's stock has dropped by 0.55% in the past month, falling short of the Oils-Energy sector's gain of 3% and the S&P 500's gain of 6.29%. The investment community will be closely monitoring the performance of Diamondback Energy in its forthcoming earnings report. The company's earnings per share (EPS) are projected to be $2.72, reflecting a 39.82% decrease from the same quarter last year. Alongside, our most recent consensus estimate is anticipating revenue of $3.41 billion, indicating a 37.23% upward movement from the same quarter last year. For the entire fiscal year, the Zacks Consensus Estimates are projecting earnings of $13.23 per share and a revenue of $14.05 billion, representing changes of -20.16% and +26.94%, respectively, from the prior year. Investors should also note any recent changes to analyst estimates for Diamondback Energy. These recent revisions tend to reflect the evolving nature of short-term business trends. Hence, positive alterations in estimates signify analyst optimism regarding the company's business and profitability. Research indicates that these estimate revisions are directly correlated with near-term share price momentum. To utilize this, we have created the Zacks Rank, a proprietary model that integrates these estimate changes and provides a functional rating system. The Zacks Rank system, which varies between #1 (Strong Buy) and #5 (Strong Sell), carries an impressive track record of exceeding expectations, confirmed by external audits, with stocks at #1 delivering an average annual return of +25% since 1988. The Zacks Consensus EPS estimate has moved 2.89% lower within the past month. Currently, Diamondback Energy is carrying a Zacks Rank of #3 (Hold). In terms of valuation, Diamondback Energy is currently trading at a Forward P/E ratio of 10.74. This denotes a premium relative to the industry's average Forward P/E of 10.64. We can additionally observe that FANG currently boasts a PEG ratio of 1.29. The PEG ratio is similar to the widely-used P/E ratio, but this metric also takes the company's expected earnings growth rate into account. The average PEG ratio for the Oil and Gas - Exploration and Production - United States industry stood at 2.42 at the close of the market yesterday. The Oil and Gas - Exploration and Production - United States industry is part of the Oils-Energy sector. At present, this industry carries a Zacks Industry Rank of 178, placing it within the bottom 28% of over 250 industries. The Zacks Industry Rank is ordered from best to worst in terms of the average Zacks Rank of the individual companies within each of these sectors. Our research shows that the top 50% rated industries outperform the bottom half by a factor of 2 to 1. Make sure to utilize to follow all of these stock-moving metrics, and more, in the coming trading sessions. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
NBC Sports
21 minutes ago
- NBC Sports
Stephen A. Smith: Failure to buy Bills sparked Donald Trump's first presidential run
Nearly 10 years ago to the day, a certain someone took a certain ride down a certain golden escalator and most certainly upended American politics. As Stephen A. Smith told it on Monday night's edition of The Daily Show, the rise of Donald Trump the politician is tied directly to his inability to buy the Buffalo Bills a year before he threw his hat in the presidential ring. 'In 2014, he wanted to purchase the NFL's Buffalo Bills,' Smith told Jon Stewart. 'The price tag was $1.4 billion. . . . My sources tell me he had $1.1 [billion]. . . . He literally called me in 2014 and he said, 'Stephen, I'm going to tell you this right now' — and this is a quote — 'if them mutherfuckers get in my way, I'm gonna get them all back. I'm gonna run for president.' Those are his exact words. 'And so the NFL often jokes with me, 'So it's our fault' when I tell them that story. And I say, 'Yeah.'' This prompted Stewart to make a direct plea to the camera: 'People of Buffalo. Give him the fucking team. Save us.' Smith explained Trump's viewpoint on the matter. 'He was putting the word out that if this doesn't happen — he wanted to do it, and this should happen, I'm Donald Trump, I'm very popular and well known, I'm worth over a billion dollars, I should be able to purchase an NFL team if I want it,' Smith said. 'And if I can't get it, it's because they're getting in my way. That was his position. Their position was, 'You didn't have enough money.'' And he didn't. Because at the end of the day that's all it takes to buy an NFL team: Come up with the best offer. Terry and Kim Pegula came up with a better offer than the twice future president. But, yes, there's an alternate universe in which Trump owns the Bills and he isn't the president and he calls in to PFT Live on a regular basis to complain that the league office is being very unfair.
