Epilogue on Berr's not-so-sharp analysis

Follow-up to an earlier post regarding Jonathan Berr's not-so-astute analysis of CROX. I give Berr credit for one thing: he's willing to show the world his thoughts, ignorant as some of them might be. Those of us who are long know by now that these truths prevail when it comes to the average American male:

1. He absolutely hates the look of Crocs Caymans.
2. Because he is highly visual, the image of those clunky, neon-colored sandals are almost impossible to delete from the memory.
3. Never mind the comfort level, the power of Croslite (anti-bacterial) ... nothing that ugly can be worth a buck, peso, ruble, etc.
4. Therefore, the natural compulsion is to short the hell out of the stock.

So, this phenomenon is not really surprising for us longs. Those foolish enough to short the Co in the past year and in the near future are placing their personal tendencies ahead of the real strengths of Crocs:

a. Aggressive, growth-minded management. Key players on the board came from Flextronics, a Co that grew from 11 to 40 between 1998 and 2000 ... mainly due to aggresive acquistions. Sound familiar?
b. Superior global production and distribution system, a byproduct of the FLEX expertise. No bricks and mortar. Genius.
c. Global appeal.
d. Multi-demographic appeal. So what if men 18-40 hate Crocs. Women do most of the shopping, and they shop for their children. Children grow, feet get bigger, and kaa-ching, it's time for new Crocs.
e. Expanding lines of women's sleek, popular footwear.
f. New apparel line using secret-recipe Croslite.
g. Continued high short interest. Legal steroids for our stock.

I could go on. I'll stop.