Deckers Outdoor Corporation

DECK Consumer Cyclical · Footwear & Accessories
Delayed 15 min
Last close
$101.28
Jun 29, 2026
52-week range
$78.91 — $126.50
-20% from high
Market cap
14.1B
Diluted basis
Dividend yield
No dividend declared
P/E
14.4
Trailing
Filing.fyi verdict · Jun 29, 2026

Fairly valued.

Fairly Valued (Neutral) — Filing.fyi's reading derived from the latest 10-K and forensic scores.

Neutral
RED DEEP / 100
Composite Health
AI synthesis · grounded in this ticker's SEC filings · drag to highlight, releases the composer

What the filing actually says.

AI · wry-editorial preset

The provided data for Deckers Outdoor Corporation’s latest SEC filing presents a unique challenge for forensic analysis: the absence of specific metrics. Key indicators like Beneish’s M-Score — a 1999 eight-ratio earnings-manipulation detector — are simply “not available.” This lack of foundational data prevents any quantitative assessment of potential accounting irregularities, leaving the initial scan for red flags unperformed. The most striking observation, therefore, is the sheer vacuum of information where specific financial health signals would typically reside.

Similarly, Altman’s Z″ — a 1968 bankruptcy-distress index — is “not available,” preventing an assessment of financial stability or distress. Piotroski’s F-Score, a 9-point fundamental strength scan, also lacks data, leaving the company’s operational strength unquantified through this lens. Even the Fog Index — a readability score where 12 equals a newspaper and 18+ suggests obfuscation — is “not available,” meaning we cannot gauge the textual complexity or potential opaqueness of the filing’s language.

The MD&A (Management’s Discussion and Analysis) and Item 1A (Risk Factors) excerpts, which typically offer management’s narrative on performance and future uncertainties, are likewise “not available.” This absence means the filing does not provide direct insight into the company’s own assessment of its operational challenges, strategic direction, or the specific risks it highlights to shareholders. Without these passages, a critical qualitative layer of forensic review remains unaddressed.

None of this answers the question of whether DECK the security is mispriced. Instead, this reading underscores the limits of analysis when the foundational data is not provided. A forensic conclusion requires specific figures, trends, and management’s own words to interpret. Without these, any assessment of the filing’s implications for the security’s value is necessarily constrained to the observation that the data required for such an assessment is, at present, unavailable.

Member feature · Custom Q&A
Ask anything about DECK's filings.
Plain-English answer, cited from the company's own 10-K and recent 10-Qs. No buy/sell advice.
Ask a question →
Further reading · curated for this filing

If this case caught your eye

Affiliate links — Filing.fyi earns a commission on Amazon purchases. We pick the books first, attach the link second.

Financial Shenanigans

Howard M. Schilit

Schilit's framework for the seven shenanigan types is the standard reference for the kind of MD&A pattern-matching this site does.

View on Amazon →

The Interpretation of Financial Statements

Benjamin Graham

The original — and still the clearest — explanation of why working-capital trends matter more than headline earnings.

View on Amazon →
Quality of Earnings

Quality of Earnings

Thornton L. O'glove

Out of print, expensive, worth it. The chapter on receivables-vs-revenue divergence applies almost word-for-word to most distressed filings.

View on Amazon →