buechsr

10 minutes ago, UWSkier said:

The MC earnings call next week will be highly suggestive of whether this is a MBUU problem or an industry problem.

Last qtr:

On 4/30/2024 at 4:32 PM, Deep11 said:

A little advice needed -

The actuators on our ski nautique have become temperamental. Chat to other owners suggests this is a common fault. Given the significant expense to replace, the possibility of repeat issues in the future makes me ask if they are really necessary ?

also is there perhaps a “universal position” where they can be placed to suit as many skiers as possible. 
(the lengths we currently use them on are 28, 32,35 and occasional 38 off).

 

thanks for any thoughts on this,

K

I talked to a senior driver yesterday about this actually as I pull some people in the 28-32 mph, 15-28 off range and he suggested leaving at 35 off (for practice anyway).  Will try soon. 

@Deep11 is your boat a 19 or 20?  I have a 21 and believe I was told they changed the  part that year for reliability.  Have access to a 21 or beyond to check the latest if yours if 19-20?

I forget, can a skier request deviation from the helm microtuner setting in a tournament?

MBUU quarterly financials released an hour ago…I’m not Warren Buffett, but I  don’t think this looks good:

https://stockhouse.com/news/press-releases/2024/05/02/malibu-boats-inc-announces-third-quarter-fiscal-2024-results

Link to earning call at 8:30 this am on malibuboats.com

7 hours ago, unksskis said:

Typical thread that veers well beyond the point of the OP and into arguing over other sports’ applications.  Go golf, go play tennis, but nothing is comparable to the situation at hand. Jody is expressing how the membership is tired of the same old, and providing specific inquiries and concerns as to why aren’t there more specifics.  
 

what does bringing new people to the sport do?  What value does it bring? What incentive does it provide? 
 

This was KevCo’s opportunity to engage, and the choice was telling everyone to go pull some more people.  

Other sports’ governing organizations are not “comparable to the situation at hand”?  I disagree.  Everything is comparable.  In fact, comparisons to healthy organizations are wise to make. What are those sports and organizations doing?  It’s wise to study and emulate, just as in any other facet of life: skiing, parenting, career, etc.  

One example of a sport that has come out of nowhere to now be particularly prevalent, is Pickleball.  I just went to USA Pickleball’s website. It is dominated with requests for tagging it in social media and introducing others to the game.  Of course it should.  That’s the mission.  How is that so different than a simple request from Kevco in our monthly/quarterly whatever magazine?

In the original post, many grievances were aired.  Subsequently there has only been 1 concrete “fixable” complaint, which related to the thinning of divisions, essentially to (once again) tinker with the size of age groups.  People obviously have different opinions on that so that is not an actionable gripe unless the rules committee considers those tweaks.  

Other than that sole example, the OP, and other subsequent posts, generally disparaged Kevin Michael’s encouragement of members to get others skiing, and somehow twists that into rhetorically asking what does membership “do for me”?  

If any skier, competitive or not, USAWS member or not, can’t appreciate what Kevin was saying, we think differently. If current or “former” USAWS members are concerned with the expense of tournaments (sanctioning, officials, etc) surely they/we can appreciate that more revenue through membership better offsets the expenses of the organization.  What was so offending for Kevin to try to encourage USAWS members of the vital role of sharing the sport with others?  It doesn’t mean every new skier has to join USAWS, it just means the larger pool of skiers will organically create new members: a benefit to the organization, current members, and hopefully the future ski careers of new members.  

It’s not 1995.  IF people want to wax poetic about the good ol days, that’s fine, but all I’m reading herein is complaints.  No concrete suggestions are being made.  It’s just like the safe sport conversations.  All complaints, no solutions (because there were no alternatives), other than dropping your membership.  If you’re inclined to drop USAWS over a video that you could watch while changing your boat oil, fine.  But there is no utility in complaining without offering any concrete solutions to that which is being complained.  I’m not suggesting anyone keep their thoughts to themselves, far from it, express away, but coupling them with solutions makes it far more productive.

As far as I’m concerned, there was nothing wrong with Kevin’s appeal.

34 minutes ago, jjackkrash said:

It's been a while since I carried a handicap, but I was under the impression that the USGA/AGA were integrated.  But, sorry for potentially erroneous side comment, carry on.  

You’re a plus 2, right?  👍🏻

1 hour ago, jjackkrash said:

I suspect the USGA has a lot of members because you usually need a USGA GHIN handicap to reliably gamble with other recreational golfers.  

https://support.usga.org/membership/#:~:text=A Handicap Index® is,visit usga.org%2Fgetahandicap.
 

Apparently, not.  See link.  
 

in my experience that’s done through your state association, and per the above link at the bottom.  
 

In reviewing what USGA membership “does” for you, seems remarkably lacking yet money pours in for the benevolence of golf programs and education.  

not a response to your post jjack, but USAWS is not a charity.  That said, if we collectively look at USAWS through the lens of “what  do I get out of it?”,  that’s short sighted for the sport.  

3 hours ago, The_MS said:

700,000 USGA members.  I wonder how many have to complete safe sport training prior to playing in the local club championships 

Although I posted that membership stat, that’s an inaccurate comparison to the issues raised in the opening post.  Opening post dealt with why would one benefit by USAWS membership.  The overwhelming majority of the 700,000 USGA members see no direct benefit whatsoever.  It’s just a benevolent gesture of wanting to belong to an organization that supports what they like.  No USAWS member has to take safe sport, Only if they will be competing.  Notably, cursory web searching suggests all affiliated with “First Tee” must take safe sport…as well as US soccer, usta etc.  

…but is this another thread about safe sport?  Or the direction of USAWS?

3 minutes ago, DvarianDan Johnson said:

Organization membership isn’t required for most other amateur events . Can join community leagues, intramural events, etc.  We need to stop trying to justify

Just as no one is required to join the pickleball association to join the YMCA and play, no one is required to join USAWS to ski a non sanctioned event.  

The USGA has 700,000 members.  Exceedingly few of those play USGA events. USGA members feel a benelovent calling to support the organization that supports their sport.  I’m sure “Some” people justify abstaining from joining based on what the USGA (doesn’t) do for them, but not a single one of them would criticize the President of the USGA for encouraging members to expose new players to golf or encouraging competitive progression.  Many in waterskiing have and do the same, with or without supporting USAWS. That’s their prerogative.  Personally, I respect the tall tasks USAWS must deal with and will gladly pay my dues long after tournament admission is needed.  

1 hour ago, MitchellM said:

I'm an avid tennis player.  The parallels between the tennis world and waterskiing are interesting.  Millions of people play tennis at all levels as a recreational sport.  These folks don't need to join a society to play a friendly game.  However, if you want to compete, you must be a USTA member.  They have a hold on that aspect of the sport and are responsible for rankings, etc...

How many folks out there like to ski with a recreational intention only?  Take the family out on the boat and free ski while enjoying the water.  This is probably the vast majority of skiers.  We don't all want to compete.  No need for those folks to join and support USAWS.

At the end of the day, these governing bodies and our "elite" athletes are the ambasadors for our sports.  The do need to step up and encourage participation at a grass roots level.

You’re right, there is no “need”, but they should feel a modicum of a calling.  

I've not done this conversion before but as to running wires to helm, find the steering cable, follow its routing, use a hanger or other wire fishing solution, tie a string, and route it up.  Tie wires, pull through.

42 minutes ago, Golfguy said:

All of the above statistics are great information and made a case of some sort. Great research was done by all, and of course by individuals that are already skiers. I just wonder if the purpose of all of this wasn't to investigate whether the price of boat was discouraging new participation? I postulate that it is. So what can be done? Saying that a new person to the sport can buy a used boat is true, but in the long run if new boas aren't sold, then soon there will be far fewer used boat. Problem not solved. It would be interesting to see just how many of the people in this forum bought a new boat this or last year. 

 

Maybe the 2009 SN 196 was the epitome of the slalom tug?

Maybe.  I sold my ZO ‘08 this year.  Replaced with a USED 6 figure SN.  Yes, it stung.  2 kids set PBs first set though, so I’ll take it?  

15 hours ago, Hallpass said:

Read through quickly, and as I said, not a financial guy.

Actual Net Profit rose 34% exceeding the 17 percent revenue growth

As a percentage, net operating profit rose 3%  from 24.1 percent to 27.1 percent.  

I could well be missing your point.

 

I was merely saying Ferrari has very inelastic demand as its units increased marginally, revenue substantially, which means per unit pricing went up substantially.  But I’m also saying it would seem their net operating profit seems to demonstrate they saw significant increase in cost of goods sold or their net operating profit would have gone up much more.  “Actual net profit” in your last may be explained by other accounting factors.  Perhaps even value of their F1 team now that signed LH.  

Embarrassingly, I actually have a degree in finance, but have forgotten most everything related to accounting, and don;t work in finance at all.  So I could be way off too!  

Malibu’s quarterly earning call is next week. It’ll be interesting for sure.

3 hours ago, chrislandy said:

@Horton @buechsr

My point was, that we are in a silo'd market whether its skis / foils / surf boards / boats etc... 

When compared to other boats, they are overpriced for what you get. Even taking the base model of what I linked to, you get a 7ft longer boat than a GS25, a boat you can put a tender on the back off to pickup, surf and foil all day behind (seen it done) and with 14000lb dry weight kicks a massive wake. Then you can cook diner, eat, entertain, shower, sh*t, then sleep aboard.

Another example is wake foil kit, LF / HL etc you won't find "decent" kit below $2k, come out of the silo and look at surf/wing foils and they are literally half the price - pretty much the same foil shapes, board sizes, leg lengths etc... aimed at a different market. 

Because it's a silo'd market, we only see what is presented to us and for competitions, what is allowed to tow us so the prices can be set by market demand. If dealers and lenders are going to offer 30yr loans on surf boats, and regulations don't curtail their use, they will keep going up as that is the expected trajectory.

 

I also think, the another of the biggest drivers in boat costs is the 2-3yr old boat market. If the manufacturers slashed the prices, they screw the last few years buyers who will most likely be this or next years customers and sink the market completely for years to come with thousands of boats in massive negative equity, unable to refinance, unable to sell on. As I see it, the only way they could realistically reduce the boat prices is to maintain the boat price and let inflation catch up, that way the boat depreciate correctly and customers aren't left holding tens of thousands of  debt on an asset worth nothing.#

An example of this is going on right now with Tesla slashing their retail prices, which may get them a few sales now, but has sunk the used market completely.

As Jody correctly said, it costs way more to build these boats than one would think so I don;t know they’re “overpriced for what you get”.  It might be fair to say that they feel like their pricing is not justified in light of other types of boats and their pricing, But I’ll standby what I said before that nothing sells for as bloated prices as the large center console market in America. It is out of control. In any event. 

They can’t slash prices.  I just looked and in Malibu’s last quarterly report, net income margin was less than 5%.  About 11% EBIDTA margin.  While it is of course not exact, if Malibu dropped prices 5%, it literally generates no profit.  That is not going to be happening.  As it relates to the expense of building boats in this market, inboard pricing is actually quite reasonable IMO.  Tesla can cut prices and still make a profit. They’ve demonstrated that. The big three can’t do that, IMO.  All they can do is scale back production to let market demand catch up to what they can provide for a price people are willing to pay

1 hour ago, Hallpass said:

 

Ferrari shipped about 13K units last year world wide, and about 5K units in the U.S.  There units were up 3%, revenues up 17% and net operating margins were up 3%.  Inflation, high interest rates, global economy issues seemingly had no impact.

 

Just for discussion sake, I can agree that inflation and global economy issues didn’t affect their buyers which is obviously represented by significantly higher revenues, despite far less (increase) in units. The obvious conclusion is that they were able to charge more per unit than the previous year.

However, that’s the (lack of) top line effect of inflation.

Given that their operating margins were up just 3%, if they were inflation proof on the supply/production side, then in theory their operating margins should’ve been up 17%, in line with their revenues.  Said another way, it could be argued that those numbers reflect a 14% increase in its expenses associated with each unit produced…inflation….it just so happens that their buyers can afford that absorption, but I don’t we can conclude inflation didnt affect their financials substantially.  

1 hour ago, Horton said:

@Hallpass maybe I'm just being dense. I don't disagree with much of what you said above.  I have doubts that MasterCraft could double the cost of any boat and still sell any. it is a competitive market.  My question is how does this have a bearing on the current cost of ski boats? I sort of feel like this conversation is turned into circular logic. 

In my simplistic response, I would say that the ski Boat market has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not want the cheapest way to provide a good wake and power delivery.  The majority of three event boat buyers are clearly demonstrating that they don’t mind paying a premium over a “base” model workhorse.  For example, virtually everyone was buying Malibu open edition TXIs.  Even though base motors are sufficient for most buyers, it sure seems that in the wild, engines are usually upgraded.  The TXI could be had cheaper than a ProStar yet Mastercraft sold way more ProStars.  The new Ski Nautique obviously got priced in the stratosphere, and although obviously more pro stars were sold than Ski Nautiques, it’s not as if correct craft hasn’t been able to sell them. I recognize that a higher percentage of correct crafts may be going to promo than MC, but It just seems the market has demonstrated that people don’t want a new, cheaper option to ski.  

1 hour ago, mike_mapple said:

Unfortunately as a dealer we have signed agreements on what the pricing on items has to be sold at with Orbit. 

BOS discount offerred? 😀

2 hours ago, Horton said:

@buechsr

The margins on wake boats are more significant than the margins on ski boats. if not at the manufacturing side, definitely at the dealer side. On the other hand, if you're watching the Malibu thread, you're hearing about a giant dealer network that appears to be in deep deep sheep dip. I don't think anybody on staff at Tommy's is out buying a new Ferrari. They can't afford luxury items 🙂 

I'm actually skiing tomorrow with a nefarious character who previously owned a boat dealership and now works in the center console space. Maybe I can get him to shed some additional light.

update: The character whom I will from now on refer to as Dr. Nefario just called me and said that the gross margins the ski boat manufacturers are probably well below 20%. The actual data is available in the public financial records available here on the inner tubes. Look it up if you want to double-check me.

I agree with you generally, but Malibu's GPM on an Axis is not likely far from GPM for CC on a SN.  On the "dealer" side, margin is just what people will pay a dealer in profit.  Hard to draw bright-line rules but surely there have been prostars sold where the dealer made 20+%, and NXT deals where it's <15%.  But to the point, sure, anything thats more expensive yields more margin for each step to the consumer.  

Yes, GPMs are publicly available.  It's harder to decipher by product mix, however.  All I've ever garnered are averages, or at least profit/units, although Malibu does break out product mix of Axis to Malibu, but not among the M series and "regular" Malibus.

We're not in disagreement as to the (lack of) PM.  I previously said: "there really isn’t a ton of profit margin on wakeboats.  They vary by product mix and options but it’s not as if the big 3 are “making” tons of money.  Malibu has never even paid a dividend to my knowledge.  I don’t know about MC."

I'm in agreement with you (I think) that cost of good sold for the big 3 are remarkably high.  And inflation has been partly to blame for that no doubt.  

7 hours ago, chrislandy said:

Anyone who doesn't think the prices are nuts, is nuts themselves.

If the manufacturers are not operating on huge profits (not dealers, the manufacturers) then they are doing it wrong. In the video, it says (paraphrased) "If the boats are twice as big, then it costs twice as much to build", complete hogwash and shows the misunderstanding, lack of knowledge or naivety of the interviewer/ee. 

 

For context, different market, same thing though.

For example, 300k you can get a new 32ft Haines cruiser, max 26mph, 6 berth (double in bow), kitchen, lounge, sundeck, head, shower, etc... Haines 32 Offshore | 10m | 2024 - Berkshire | Boats and Outboards 

10x the boat, materials, technology than a base model 300k "surf" boat and you can guarantee they are making a decent profit with very low volume production  

At 300k it’s virtually stripped down.  It doesn’t even have a plotter.  Either way, call it a $400,000 boat (assuming pound and $ 1:1). I take your point, but there really isn’t a ton of profit margin on wakeboats.  They vary by product mix and options but it’s not as if the big 3 are “making” tons of money.  Malibu has never even paid a dividend to my knowledge.  I don’t know about MC.  If you want to look at ridiculous pricing, look at the 35-50 foot center consoles by yellowfin, pursuit, Parker, and invincible.  You can easily eclipse $1M for what is basically 2 slabs of fiberglass with live wells and bolt on power.  22 foot bay boats eclipse $100,000, easy. 

Acknowledging that ski/wake boat prices are outside of reach for most doesn’t make them “nuts”.  If capitalism suppported a significantly cheaper option, the market would’ve spoken. The latest attempt to do so was by Heyday.  To my knowledge, they’re not exactly blowing it up, yet you can get one for basically 1/3 of the price of the big 3.  There are significant performance and feature differences between them, which is why the market obviously gravitates towards the higher performing boats.  if people really wanted a significantly cheaper ski boat alternative, the market would’ve supported the carbon pro, tige 20i, hydrodyne, Toyota, Infiniti, etc.  People have just clearly demonstrated they are willing to spend more for a premium ski boat. Whether that is justified by its performance, options, and features, that’s for everyone to decide for themselves, but the market has clearly spoken of the lack of demand for cheaper alternatives. 

@mike_mapple would performance be willing to do a group buy on the orbits yall have in stock?

4 minutes ago, Ski_Dad said:

I guess I'm sad that there might not be a Malibu ski boat - we just love our older LXI.   I feel like the look of the TXI was fine from 2012-2016 but when they changed the look in 2017 that did it for some folks - i know one of my good ski buddies ordered a prostar instead of the TXI b/c of this.  To add to this Malibu had to started messing around with engine suppliers and building there own engines. 

Everyone can have their own opinion as to aesthetics. I personally thought the new TXI looked amazing.  I wouldn’t even consider it as polarizing as the new Ski Nautique.  

But as to Malibu marinizing their own engines, I personally thought that was a great thing.  It simplified warranty issues, reduced expenses, simplified tech training, and was a robust product.   

2 minutes ago, Jody_Seal said:

yes the Scarpa Deal.

was not so much Scarpa wanted to go to another company , he did not have the same equipment that was being utilized in competition. The "V"-Drive Barefoot boat was a dog all the way around, it stayed on the trailer more then it was being utilized in competition. CC dropped the model around the time the perfect pocket skiboat was introduced (176). CC kept Ron on for quite a few years but being Ron had by then acquired a relationship with malibu he asked permission to not renew and signed on with malibu. Ron did keep the 176 for his ski school though, one of the few GT-40/11A combinations..

I always thought a lot of correct craft when they ran ads saying goodbye and thank you to Ron.  15 world titles I do believe.

 Think Malibu will run any thanking RJ?

31 minutes ago, jpwhit said:

You didn’t say the year of the boat. If this is a medallion gateway era boat, then disregard my comment. 

05 per the thread title 🤫

As I recall in that era, all three of the dash gauges use the same port plug. You should be able to interchange gages and get the same readings no matter their location or where they are plugged. That will eliminate a connection issue, but I can comfortably predict that the multi gauge itself is bad.

16 minutes ago, LLUSA said:

She skied Ski Nautique at Regionals I drove her at Regionals and Nationals

👍

All the more impressive year for her given she got bu in what appears to be just a handful of rounds all year.  That’s not at all to suggest that she was not always giving it her absolute best behind another brand, but no doubt there is a comfort level for anyone skiing behind their training boat.

Personally, this change seems to make total sense for all involved.  

48 minutes ago, BraceMaker said:

Another side line of this story is that Tommy's separately is in litigation with their lender with Tommy's having sold some 20 million in inventory that's collateralized with the lender and not reporting those sales.  Which while maybe not simple theft indicates that they are quite behind on their bills.

 

What’s the source of that if other than Malibu’s statement? 

Best I’ve found is suggestion of 17 boats that might have some issues.  I did see it reported that Tommy’s has defaulted on $115M.

https://www.crainsgrandrapids.com/news/retail/bank-alleges-tommys-boats-defaulted-on-115m-in-loans-seeks-court-appointed-receiver/

30 minutes ago, kmenard said:

I wonder what the major sport equivalent of this would be... Probably not Brady to Tampa...but...

I’d say only Ron Scarpa to Malibu is on par with this change.