82 5 Intercompany Sale of Diamondswere not problematic, there are virtually no publicly held U.S. distributors of luxurygoods, broadly defined. For example, only four firms are listed under U.S.Standard Industrial Classification Code 5094 (consisting of firms in the businessof distributing jewelry, watches, precious stones and precious metals). None ofthese entities function purely as wholesale distributors and are therefore not suitablecomparables.Given the paucity of information that we obtained through our narrowly definedsearch for luxury goods distributors, we expanded our search parameters to includeindependent distributors of high-end personal care products of any kind. We identifiedsuch firms through the following searches: Keywords = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “Jewelry”; Industry/MarketSegment = Unspecified (4 hits). Keywords = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “Designer”; Industry/Market Segment = Unspecified (9 hits). Keywords = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “Luxury”; Industry/MarketSegment = Unspecified (28 hits). Keywords = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “Prestige”;Industry/Market Segment = Unspecified (12 hits). Keyword = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “Perfume”;Industry/Market Segment = Unspecified (44 hits). Keywords = “Distribution, Distributor or Distributes” and “High-End”;Industry/Market Segment = Unspecified (2 hits).After reviewing descriptions of business for all companies identified by meansof the above searches, we eliminated those that (a) were integrated backwards intomanufacturing; (b) were engaged primarily in direct selling (i.e., through individualsto end-users); (c) operated retail establishments (stores or salons) in lieu of, or inaddition to, distribution operations; (d) were engaged principally in the developmentof personal care products; (e) were engaged primarily in the performance of services;(f) were in the development stage; or, (g) distributed significantly dissimilarproducts (e.g., pre-recorded music and video game hardware and pharmaceuticalcompounds).Following this process of elimination, the following companies constituted ourdistributor sample:1. Signature Eyewear, Inc.: Designs, markets and distributes prescription eyewearframes and sunglasses, primarily under exclusive licenses with well-knownretailers (Laura Ashley, Eddie Bauer, Hart-Schaffner & Marx and others). Sellsto independent optical retailers in the United States through own salesforce andindependent representatives and through exclusive distributors in foreign markets.Procures frames from independent contract manufacturers. Performs designfunction internally.2. Orange 21, Inc.: Designs, develops and markets premium products, primarilysunglasses and goggles, under the self-developed Spy Optic brand and otherbrands. Targets active sports markets (surfing, skateboarding, snowboarding,
5.3 Analysis Under Existing Regime 83motocross, etc.). Utilizes patented, engineered optical lens technology. Sells tokey multi-store action sport and youth lifestyle retailers in the United Statesand internationally. Design, marketing and branding handled by in-house staff.Sources finished product inventory from independent contract manufacturers.3. Helen of Troy, Ltd.: A global designer, developer, importer and distributor ofbrand name consumer products. Operates in two segments: Personal Care andHousewares. Personal Care products include straighteners, curling irons, hairsetters,mirrors, footbaths and hair accessories; housewares include kitchen tools,cutlery, tea kettles and trash cans. Relies exclusively on outside manufacturers.Sells products to mass merchandisers, warehouse clubs, drug chains, grocerystores, specialty stores and beauty supply retailers and wholesalers. Utilizes ownand licensed brands.4. CCA Industries: Imports and sells health and beauty aids and cosmeceuticalproducts (skin care, oral care, nail care, hair care and sun care products, depilatories,fragrances, etc.). Sources all products from contract manufacturers. Providesthe latter with formulations and color selections. Markets and sells to majordrug and food chains, mass merchandisers and wholesale beauty-aid distributors.Certain of the company’s products are sold under its own trademarks; othersare sold under licensed marks. CCA Industries also licenses rights to certainmanufacturing technologies from third parties.5. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc.: Sells well-recognized brand name healthcare,household cleaning and personal care products, including nail polish remover,shampoo, pain relief sprays and liquid bandages. Carries 14 well-known brands.Performs marketing, sales, customer service and product development functions.Relies on external manufacturers and logistics services providers. Sells to massmerchandisers, drug, grocery, dollar and club stores.Clearly, there are significant shortcomings with our sample companies. Mostnotably, they are very few in number, and, in addition to distribution, certain ofthe “comparables” perform product development functions and own valuable trademarks,as distinct from USS. Moreover, our sample distributors sell principally tomass merchants and major drug and food chains, whereas USS sells primarily toindependent retail jewelers. Furthermore, USS carries substantially higher inventories,incurs lower inventory risk, has higher accounts receivables per dollar of sales(due to the extended terms it offers) and pays much higher insurance premiums,relative to the sample companies. It should be noted that the lack of meaningfulfunctional and product comparability in this case is typical of applications of thecomparable profits method. Hence, in addition to lacking a theoretical foundation,this method is generally wanting from an empirical vantage point as well. There issimply a limited number of publicly held distributors operating in the United Statesin total at present.Because the (largely unstated) theory underlying the comparable profits methodis that profit level indicators represent a return on invested capital, and that thisreturn on investment will be equalized across distributors of various stripes, adjustmentsfor some of the differences noted above are generally considered unnecessary.