Under Armour Shares Falling

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't wear Nike anymore.[i]

You can actually get made fun of.

Yes, today's kids and their style setters definitely don't wear Nike anymore.

You must live under a rock, so I'll help you. Kendall 21 and Taylor 27 are not kids. And when we talk Under Armor wear, we're mostly referring to cloths as opposed to shoes. While Nike may still dominate in footwear. Under Armor is king in clothing.[i] That's why it is fact to say that kids--- preteens and teens, don't wear Nike anymore. You can actually be made fun. And quite frankly Nike was never as popular with kids as Under Armor has become. BTW Taylor Swift is actually 27. Not a kid by any standard.

Wrong again, Mr. "You must Live Under A Rock"!

First, Under Armour is not "king in clothing".

For the full year 2015, Under Armour's apparel net revenue were $2.80 billion. http://investor.underarmour.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952146

For the full year 2015, Nike's apparel net revenue were approximately $4.41 billion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241706/nikes-us-sales-by-product-category-since-2007/

And second, guess what(?), preteens and teens do wear Nike.

Socks to be wrong so often, doesn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't wear Nike anymore.

You can actually get made fun of.

This is the poster that veered the conversation to Nike by making the silly claim that "kids don't wear Nike anymore."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Two years ago I posted on this site that Under Armour had relatively little presence, street cred, or fashion-forward visibility on the West Coast (where I was living at time, in California). This was notable because West Coast tastes often forecast future trends, and because the Asian market is so strong in that region (thus giving you great insight into how your products will play in the important and growing international Asian market). I felt that Under Armour products for the most part reflected the worst instincts of Washington, DC, "traditional" and "staid", in other words, there was nothing exciting about their products. And I also felt that UA had dropped the ball on their development of their women's market. Appeal to those women who "exercise" the purse strings, and they will influence their families' spending. My post was lambasted and greatly criticized by those asserting that UA was in "great shape".

http://fortune.com/2016/10/25/under-armour-shares-tumble/

And this is the OP's original post which only refers to Under Armour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't wear Nike anymore.[i]

You can actually get made fun of.

Yes, today's kids and their style setters definitely don't wear Nike anymore.

You must live under a rock, so I'll help you. Kendall 21 and Taylor 27 are not kids. And when we talk Under Armor wear, we're mostly referring to cloths as opposed to shoes. While Nike may still dominate in footwear. Under Armor is king in clothing.[i] That's why it is fact to say that kids--- preteens and teens, don't wear Nike anymore. You can actually be made fun. And quite frankly Nike was never as popular with kids as Under Armor has become. BTW Taylor Swift is actually 27. Not a kid by any standard.

Wrong again, Mr. "You must Live Under A Rock"!

First, Under Armour is not "king in clothing".

For the full year 2015, Under Armour's apparel net revenue were $2.80 billion. http://investor.underarmour.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952146

For the full year 2015, Nike's apparel net revenue were approximately $4.41 billion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241706/nikes-us-sales-by-product-category-since-2007/

And second, guess what(?), preteens and teens do wear Nike.

Socks to be wrong so often, doesn't it?



If you cannot differentiate between footwear and clothes, sit there and argue with yourself.

[Anonymous]

I'm all for the local boy, as well, but UA has made a mistake not having women in their higher ranks to make decisions about women's lines for one, but more importantly to break up the bro club.

[Anonymous]

Please, PP, you can Google for yourself hundreds of images of teens wearing Nike apparel. Don't make me so all the heavy lifting for you on that point too.

Also PP, since you appear to somewhat dense, I purposely chose the image of "socks" to be "punny" (i.e., for PP, funny)
(Translation for PP: I made a pun of socks and sucks.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for the local boy, as well, but UA has made a mistake not having women in their higher ranks to make decisions about women's lines for one, but more importantly to break up the bro club.

Agreed! I am the OP, and I have always thought that UA was late to realize that appealing to women and their tastes is critical to overall growth. I did not realize that might be attributable to a dearth of women in their senior management. Thank you for that insight.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand this post?

And I"m still happy to be a shareholder. My million percent (incorrect, but its something good) gain is still working for me.

[Anonymous]

Not a shareholder, but I can say that when I was in Xi'an, China a few weeks ago, they were getting ready to open a UA store there in a mid-range shopping mall. Xi'an is a second-tier Chinese city, so that tells me they are really trying to expand internationally.

[Anonymous]

This post is exactly why 99.9% of people should invest in index funds and avoid attempting to manage their investments actively. So much conjecture and irrelevant drivel in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This post is exactly why 99.9% of people should invest in index funds and avoid attempting to manage their investments actively. So much conjecture and irrelevant drivel in this thread.

Did you not see the stock tip from the guy who saw them opening up an UA store in a second-rate Chinese city a few weeks ago?

[Anonymous]

I'm failing to see how the OP is a visionary. When he wrote his first post (Jul-13) the stock was $31. Today its trading at $64 (accounting for the stock split). Trolling appears to be a lost art...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't wear Nike anymore.[i]

You can actually get made fun of.

Yes, today's kids and their style setters definitely don't wear Nike anymore.

You must live under a rock, so I'll help you. Kendall 21 and Taylor 27 are not kids. And when we talk Under Armor wear, we're mostly referring to cloths as opposed to shoes. While Nike may still dominate in footwear. Under Armor is king in clothing.[i] That's why it is fact to say that kids--- preteens and teens, don't wear Nike anymore. You can actually be made fun. And quite frankly Nike was never as popular with kids as Under Armor has become. BTW Taylor Swift is actually 27. Not a kid by any standard.

Wrong again, Mr. "You must Live Under A Rock"!

First, Under Armour is not "king in clothing".

For the full year 2015, Under Armour's apparel net revenue were $2.80 billion. http://investor.underarmour.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952146

For the full year 2015, Nike's apparel net revenue were approximately $4.41 billion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241706/nikes-us-sales-by-product-category-since-2007/

And second, guess what(?), preteens and teens do wear Nike.

Socks to be wrong so often, doesn't it?

Nike has been around WAY longer than under armor...the fact that they are that close and under amour is closing the gap is amazing in and of itself. It speaks for itself really. Denial is a potent medicine PP.

[Anonymous]

This post is exactly why 99.9% of people should invest in index funds and avoid attempting to manage their investments actively. So much conjecture and irrelevant drivel in this thread.

1+. NP. This is the most ridiculous thread on DCUM this morning (and yes, I know, I know, I read it). A bunch of middle-aged feds and lawyers bickering about what the cool kids are wearing in an absurd proxy fight for their investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids don't wear Nike anymore.[i]

You can actually get made fun of.

Yes, today's kids and their style setters definitely don't wear Nike anymore.

You must live under a rock, so I'll help you. Kendall 21 and Taylor 27 are not kids. And when we talk Under Armor wear, we're mostly referring to cloths as opposed to shoes. While Nike may still dominate in footwear. Under Armor is king in clothing.[i] That's why it is fact to say that kids--- preteens and teens, don't wear Nike anymore. You can actually be made fun. And quite frankly Nike was never as popular with kids as Under Armor has become. BTW Taylor Swift is actually 27. Not a kid by any standard.

Wrong again, Mr. "You must Live Under A Rock"!

First, Under Armour is not "king in clothing".

For the full year 2015, Under Armour's apparel net revenue were $2.80 billion. http://investor.underarmour.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=952146

For the full year 2015, Nike's apparel net revenue were approximately $4.41 billion. https://www.statista.com/statistics/241706/nikes-us-sales-by-product-category-since-2007/

And second, guess what(?), preteens and teens do wear Nike.

Socks to be wrong so often, doesn't it?



If you cannot differentiate between footwear and clothes, sit there and argue with yourself.

lol s/he also cannot differentiate between kids and adults. Even has Jay Z as an example of what kids wear.