Under Armour Shares Falling
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Instead of 27% growth UA is expecting 20% growth. I don't the company is spiraling just yet. The bigger problem is that there may be some future credence placed in an overall downsizing trend. The focus on affordable housing, smaller footprint, and less disparity will have far reaching consequences if it can ever gain a foothold. 20% growth is still quite attractive for now, but this demand that all markets grow at ever increasing shares is just not sustainable. But, over the feeling most of you don't take the long view. |
Anonymous
Nothing in this ridiculous thread makes any sense at all! |
Anonymous
A 2-year short? Don't believe a word OP says. |
Anonymous
+1 |
Anonymous
That would be incredibly risky. An investor would want no more than 7-30 days to cover. If the original poster thought there were some potential issues they likely watched the stock over those 2-3 years and placed their short at some time during that period. Very likely some time in the last year, given the market. |
Anonymous
Under Armour is providing the warmup outfits for the Golden State Warrior Dancers. It must be part of their marketing push for the women's market. |
Anonymous
And yet it has been one of the most commented on and viewed DCUM threads of the last day. What does that say about us? |
Anonymous
They revised guidance in operating income but maintained guidance for significant continued topline (i.e., revenue) growth. Which of you bickering feds or fashion prognosticators knows what that means? It means they are investing aggressively in women's and footwear and international and all the other things that the dolts on here have been saying they don't have. They are taking big growth in revenue and investing it in growing new categories and markets. That lowers earnings (definition: revenue minus expenses; for 95% of the posters here) in the near term but creates huge leverage ... profit upside ... in the future. But I'm sure of you stock pickers that have been closely watching Kylie Jenner's latest athleisure choices already knew that. |
Anonymous
Umm, like that would actually be Kendall. "But I'm sure . . . you already knew that." |
Anonymous
|
"We reiterate our Buy on Under Armour despite today’s long-term guidance revision & pullback. While mgmt lowered their FY18 op.income targets on flat gpms & accelerated investments & we expect EPS estimates to come down,Under Armour fundamentals have not changed, in our view, and we remain confident based on: 1) Most importantly, both FY16 & long-term top-line guidance were both reiterated. As a growth company, we believe UA investors are most focused on revenues. We expectUnder Armour can continue to beat top-line guidance based on Under Armour’s ongoing investments in faster growth segments (footwear & int’l), aggressive demand creation, and history of top-line beats; 2) Also being a growth company, we know that Under Armour needs to continue to invest in order to compete with significantly larger athletic peers. Even with the ramped up SG&A outlook, based on our revised estimates, updated guidance still implies a mid-teens EBIT CAGR over 3yrs and the stock’s ~13% pullback today creates a buying opportunity, in our view."
Still a recommended BUY. http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2016/10/25/why-under-armour-is-getting-creamed/ |
Anonymous
|
A good CNN Money article on the matter.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/25/investing/under-armour-stock-earnings-nba-steph-curry/ |
Anonymous
As well as a Motley Fool article. To help those of us fools on this thread who are being lectured to by others, to better understand what is going on, as written about by financial journalists. http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/10/26/under-armour-outperforms-gets-downgraded-what-you.aspx |
Anonymous
|
One has to admire Kevin Plank's investment in redeveloping Baltimore, it is an admirable pursuit. For that reason alone, I do wish Under Armour much continued future success.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-sagamore-20160324-story.html |
Anonymous
Not quite admirable. Big debate over the deal the city is giving him. He's making money hand over fist thanks to shifting some risk to the city and their investment. He's building his own little kingdom for UA and developing the peripheral area in order to control the enclave. Admirable would be investing in revitalizing the city without gentrification and displacement. Admittedly, nobody will be displaced from the area he is developing since it's essentially a wasteland. But let's be clear: his new piece of the city will be his own personal Disneyland---a high cost white enclave. He's an excellent businessman, but there's nothing admirable about his development project. It's just business. |