Under Armour is on fire! Zumbo.

We reported in August how Under Armour dumped a couple of hunters, and in return, hunters dumped Under Armour. Today, ZeroHedge reports that Under Armour’s stock value has sunk to its lowest level in three years. Sales have slowed dramatically – to their lowest since 2005. This caused them to miss their quarterly earnings estimates by 11%. In short, all signs point to them reaping the whirlwind of a bad outcome as a result.

Considering Under Armour stock was at $120 per share not even three years ago, today’s $21 price shows quite a decline collapse. Really, UA’s crash should surprise no one who pays attention. The Baltimore-based company purported to support hunters and hunting, yet at the first hint of social justice warrior anti-hunting outrage, they terminated the centerpiece of their first women’s hunting campaign.

sarah-bowmar-ua-hunter
Sarah Bowmar, the *former* centerpiece of Under Armour’s first women’s hunting campaign. UA fired her because of social justice warrior outrage over a video of her husband legally taking a bear in Canada.

As we wrote back in August:

Did the Baltimore-based Under Armour just Zumbo itself?

Time will tell, but following a change.org petition, Under Armour dumped their sponsored huntress, Sarah Bowmar mere days after her husband legally harvested a bear in Canada using a spear. Now, the people of the hunting world are pushing back, starting their own boycott of Under Armour and burning the UA products they already own. Here’s how it all went down . . .

Yes, UA sought to capitalize on the increasing women’s athletic apparel market. However, in their rush to appease the anti-hunting SJWs, Under Armour managed to anger sportsmen and gun owners across the nation.

But wait, there’s more!

The company’s long-term prospects continue to look grim. Their outlook has been cut and the CFO has left (allegedly for personal reasons). All of this bad news left the company’s stock down about 25% today alone. In fact, things have looked grim for some time.

Here’s the upshot from ZeroHedge:

Under Armor Crashes On Triple Whammy: Earnings Miss, Outlook Cut, CFO Out

Under Armor shares are down almost 30% in the pre-open, trading at their lowest in 3 years after a triple whammy disaster of an earnings announcement.

Top and Bottom Line miss:

  • *UNDER ARMOUR 4Q NET REV. $1.31B, EST. $1.41B
  • *UNDER ARMOUR 4Q EPS 23C, EST. 25C

Outlook slashed:

As Bloomberg notes, Under Amour — which has doubled its sales about every three years — is now having a hard time maintaining that rapid growth.

Sales this year will increase as much as 12 percent to nearly $5.4 billion, the Baltimore-based company said in a statement Tuesday. That trailed analysts’ $6.05 billion average estimate and would be Under Armour’s smallest annual gain since it went public in 2005.

“Numerous challenges and disruptions in North American retail tempered our fourth quarter results,” UAA CEO Kevin Plank said in release.

And C-Suite shake-up:

 CFO Chip Molloy will leave for personal reasons; SVP, Corporate Finance David Bergman will serve as acting CFO

The result… almost 30% collapse…

Companies are in business to make money. When gun owners and hunters stick together, we get proven results. Obviously, social justice warrior pledges to buy more Under Armour apparel proved meaningless. Pledges from hunters and the People of the Gun, on the other hand, not to buy their stuff have a real impact. Let’s face it: Under Armour chose the online petition signed by 4,000 special snowflakes over tens of millions of productive Americans.

Under Armour chose poorly.  Let them continue to reap the whirlwind.

129 Responses to Under Armour Dumps Hunters, Reaps the Whirlwind

  1. Who woulda thunk that a bunch of gun-totin’ redneck hunters actually have some money to spend?

    Maybe they should make some pink pussy hats?

  2. Under Armour is overpriced crap that’s 10% product and 90% marketing. It doesn’t perform well, it doesn’t hold up well, and it’s twice as expensive as better performing gear.

    No thanks.

    • As they say, opinions are like assholes…everybody’s got one. The products I’ve bought from UA have all been good quality. Expensive? Yes. But they’ve been better quality and have lasted longer than other cheaper products that I’ve had. So to me, worth the money.

      I don’t like it when a company caves on their supposed principles just because a few snow flakes were offended, but I’m not willing to abandon their products yet.

      • Well, I was a top 75 North American ranked ultra runner before my competitive days got behind me. So well, when you’re running 75+ miles a week (in all weather, triple digits to 0ºf) and you run 30 miles every saturday, you really work out gear and quickly find out what lasts, what doesn’t and what’s junk. So what’s that about the anus? It’s not like I bought stuff to wear to the gym for 30 minutes on an elliptical. Consistently, UA gear, did not hold up with seams separating after as little as 4 weeks. It’s poorly cut and it’s overpriced. This is why UA invest so heavily in athlete and league sponsorships as a way to sell middle aged guys and girls at the gym. UA just dropped a hell of a lot of money to get the contract/sponsorship of all official MLB gear.

        Balega and Falke Sock perform and hold up the best. Blister free running in high humidity.
        Reebok for shorts and tights
        Nike Dri Fit shirts

        All last longer and cost less than UA.

        • Balega is my favorite sock. Nordic Track (believe it or not) compression shorts fit me better than any others and hold up for 1000s of miles.
          /not top 75, but have completed two 50k races with significant elevation change. Ask me about my DFL!

      • “I’m not willing to abandon their products yet.”

        I am. I did.

        There are now several top-notch competitors out there offering product of the same high quality and high effectiveness, for (somewhat) less money. UA still makes good stuff – but they support ideas I cannot countenance. Would you pay money to people who publicly oppose gun ownership if you could get the same product elsewhere?

        If you can’t live your principles, do you really have any?

      • I’ve found the same thing. The most comfortable, well-made, long-lasting, and purpose-oriented hunting clothes I own. I hated to quit ’em.

      • “…but I’m not willing to abandon their products yet.”

        If the company’s current trend continues, you may not have a choice a year or two from now.

      • Try LL Bean’s stuff. It’s always high quality & backed up with a no-questions-asked return guarantee. A bit pricey too, but as good if not better than UA’s stuff. Oh, and Linda Bean DID NOT cave to left-wing “outrage.” She realized that outrage is the only product lefty snowflakes have in overabundance. Brains? Common sense? Patriotism? Decency? Not so much.

    • Doesn’t hold up well is right. There was once a time when I thought I had the world’s best “beanie” hat made by UA: low profile, easily rolled up and stuffed in a jacket pocket, warm, and broke the wind incredibly well. It was lost eventually, so I bought another that I believed to be identical. It was complete garbage. I “lost” that one.

      Went with Smartwool and never looked back.

      • “…broke the wind incredibly well…”

        I LOL’d at that. Not sure if that double entendre was intended, “butt” I found it amusing. Then again, I’ve been accused of still being 12 years old.

        • “As our silent ride together in the elevator ended, the elderly woman looked to me disapprovingly as she departed.

          And all I managed to say was,’Wasn’t me, ma’am. T’was the hat.'”

    • While I technically own very little under armour gear, I do exclusively wear their boxer briefs.

      That said, I still have (and wear) the first pair I ever bought when I switched away from wearing cotton boxer briefs in 2004/2005.

      So some of their other stuff may be overpriced crap? But their boxer briefs are top notch.

  3. PLEASE ! The BS meter just went to 11 !

    “But most compelling of all, Plank said Under Armour has learned that it must stay premium to win at retail stores—that is, avoid being sold in discount environments. “The role both we and our retailers expect us to play is as a premium, full-price brand,” Plank said. “This means amplifying our agenda for newness and innovation at every price point, as our partners expect UA to be the premium brand of choice at their stores.””

    Last three months I bought my first UA stuff – couple of hoodies and one shirt – just because they were on sale, highly discounted, on Midway.

    Love a self-pat-in-the-back as much as the next guy – but, Occam’s razor: they sold their stuff for a long time as a premium brand, and then people decided “meh, they’re not so premium”, plus they reached the saturation point.

    • The problem with overly fast growth is the (not)”smart money” that invests in your bidniz think can keep up 50% annual growth forevers (see also every stat the demtard party parrots). Not possible.

      If you get hit with the fad arrow it will inevitably kill you at the fadistas move along to the next thing. There is no shortage of Chicom sewing houses that will make/sell some American sucker a $4 tee shirt that a million American sucker consumers will buy for $50. For awhile. Then it crashes.

    • If you didn’t know REI was a granola munching, wine sipping, tree hugging hippie company then you’ve clearly never been in one.

      Personally I don’t care, I’ll take my dividends from them. The times I skip REI is when a company like Backcountry undercuts REI’s price significantly enough that it’s worth skipping the dividend.

      I will also continue to use their stores for research. Not many places will let you pitch half a dozen tents in the store to compare them.

      • Oh I actually shop at REI every now and then, so I’m well aware of their hippie behavior, but I’ve just never paid much attention to them at a corporate level (if that makes sense).

        • To be honest I don’t pay much attention at the corporate level either, so that does make sense.

          However, when a company is as far out there as say, REI or Starbucks I just assume (usually correctly) that the Apple hasn’t fallen far from the tree.

          Truth be told, generally if you boycott every store with a corporate policy you find distasteful you have nowhere to buy much of anything.

        • I agree. There is alot of products underarmour etc and retailers REI over priced . The yuppie morons that buy this stuff are the same morons that bought crappy euro stereo component systems (Bang & Olfsen) pure garbage, I see at garage sales for 25.00-50.00 They paid the price say they have it.they paid about 1000.00 for the crap. Joke is on them. The same people who will pay 26.00 per lb. as it comes from Jamacia. Little do they know only 10% of the coffee has to be Blue mountain to have the certificate that comes with it. Just so they can tell their friends they have it.

  4. for maximum eco-assplosion, i prefer Patagonia while out conserving nature. sacrilege? perhaps. lulz? absolutely.

  5. They have some ‘splaining to do with their board of directors. Specifically, who made the decision to dump Sarah Bowmar? Is that person still employed at UA?

    They saw American hunters as a cash cow, then decided to try to milk the goat instead. This story should find itself in marketing textbooks. They obviously didn’t understand their target market.

    • SJWs will like things on Facebook, maybe sign a petition or two, but they don’t actually buy much. UA walked past the goat and tried to milk the steer.

      • As the great Eric Cartman once said,

        “Hippies don’t have money!”

        SJW’s are likely either broke professional protesters, or hipster trash that wouldn’t touch your brand with a ten foot rubber mother’s little helper.

      • A drop from 120>20? seems like they missed the steer also, and went right for the bull. And you know the saying;
        “Mess with the bull and you get the horns.” 120>20 seems like quite a deep goring…

        • You clowns do realize that the their profits are still growing don’t you? The smaller than forecasted growth was because of UA’s largest retailer closing. It had nothing to do with a misguided “boycott” that a very small amount of people participated in.

  6. The marketplace has spoken. It’s hard to increase sales to women in the outdoors when you can your sponsored women because of the whining of a handful of SJWs.

    Enjoy it UA.

    Now down 25.74% TODAY!

      • They dumped her in mid-August. UA has been on the decline (from an investor perspective) for much longer than this dust-up. No doubt they lost a measurable amount of sales this winter over some hunters boycotting them, but the stock price fall is mostly due to other factors.

  7. Baltimore can suck-it some more with diminished revenues. Piano cat play them out.

    When Baltimore eats too much of its own a_ _ and turns full zombie-cannibal, we can pull out and nuke the site from orbit.

  8. As an overheated sweaty person, I know from personal experience that similar products from WalMart hold up very well, and at half to a third of the price, even if they don’t you are still likely coming out ahead. I have a UA sweat-wicking t-shirt, and an equivalent WalMart brand and they have worn identically, which is to say they are both wearable without being covered, no holes, no stink, and still wicking away. Not everything from WalMart can compete with name brands, but in this case, I wouldn’t pay for UA, especially if it is going under other layers.

  9. I’m not all that sure that the Sarah Bowmar incident, no matter how unjust, has had all that much to do with under armours downfall. I know we would like to think it does, but it seems like they were on their way down a long time before this. If I’m going to play armchair stock market analyst I’d guess it has more to do with pricing. And to comment on the attacks on quality above me, I’ve had nothing but good luck with under armour. Maybe I’m just lucky though.

    • Never bought any of their crap before, won’t still. Even on the secondary used market I’ve passed on a few. PLENTY of AR-15 companies out there that want new customers.

    • Are you suggesting that Armalite is the only manufacturer selling to states with AWBs? I rather doubt it.

      On the subject of boycotts, I’m still avoiding Cheaperthandirt like the plague. I suspect they have suffered some from their overly exuberant capitalism.

    • Troy is pretty well sullied for many, even for those like me whose time came well after Horiuchi and whatshisface, and even the hiring of said buddy. So some do stick…

    • I’d like to say I’m boycotting Armalite, but I’ve never even seen one of their guns for sale in any of the dozens of gun stores I’ve been to. Is it still a boycott if the product you’re boycotting is one you probably would never have bought anyway?

  10. Haw haw?I don’t hunt and have no plans to. But I do buy and sell for a living. Don’t pizz off your customers…

      • Shrinky-dink tight in close proximity to detonated I.E.D.’s

        DoD banned them in Iraq / Afghanistan from use by G.I.s because it’s tough to debride a wound with melted sweat-wicking material heat-formed around the body.

  11. The capitulation to SJWs happened in August, but their stock price fell off the cliff back in April. This looks like misplaced self-congratulation to me.

    • It clearly is. Most people who hunt don’t even know about UA’s stance on the subject. UA’s bread and butter is S.Curry and K. Durant (nike) just joined the same team this probably has much more to do with it. Will you write a piece if Golden State wins the title this year and Under Armor’s stock soars?

      • No, but I will write one when Golden State suffers a meltdown and loses its second-round series against the Utah Jazz. 🙂

  12. I bought a pair of the Under Armour Haw’madillo (think Muck boots) camo hunting boots. First time out while crossing a small stream I wound up with a boot full of water. No bueno. I took them back and swapped them. Figured that I better try them out before hitting the woods, I tested them in the bathtub. Guess what. Leaked. Took them back and bought Irish Setters. Haven’t bought another thing from them since.

  13. They should have just kept their heads down and thanked the universe that their re-branding of 70’s era leisure suit fabric as “performance wear” was actually making them money.

    • ZH is probably the best source of economic / financial news. Their reasoning for why the UA stock took such a big hit is probably a lot more accurate than from somebody wishing it was mostly due to PO’d hunters and gun owners. Sure, that may have contributed, but let’s be honest, it probably wasn’t much (pretty much all retail sales are tanking).

  14. I have boycotted UA since they boycotted hunters. While pissing off hunters wasn’t the only reason for the decline, I think we can all agree that it was a stupid business decision.

    I’ll echo the sentiment that their gear is overpriced and doesn’t perform well. I wear body armor and undershirts 40-100 hours a week, and the UA shirts don’t last any longer than my Champion shirts. Champion socks are much better than UA socks for my feet that spend a lot of hours and miles in McCrae combat boots.

  15. According to the graphic you posted, UA tanked in April, but the bear video thing didn’t get written about until August.

    So hunters are also retroactivly boycotting time travellers?

    Obama’s gonna be pissed that they were messing with his time machine.

  16. I use Icebreaker made in New Zealand from merino wool. Lasts for years and can use for a month without washing it (or you if needed)
    Great for winter hunting.

    Looked at under armour in shop and thought why would you buy. Not going to buy it ever.

  17. Glad to see others read Zerohedge.

    Most of the guides I know here in Alaska say UA sucks……

    My wife works at a sporting goods store and says they get a lot of US returned with seam tears and complaints about quality.
    I thought they were more focused on marketing than product.

  18. I hope they go out of business. Then pin the trophy head on the 2A victory wall.
    The only way to get a business to focus on making their customers happy is to kill the ones who failed to keep the customer happy.
    Other companies will learn from the stupid mistakes of losers.
    Smith and Wesson was nearly “killed” 20 years ago when the new company owner, a liberal, cut a deal with the Clinton administration. The S&W boycott lasted over a year.

    • Working from memory; S&W bought by European firm, agreed to voluntary “common sense” crap the day (like, no shit, less than 24 hours) after I bought the wife an S&W revolver. A year or 2 went by, and the workers bought the company back from the European consortium for literally pennies on the dollar, the fools lost around $5-6 billion due to their idiotic decision, I (and many others) was not even interested in an apology or policy change, I would NEVER buy another S&W until the company was sold, under all new management. Which it was. Outstanding example of a boycott, though I never heard it mentioned, just nobody bought S&W.

      • It was talk radio host Gordon Liddy who called for a boycott of S&W. His 8 to 10 million listeners a week apparently agreed with him.

  19. I think I own like two items from UA.

    I won’t trash the quality or anything but there’s better stuff out there. Personally I’m gay for Dead Bird for a reason: no one makes better outdoor gear until you step up to prices that are retarded like Moonstone. You won’t get much camo gear from Arc’Teryx, but their stuff is, IME, hands down unbeatable for what it costs.

    Rab comes close but they don’t beat Arc’Teryx and are generally even pricier.

  20. going to say the same thing many have said: what shows that this had anything to do with a hunter/gun owner boycott?

      • Absolutely. But the article doesn’t say “Under Armor possibly slightly hurt by boycott by some hunters”, it says they “reaped the whirlwind” of dissatisfied hunters and implies that’s the reason for their financial troubles (which seemed to start many months before the Bowmar kerfuffle). There appears to be scant evidence of any whirlwind, and I’d wager that the great majority of American hunters never even heard of this incident. Of the people I know who hunt, I’d wager very few have even heard of Sarah Bowmar, and even fewer were UA customers to begin with. The hunters in my social circle tend to be wool and cotton dudes, not the kind of guys who pay $50 for a plastic undershirt.

  21. As with any business, insulting any part of your customer base is not usually a good idea. I tend to agree with SgtLincolnOsiris who posted earlier that there really isn’t any evidence to correlate the current troubles with indignant gun-owners. Only someone who has internal sales information and access to proprietary market research would know for sure. In any case, at a minimum, whether they were right or wrong, I assume these folks aren’t stupid: at some point, someone made the decision based on the belief that the SJWs offered more sales potential than insulted hunters and gun-owners. We just don’t get the privilege to know if that decision was correct or incorrect.

    The whole thing sort of reminds me of gun store owners who ban guns. If you can run a business while insulting such a large portion of your customer base, “Te salut, Don Corleone!”
    skills… 🙂

  22. John Boch, your analysis is absurd. Please explain how boycotts from hunters and “people of the gun”, a group that accounts for a fraction of UA’s total revenue, is responsible for their overall decline? Also, I think you’re overreaching to include all “people of the gun”. There are many who fight for the 2A, but who would disagree with using a spear for hunting. It was a no win for UA, regardless of who they sided with on this spear hunting debacle. They were boycotted from both hunters and anti-hunters. Ironically, both are taking credit for UA’s 2016 revenue demise.

    UA recognizes that hunting apparel is a growing market. But, it doesn’t even begin to compare with revenue generated from their general sports apparel. They’ll continue to focus on growing the hunting line as long as they feel they can be competitive and grow their revenue. If hunters were truly boycotting UA, then it would stand to reason that UA would be abandoning hunting apparel altogether. They are not.

    A better analysis would be that UA grew exceptionally fast since going public in 2005, and the market has become saturated with high end sports apparel. As with any fast growing company in a competitive market there will be some contraction in growth. Retailers in general have struggled in 2016. Boycotts from hunters and anti-hunters probably had some small contribution, but it’s merely an unmentioned footnote in their accounting records.

    TTAG needs more editorial oversight. Allowing this hogwash to post only denigrates our efforts for gun rights. And to think, we accuse the anti’s of being delusional. They’ll have every reason to accuse us of the same after reading this crap.

    • DonJoe:

      “John Boch, your analysis is absurd. Please explain how boycotts from hunters and “people of the gun”, a group that accounts for a fraction of UA’s total revenue, is responsible for their overall decline?”

      Oh gee, I don’t know. Two million people saw the first story and a whole lot of them decided to take a pass on future UA purchases. Who buys UA? Primarily people who are productive members of society.

      “UA recognizes that hunting apparel is a growing market. But, it doesn’t even begin to compare with revenue generated from their general sports apparel. They’ll continue to focus on growing the hunting line as long as they feel they can be competitive and grow their revenue. If hunters were truly boycotting UA, then it would stand to reason that UA would be abandoning hunting apparel altogether. They are not.”

      I didn’t say that their sagging sales and earnings were solely the result of the boycott of the POTG. You’re awful wrapped around the axle about this.

      “Boycotts from hunters and anti-hunters probably had some small contribution, but it’s merely an unmentioned footnote in their accounting records.”

      I’ll be delighted to mention this footnote in their accounting records. Which I did.

      “TTAG needs more editorial oversight. Allowing this hogwash to post only denigrates our efforts for gun rights. And to think, we accuse the anti’s of being delusional. They’ll have every reason to accuse us of the same after reading this crap.”

      Delusional? Hardly.

      TTAG is edgy, not boring. And if you can’t claim legitimate victories, including making UA pay a price for abandoning millions of hunters for 4,000 online social justice warriors, then why are you engaged? You are engaged, right?

      John

      • Ok John, back up your “millions of hunters” claim. You can’t.

        I suspect a few thousand items weren’t purchased because of the spearchucker decision. That’s not even a drop in their $5 billion annual sales.

  23. My armchair economist bet is that gunners leaving underarmour wasn’t nearly as much of a factor as brand over-saturation was. It’s gone from “Woah has underarmour must be serious” to “even my grandmother has an underarmour logo tee”.

    Besides, Underarmour started out as a sports brand, not a gunner brand. I like to believe we’re all that influential too, but I’m not thinking this is one of those times.


  24. Under Armour is still growing. It’s just not growing as fast as it was before.
    As they say on Wall Street: Trees don’t grow to the sky.
    Slowing growth is a disaster for a “growth” stock with a sky-high PE ratio (42.71 P/E).
    No one wants to wait around for the other shoe to drop.

    “The problem was North America, where sales grew 5.9% in the quarter, a far cry from its average quarterly growth of nearly 25% for the past three years. Now longtime CFO Chip Molloy is resigning, the company announced.”

    I doubt that hunters being PO’ed was responsible for all of that drop in sales.
    Still, it makes no sense to alienate any of your customers.

    The right approach would be to sell hunting and every other kind of outdoor and indoor gear,
    but not to sponsor an actual hunter who hunts, or a shooter who actually shoots.
    Too many opportunities for bad optics that will upset one side or the other.

    As Howard – “I’m going to hire 10K immigrants”- Schultz will soon find out.
    No need for virtue-signaling if you’re trying to sell coffee.

    BTW, I own some excellent older UA cotton poly polos. They were pricey but great in hot weather.
    I tried the new UA replacement ,but the cotton was gone. It was like wearing a plastic bag. So that ended my UA buying.

  25. FU UA!

    They should had stuck with the hunting couple. But they lick the yellow snow.

    I remember this when they shafted them. I was wondering went the bank book was going to say ouch.

  26. I won’t watch the Super Bowl but have heard . . . . . . Wait til you see Budweisers commercial for the Super Bowl.

  27. I stopped with under armour after that Iwo Jima basketball goal raising bullshit shirt they put out. I guess when your stock is tanking any publicity is good publicity

  28. As much as I’d like to think us hunters were big in the sales drop, fact is we were not.

    Most guys I talked to about the whole bear killing thing never heard about it and none seemed to care they dropped sponsorship of the woman . I’m active on hunting forums and there are 70 plus guys in a loose hunting co op I belong to , UA is till worn by about all.

  29. I don’t know how many times I have read from the left that hunters have no balls or something of that sort and if they really wanted to do it the right they should use a spear or bow and arrow. Here we have someone use a spear and they still throw a bitch fit.

  30. I may be missing something obvious but the massive drop in the stock price that was on April 7th 2016 when it dropped from ~$86/share to ~$41/share was caused by a stock split where they issued class C, non-voter stocks, causing share holders to own two separate types.

    The bear hunting video was around August 15th, not even a blip in the stock price. However, it would take until the next quarter earnings report to see any effect of a boycott, two sets of quarter earnings to see the full effect, see below.

    Oct 25th, UA announced that they where down 11.25% and abandoned the goal of hitting $800M operating profit by 2018, also claiming 2016 sales will be less than expected causing investors to dump the stock ($7 drop). A golden steak drying up mostly due to international footwear sales, so they claim, it might also be that they pissed off their deplorable, irredeemable, hunting customer base.

    Jan 30th 2017, CFO announces that hes “stepping down” for “personal reasons” signalling the company is in deep shit, share prices nose dive. I’m sure quarter earnings will be less than expected again, causing more people to offload stock, driving the price down more.

    The hunting community played a noteworthy part but the demise of UA is not exclusive to boycott. A combination of several factors, including, stock split, decreased earnings(likely hunting and footwear), the last nail in the coffin being the CFO jumping ship, all in short order, sent the stock price into the dirt. They may have survived if the CFO didn’t leave, but its too late for that one.

    Ten year graphs show deviation from the roller-coaster stock splits, to pretty much nose diving into the penny stocks. I suppose I’ll set aside some coin for when the liquidation sales start. HA!

  31. I think this is called “Fake News”, TTAG; misleading at best. Do some analysis before posting this kind of nonsense. UA dumping the hunter girl barely registered on their stock price. They dumped her in August, but UA shares fell by 50% in one week back in April. Also, look at UA’s 5 year stock prices. They have dipped severely in very short periods 3 separate times. Each time it recovers for a year or two, them drops drastically in a very short amount of time again. Something else crazy is going on.
    https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=under+armour+stock

    • Came back to check for any new replies…

      The other two sharp drops in the distant past are likely the same as the almost identical third. They are stock splits, basically you cut the price of your stock in half and double the number of shares for existing holders so they keep the same amount of money/ownership. The price is now lower, allowing more buyers into the market.

  32. Every week I go through the local Sportsman Warehouse and pass through the clothing area. Since that incident I’ve purchased probably a dozen or so shirts, sweaters and so forth for my wife and I. Not one garment, hat or snot rag has been Under Armor. I may be only a lowly ant but my $400 – 500 is in Columbia’s and other brands pockets. I wouldn’t set them on fire but I also wouldn’t piss on them if they were.

  33. Under Armor??? ***yawn*** their camo clothing with all of its doobilily do’s doesnt hold up to trying to cross a thick patch of mt laurel and thorns on a pa mountainside. I’ll keep my $25 walmart camo overalls and jacket.

  34. If I’m reading the chart correctly, it looks like UA’s decline began suddenly, but a couple of months BEFORE they ditched Sarah Bowmar. It was her husband Josh, who actually killed the black bear with a spear (and did it quickly and cleanly, too-more so than many an arrow or bullet has). BTW, no one seems to talk about this, but he is a Track and Field athlete, and specifically, is an Olympic class javelin thrower. I suspect anyone who hunts, and who can toss a spear that well, would inevitably wonder what it would be like to hunt with one the way our early ancestors did. I don’t see why anyone objects, as long as it is legal, and it was.

  35. Unpopular thought experiment of the day. Which is worse, sponsoring hunters and then canceling the sponsorship, or never sponsoring any hunters at all?

  36. Their stock has split five times since 2012. This article incorrectly suggests the stock has collapsed from $120 to $18 on performance alone, which is misleading.

  37. *UNDER ARMOUR 4Q NET REV. $1.31B, EST. $1.41B
    *UNDER ARMOUR 4Q EPS 23C, EST. 25C
    So only 7% miss on revenue and 8% miss on earnings?
    I love to see SJW-bullied firms go out of business, but that is hardly the case on those numbers.

  38. The time at which Under Armour started going under last year was BEFORE the bear hunt. Under Armour had diversified way too much and sacrificed product quality for market coverage. Combined with a negative cash problem this mauled them pretty well. Not to say the loss of the hunting line didn’t hurt because if you notice in November it took another severe hit which is normally the beginning of hunting season in the USA.

  39. I used to buy quite a bit of their stuff. Sneakers, sandals, t-shirts, long sleeve, light jackets, and even a hat. I’ve been boycotting them since they dropped the lady who’s husband killed a bear legally with a spear. She is her own woman not just her husbands wife. It pissed me off even if she filmed it. Why sponsor hunters just to drop them for hunting? Well New Balance picked up the slack and my cash. UA lost I’m gonna say several hundred dollars in sales since then from me.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *