Originally Posted by
zaGaffer
Ah yes, the Ponzi scheme that are all publicly traded companies. If you have a company 401K and just press play on whatever they recommend, you might already indirectly own some Nike stock. Along with all of the moral hazards that owning it entails. The problem is, any publicly traded company has an obligation to its shareholders to provide a return on investment (ROI); by one of two means A) paying a dividend or B) increasing the price of each individual share. Companies that pay a dividend are great, who cares If the price per share ever goes up (I do), I make money just by owning the stock (I’ll want to sell it eventually). Companies that don’t pay a dividend are different. They need to increase the share price so that investors can justify owning it by having a nice ROI and thereby making it more attractive to other investors. How do companies do this? By having growth quarter over quarter. What is growth? Well, growth is making more money. Here’s the problem with that. Say you’re the largest sportswear company in the world, you’ve dominated the market for 30 years and on May 30,2010 you posted 1.9 billion in profit, May 30, 2011 you posted 2.1 billion in profit and in May 30,2012 you posted 2.2, well next year you have to do even better. Otherwise, people sell your stock. When you’re at the top, generating exponential growth just gets more and more difficult and you have to come up with more and more ways to do it. The year-over-year growth you generate becomes a smaller and smaller percentage compared to the growth you had in previous years. You’re still making money hand over fist, but that little growth number, gets smaller and smaller and smaller and the company becomes less attractive to big investors because the potential for its stock price to increase is diminished. DELL is a perfect example of this and of what happens next. The company must look in other directions for new revenue streams so that they can generate more income and so they diversify into other industries besides their core business sector. When Nike started, they sold tennis shoes for runners and that was it. There’s only one rule, if you’re a publicly traded company; you gotta grow every quarter, every year, forever. Which is fine, but on a long enough time line, every growth curve must flatten out. That’s the Ponzi scheme that I alluded to; but hey, it’s the only game in town, so why not play it? All that being said, I’d never looked at Nike. Holy cr@p, this company is gangbusters, 15B in assets, 5B in liabilities, a .015 div, and a reasonable P/E. Of course, Nike does have a sh!1 rep, one of the reasons I’ve never looked at them as an investment. They employ children in sweat shops, manufacture all of their goods over-seas and for being so expensive, the stuff they sell is poorly made, from cheap materials and doesn’t last. The quality sucks for someone trying to get longevity out of their gear. I personally think one of the reasons Patagonia is such a good company is because it is privately held by its founders. It’s not beholden to a board or shareholders. Same with In-N-Out. Quality is everything. I wouldn’t buy any of Nike’s crap.
I don’t own any Nike stock, nor am I recommending anyone else do the same and anybody who ever took financial advice from me would be in a world of financial hurt as my two main financial advisors are the Mogambo Guru and the Cardiff Kook.