|Bid||87.15 x 900|
|Ask||87.50 x 800|
|Day's range||87.30 - 88.79|
|52-week range||66.53 - 90.00|
|Beta (3Y monthly)||1.11|
|PE ratio (TTM)||35.07|
|Earnings date||24 Sep 2019|
|Forward dividend & yield||0.88 (1.00%)|
|1y target est||93.55|
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- The California Assembly has 61 Democrats and 18 Republicans. The California Senate has 29 Democrats and 11 Republicans. As with everywhere else in the U.S., the two parties are divided on most issues, from regulating the gig economy to limiting gun purchases. But there is one issue on which both Democrats and Republicans in California are aligned: paying, at long last, college athletes.(5)On Monday, a bill that would override the “amateurism” rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association and give athletes at the major California universities the right to capitalize financially on their name, likeness and image passed the Assembly by a vote of 72-0. Then, on Wednesday, the state senate passed the Fair Pay to Play Act, which allows athletes to market themselves for things like personal sponsorships, endorsements, and video-game licensing, by a margin of 39-0. Not a single dissent! I still can’t quite believe it.There have always been a few lonely voices calling for the athletes who play college football and basketball -- the revenue sports, as they’re called -- to be paid. One such person, believe it or not, was Walter Byers, the man who ran the NCAA from 1951 to 1987. In retirement, he turned against the amateurism rules he had long enforced, describing them (correctly) as the means by which the college sports cartel avoided paying its labor force.Another was Sonny Vaccaro, who did as much as anyone to commercialize college sports; he marketed basketball sneakers for Nike, Adidas and Reebok before quitting to fight the NCAA. His beef was that it was wrong for everyone involved in college sports to be making money except the players.But until recently, those voices went largely unheard. Most people -- even ardent fans -- ignored the question of whether college athletes were being exploited. If they got angry at the NCAA it wasn’t because of its cartel-like nature, or the harshness of its bylaws. It was usually because the school they cheered for was being punished “unfairly” for violating some rule or other. (Fans always think their university is being punished unfairly.)Then, in 2009, the former UCLA basketball star, Ed O’Bannon, sued the NCAA after seeing his avatar in a video game -- and realized that the video game company was paying the NCAA for the rights to his image instead of him. Two years later, Taylor Branch wrote his ground-breaking article in The Atlantic, “The Shame of College Sports.” It included this memorable line: “The tragedy at the heart of college sports is not that some college athlete are getting paid” -- under the table, he meant -- “but that more of them are not.”The coastal elites started paying attention.I jumped in a few month later, after doing some research that convinced me that the exploitation of basketball and football players at big-time college programs was unconscionable. “Frontline” did a documentary about exploited athletes, “Money and March Madness.” Sports columnists began regularly taking the NCAA to task. The issue was rising to the surface.When the O’Bannon case went to trial in June 2014, it was widely covered in the media and the NCAA did not come off well. (Charles Pierce, writing in Grantland, described the NCAA’s arguments as “the threadbare piety in which it wraps its heedless commercialism.”) It ended with both the trial judge and the appeals court agreeing that the NCAA’s rules outlining and defining amateur athletics amounted to an antitrust violation. But sadly, the appeals court bought the NCAA’s argument that amateurism was what differentiated college sports from professional sports, so the remedies it allowed did nothing to overturn the status quo.The unanimous vote in favor of the Fair Pay to Play Act shows just how far we’ve come since then. It’s a little like marriage equality. For years, public opinion moved an inch at a time -- and then all at once, it seemed, two-thirds of the country supported it.California State Senator Nancy Skinner, the sponsor of the bill, is a perfect example of how people have come around. In November 2015, she heard the economist Andy Schwarz speak at a Rotary Club meeting in Oakland. Schwarz has been fighting the NCAA since 2004; he was one of the people who helped gin up the O’Bannon case. He can be absolutely withering about the NCAA cartel.As Skinner listened to him, she later told the New York Times:All of a sudden the light bulb went off. Rather than being the bystander going, “Gosh this is so unfair, how do these people get away with this?” I’m like, “Hey, if I’m in the Senate, can the state do something about it?”She also framed the issue in exactly the way critics like Schwarz and Vaccaro have all these years: “I don’t know of any other industry that can rely on a large set of people’s talent for which they deny them any earnings and all compensation.”The bill embraces what’s called the Olympic model. Olympic athletes aren’t paid directly for competing, but they are allowed to accept money from endorsements, sponsorships, autographs, and the like. Skinner’s bill gives athletes at the big California universities the same ability, overriding NCAA bylaws that forbid such payments. It’s not everything. Athletes who lack the star power to reap endorsement money will still be unable to capture their economic value to a university. But it’s a start.Or perhaps I should say, it might be a start. You see, assuming the bill is signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom, it won’t take effect until 2023. That would give the NCAA and the affected California universities plenty of time to sue to have it overturned.Absurdly, the NCAA says that the bill is “unconstitutional,” because it “would remove that essential element of fairness and equal treatment that forms the bedrock of college sports.” In a letter to Newsom, the NCAA also claimed that if California athletes are allowed “an unrestricted name, image and likeness scheme” it will put every other Division 1 university at a disadvantage.I’m not so sure about that. For one thing, Schwarz has co-founded the Historical Basketball League, an eight team league that will pay college-age basketball players upwards of $150,000 a year before they enter the pros. Its first year of operation will be 2020, and if it’s even mildly successful in drawing top high school players away from college basketball it will put enormous pressure on the NCAA’s amateurism model.For another thing, California is unlikely to be the only state to pass a law similar to the Fair Pay to Play Act. Earlier this year, Washington State considered similar legislation, which will likely go forward now that California has led the way. I imagine by 2023 ten or 15 states might have their own version of the law – at which point the move to give athletes their economic rights, the same rights as any other American, could turn into a stampede.Yes, the winds of change are blowing. What the California bill suggests most of all is that the days when the NCAA could hold back progress are finally coming to an end.(1) The more common term, of course, is “student athlete,” but I avoid it at all costs. It is an Orwellian phrase, devised by the NCAA in the 1950s to avoid having to pay workers’ compensation to injured football players.To contact the author of this story: Joe Nocera at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Joe Nocera is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering business. He has written business columns for Esquire, GQ and the New York Times, and is the former editorial director of Fortune. His latest project is the Bloomberg-Wondery podcast "The Shrink Next Door."For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Nike (NKE) is set to release its Q1 2020 earnings and revenue results on September 24. Is now the time to buy NKE stock amid Lululemon (LULU) & Adidas (ADDYY) competition?
Britain's biggest sportswear retailer JD Sports made light of the UK's retail sector woes on Tuesday as its gym clothing and premium-branded fashion helped it to a profit rise that propelled its shares to the top of the FTSE leaderboard. JD has successfully targeted younger consumers who are driving the trend for so-called athleisure as sports clothing becomes more acceptable in all walks of life. "Against a backdrop of widely reported retail challenges in the UK, it is extremely encouraging that JD has delivered like-for-like sales growth of more than 10%," said Executive Chairman Peter Cowgill.
Breaking down Lululemon's (LULU) Q2 2019 financial results that wowed Wall Street last week. And why Lulu stock looks like a buy as it expands its digital, international, and menswear businesses to further challenge Nike (NKE) - Full-Court Finance.
Today we're going to take a look at the well-established NIKE, Inc. (NYSE:NKE). The company's stock saw a decent share...
(Bloomberg) -- Apple Inc. and manufacturing partner Foxconn violated a Chinese labor rule by using too many temporary staff in the world’s largest iPhone factory, the companies confirmed following a report that also alleged harsh working conditions.The claims came from China Labor Watch, which issued the report ahead of an Apple event on Tuesday to announce new iPhones. The non-profit advocacy group investigates conditions in Chinese factories, and says it has uncovered other alleged labor rights violations by Apple partners in the past.For its latest report, CLW said undercover investigators worked in Foxconn’s Zhengzhou plant in China, including one who was employed there for four years. One of the main findings: Temporary staff, known as dispatch workers, made up about 50% the workforce in August. Chinese labor law stipulates a maximum of 10%, CLW noted.Apple said that, after conducting an investigation, it found the “percentage of dispatch workers exceeded our standards” and that it is “working closely with Foxconn to resolve this issue.” It added that when it finds issues, it works with suppliers to “take immediate corrective action.” Foxconn Technology Group also confirmed the dispatch worker violation following an operational review.Apple’s supply chain has faced criticism over poor labor standards for years, and the company has pushed manufacturing partners to improve factory conditions or risk losing business. However, suppliers and assemblers are always trying to churn out more handsets. Foxconn, officially known as Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., hires tens of thousands of temporary workers to ramp up production and meet iPhone demand during the key holiday season each year.“Our recent findings on working conditions at Zhengzhou Foxconn highlights several issues which are in violation of Apple’s own code of conduct,” CLW wrote in its report. “Apple has the responsibility and capacity to make fundamental improvements to the working conditions along its supply chain, however, Apple is now transferring costs from the trade war through their suppliers to workers and profiting from the exploitation of Chinese workers.”CLW was founded in 2000 as a 501(c)(3) organization to investigate Chinese factories that make toys, shoes, electronics and other products for some of the world’s largest multinational companies. It has an office in New York City and one in Shenzhen that offers a hotline for factory workers in China, according to its website.While its report said 55% of factory staff were dispatch workers in 2018, and about 50% in August, this included student interns. Because many of these students returned to school at the end of August, that number is now closer to 30%, which is still a violation, according to CLW.“We believe everyone in our supply chain should be treated with dignity and respect,” Apple also said in a statement. “To make sure our high standards are being adhered to, we have robust management systems in place beginning with training on workplace rights, on-site worker interviews, anonymous grievance channels and ongoing audits.”Foxconn said it found “evidence that the use of dispatch workers and the number of hours of overtime work carried out by employees, which we have confirmed was always voluntary, was not consistent with company guidelines.”It added that its “work to address the issues identified in our Zhengzhou facility continues and we will closely monitor the situation. We will not hesitate to take any additional steps that might be required to meet the high standards we set for our operations.”Apple releases an annual supplier responsibility report that details working conditions in its supply chain. In its latest report, Apple said it conducted 44,000 interviews with supplier employees last year to check if they were properly trained and knew how to voice concerns, while taking new steps to prevent forced labor.In late 2017, Apple found Foxconn had employed high school students who worked illegal overtime to assemble the iPhone X. Apple sent specialists to the facility to work with management on systems that ensured appropriate standards were followed.Foxconn is the largest of a coterie of gadget assemblers that produce most of the world’s consumer electronics from sprawling Chinese bases. Typically operating on wafer-thin margins, they employ millions of mostly migrant and temporary workers because activity tends to wax and wane with shopping seasons and fluctuations in demand.Dispatch workers don’t receive benefits that full-time employees get, such as paid sick leave, paid vacations and social insurance, which provides medical, unemployment and pension coverage, according to CLW. While base wages can be higher for dispatch workers, they are paid by third-party firms on a short-term basis and are not employed directly by Foxconn, CLW says. Dispatch workers can become official factory workers after an initial three-month period, according to the group’s report.Last month, Foxconn said it fired two executives at one of its Chinese plants after another CLW investigation found the company was relying heavily on temporary workers and teenage interns to assemble Amazon.com Inc. Echo speakers. Foxconn reviewed the Hengyang facility and found the proportion of contract workers and student interns had on occasion exceeded legal thresholds, and that some interns had been allowed to work overtime or nights.The group, which also monitors conditions in myriad industries from apparel to retail, has run reports in the past on suppliers to the likes of Nike Inc. and Adidas AG and, recently, probed a factory that manufactured Ivanka Trump-branded shoes.Apple and Foxconn seek to produce about 12,000 iPhones per shift at the Zhengzhou factory, CLW’s latest report found. Last year’s iPhone XS models were more complex to build than the iPhone X, requiring more workers, the group also said.According to emails seen by Bloomberg, Apple told CLW in August that it was looking into the findings and had questions about the report. The company sent an investigator to the factory and met with Foxconn officials to discuss the heavy use of dispatch workers, but Apple and Foxconn are still allowing the activity despite violating the 10% standard, CLW said.The CLW report also detailed other findings, such as:During peak production periods, resignations are not approved.Some dispatch workers have not received promised bonuses.Student workers do overtime during peak production season, even though regulations on student internships prohibit this.Some workers put in at least 100 overtime hours each month, during busy production periods. Chinese labor law limits monthly overtime to 36 hours.Workers must get approval to not do overtime. If requests are denied and staff still choose not to work overtime, they are admonished by managers and miss out on future overtime opportunities.Workers sometimes have to stay at the factory for unpaid meetings at night.The factory doesn’t provide adequate protective equipment for staff.Work injuries are not reported by the factory, and verbal abuse is common there.While overtime is allegedly often required, most workers want to work overtime to make more money, according to an anonymous diary written by a CLW investigator in the factory.“We looked into the claims by China Labor Watch and most of the allegations are false,” Apple said. “We have confirmed all workers are being compensated appropriately, including any overtime wages and bonuses, all overtime work was voluntary and there was no evidence of forced labor.”Apple added that less than 1% of workers were student workers, and that a small percentage of them voluntarily worked overtime or night shifts. Apple and Foxconn both said this issue has been corrected.Most factory workers are paid about 4,000 yuan ($562) a month, one CLW investigator found. After taxes and mandatory fees, they get roughly 3,000 yuan a month, according to the CLW report.China’s per capita disposable income was 28,228 yuan in 2018, or 2,352 yuan a month, China Daily reported earlier this year, citing government data.(Updates with detail on the group from the 7th paragraph)\--With assistance from Debby Wu.To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Gurman in San Francisco at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tom Giles at email@example.com, Alistair Barr, Edwin ChanFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Shares of RH (RH), formally known as Restoration Hardware, have soared 65% over the past three months heading into the release of its second-quarter 2019 financial results on Tuesday, September 10...
Today we've highlighted 3 stocks trading under $10 a share that fall into the broader "technology" sector that investors might want to buy in September...
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- A year ago this week, Nike Inc. inserted itself into a smoldering cultural and political controversy: It unveiled an advertising campaign celebrating Colin Kaepernick, the former NFL player who had protested police treatment of African-Americans by kneeling during the national anthem.Almost immediately, there were social media rumblings about a Nike boycott and chatter about whether the ad was a mistake. President Donald Trump said at the time that the athletic apparel giant sent “a terrible message” with the ad, prompting speculation about the potential for a shopper backlash.Now the impassioned rhetoric and outraged hashtags are all but forgotten. With the benefit of hindsight, it’s clear that the ad campaign — or the uproar that followed — hasn’t hurt Nike at all.Nike remains an extremely popular brand. In UBS’s latest annual survey of U.S. consumers about athletic brands, Nike received the highest “net promoter score,” a common industry metric meant to capture how likely shoppers are to recommend a brand to a friend. UBS’s survey also found that shoppers’ perceptions of Nike have largely improved or remained unchanged since last year’s survey, which was conducted prior to the Kaepernick controversy.Another investment bank research report shows enthusiasm for Nike footwear. A Stifel report from August analyzed feedback from more than 100 sneaker retailers about what was in demand during the crucial back-to-school shopping season. Nike was the most popular style in 81% of those store checks, up from 67% during the back-to-school rush last year.It’s no wonder, then, that Nike’s North America sales growth has been solid since the Kaepernick ad. In fact, this division looked much healthier in the fiscal year ended May 31 than it did the year before.And what about investors? They have stuck by the company, too. Shares are up nearly 8% since the last trading day before the Kaepernick ad was revealed. Nike’s shares generally have moved with the broader S&P 500 Index in the past year — suggesting that when they did retreat, it was more a reflection of larger market or economic concerns.Finally, it’s worth noting that in the week after the debut of the ad, none of the analysts tracked by Bloomberg downgraded the stock. Today, the company has more buy ratings than it did a year ago. It is in good shape.Nike’s experience shows that it is plenty possible for a corporation to take a stand on a politically sensitive issue and not get burned — so long as the foray is well-executed and feels authentic to its longstanding image.It’s a lesson worth keeping in mind this week as Walmart Inc. undertakes new efforts to curtail sales of ammunition following a mass shooting at one of its big-box stores. Of course, these are not perfect parallels. It’s difficult to measure, but it is possible that Nike remained unscathed in part because it took a stand that was broadly popular with people who already like Nike. Given Walmart’s deep roots in rural America, it may find its new gun policies are not easily embraced by some of its core customers.Still, both retail giants are beloved by millions and enjoy decades of accumulated goodwill and shopper trust. In Walmart’s case, it is often the most conveniently located and best-priced store in town. Walmart can count on those attributes to overcome any qualms among shoppers about its politics. To contact the author of this story: Sarah Halzack at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Newman at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Sarah Halzack is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering the consumer and retail industries. She was previously a national retail reporter for the Washington Post.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
The U.S. and China agree to restart talks. The Fed's next round of rate cuts. Slack's (WORK) disappointing earnings. What to expect from Lululemon's (LULU) Q2 results. And why Fiserv, Inc. (FISV) is a Zacks Rank 1 (Strong Buy) stock right now - Free Lunch
Though earnings season is over, investors will be paying close attention to athleisure giant Lululemon when it releases quarterly results after the market close Thursday.
Lululemon is a groundbreaking fashion innovator that is going to continue to grow with the athleisure revolution but is it a good buy? Thursday evening's report should validate or reject LULU's high valuation.
Welcome to the latest episode of the Full-Court Finance podcast where Associate Stock Strategist Ben Rains dives into everything investors need to know about Lululemon (LULU) stock before the company reports its Q2 earnings results on Thursday...
Self-tying shoes may have arrived a few years later than Back To The Future predicted, but could Marty McFly control his pair with his voice? Nike has developed a so-called FitAdapt lacing system that uses a motor to tighten or loosen its trainers, and the newest pair to sport the tech - the Adapt Huaraches - can be untied using Siri. Users can tell the voice assistant to "release my shoes" via the Nike Adapt app on their iPhone or Apple Watch, and the software can also change the colour of LED lights on the bottom of the shoes.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Wall Street was a very conservative place politically when I started working in the capital markets in 1999, but it seems to have lurched to the left lately. It’s not only that many of the people who work there have become more liberal, but more importantly, left-leaning behavior by publicly traded companies is being rewarded by the stock market.The decision by the Business Roundtable, which is an organization led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon, to explicitly state that the purpose of a publicly traded company is social responsibility and not creating value for shareholders is just the latest example of this lurch to the left. For decades, most public companies have chosen to remain politically neutral. That remained the case even after the Citizens United Supreme Court decision on campaign finance in 2010 that held that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations. Most expected the Citizens United decision to result in conservative political speech, but it has been quite the opposite. Ben and Jerry’s, a unit of Unilever Plc, recently launched a flavor of ice cream designed specifically to support Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.Nike Inc.’s shares are up about 36% since the start of 2018, compared with 9.20% for the S&P 500 Index, despite backlash from some conservative outlets for signing controversial former National Football League quarterback Colin Kaepernick to a marketing deal and then bowing to pressure from the left and pulling its special edition sneakers featuring the “Betsy Ross Flag” that some feel was a symbol of racism. I was recently in a Nike outlet store here in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and it was packed with a checkout line 30 people deep in the middle of summer.The technology sector leans to the left, led by Google’s parent company Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., whose Chief Executive Officer Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. Many consumers may complain about the liberal orientation of these companies, but there is not a lot they can do to avoid them. Sure, share prices of tech firms have stalled lately, but that’s more likely due to the threat of antitrust action than a reflection of their political orientation.The list of companies who have engaged in left-leaning speech, marketing or protest is getting long. The list of actions include pulling advertising from various Fox News programs, supporting the Women’s March, pulling products related to President Donald Trump from stores and banks dropping business with the certain gun makers. There have been few consequences, and no serious boycotts of these companies by conservatives, or at least none have been effective. Conservative media outlets had some fun with Procter & Gamble Co.’s $8 billion charge for Gillette, attributing it to backlash from an ad campaign asking men to “do better.” But the razor business has been bad for a while, with competitive threats coming from all sides. And more men are growing beards these days, so one is probably not related to the other.Corporate America may have declared a political orientation for strategic reasons. Companies today have more data and information than ever on their customers. What works for Nike may not work for Bass Pro Shops.Then there’s the waterfall of money that is earmarked for environment, social and governance, or ESG, investing strategies. It is the only form of active management that seems to be gathering assets even with a mixed track record when it comes to returns. The idea here is that companies engaging in socially responsible behavior should be rewarded by the stock market, but that isn’t always true. Indexing is widely considered to be a left-wing philosophy, the idea that you would invest in all companies equally, instead of trying to pick the best stocks. It has even famously been called worse than Marxism by Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. As everyone knows, index fund assets have been growing at an astronomical pace. By some estimates, passive strategies now make up 40% to 50% of all assets under management, and it shows no signs of slowing down. Even actively managed funds with great performance are losing assets.We’ve come a long way from suspender-snapping, bull and bear cufflinks and “lunch is for wimps.” Back then, the idea that you would invest your money and not seek the highest return would have seemed odd.I assume that decisions to engage in political speech are carefully considered by managements, but I still find it disconcerting. I’m from a generation that grew up believing the job of a public company was to “make money,” not “do good.” When they both align, then great, but what hasn’t changed is that people still like to see the value of their investments go up every year.To contact the author of this story: Jared Dillian at firstname.lastname@example.orgTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Robert Burgess at email@example.comThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Jared Dillian is the editor and publisher of The Daily Dirtnap, investment strategist at Mauldin Economics, and the author of "Street Freak" and "All the Evil of This World." He may have a stake in the areas he writes about.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.
Ever since they went from Back to the Future fantasy to real-world wearabletech, Nike has promised that the Adapt line was more than just a one-offgimmick