In 2016 UA decided to drop one of there endorsement deals with a female hunter (Sarah Bowmar) because her husband (Josh) killed a bear with a spear while wearing UA gear. Her husband, not a UA athlete, was former competitive javelin thrower and very effective with the spear but sparked outrage. I could give a sh!t about spears, bears, or "endorsed hunters"; however, in my news feed, today came a story about the SEC investigating UA. Seems as if someone at the SEC feels like UA gave bogus sales figures for the quarters that immediately followed them dropping Mrs. Bowmar. Now so many internet outrages come and go and boycott this and that, but UA made the statement about the incident and seemingly hunting in general. Shortly after, they made the decision to completely drop the waterfowl line and several other hunting lines and fully embraced the outrage against hunting and anti-gun that seemed all the fashion at the time. Afterall, this was the post-Trump victory in 2016 so they became media darlings of the left for doing so.
So at what cost? Their stock price at the date of dropping Mrs. Bowmar was $85. The stock price one week later was $40 a drop of 58%. Hey cooler heads prevail right? I mean guns are guns but profit is profit, I am sure that it bounced back...right?!?? Not so fast, back to today's story. UA felt immediate backlash and it may seem that sales indicated the same, thus the need to cook the books. The problem is hunters not only hunt, but they also, golf, run, play tennis, and many others that do not hunt are sympathetic to "anti-gun/hunters" and make their buying decision accordingly. Instead of giving you the Paul Harvey. I will simply let this graphic, taken this morning, show the company's stock history (yes I know many things factor into stock price and companies get served by the SEC all of the time but come on...). MG
Screen Shot 2020-07-27 at 10.04.47 AM.jpg
Bookmarks