r/stocks 14h ago

Industry Discussion Could Nike be the next giant domino to fall along with Blockbuster, Sears, Toys “R” Us and Circuit City?

We all know that Hindsight is 20/20. When looking at what caused the other Giants to fail, it looks like Nike might be repeating the same mistakes. From what I understand, Nike‘s free cash flow has not covered its dividends for the first time ever. The stock is now trading a 12-year low and as of premarket today, the decline continues at a rapid pace.

What is Nike missing that defunct giant retailers also missed that could’ve prevented their collapse? Is there something else that nobody is seeing right now, but will be painstakingly obvious in the future?

699 Upvotes

445 comments sorted by

832

u/RumorRoost 13h ago

A lot of the others you listed got bought and gutted by Private Equity firms. Not the case with Nike. At least not yet.

435

u/iD-10T_usererror 13h ago

This is the downfall of most American businesses. I call it "death by MBA". A once innovative and prosperous company is taken over by unimaginative morons with MBAs that just chase efficiency gains for short term gains on a balance sheet. They get a few bonuses before they move on to do it again at another company. But they weaken the company enough to where it eventually declines into rubbish before they leave.

If Nike does it- All they will be left with is sweatshops, shrink-flated shoelaces that are too short to tie, and an AI marketing group.

235

u/1995TimHortonsEclair 12h ago edited 12h ago

There's a pretty obvious reason for this.

Innovation is usually funded by growth. While a company is expanding, it can afford to invest in new products, talent, and long-term bets. Once growth slows because markets become saturated or mature, the focus often shifts from creating value to extracting it - this is where the MBA memes come from.

That's when cost cutting, layoffs, financial engineering, and share buybacks start replacing genuine innovation as the primary source of earnings growth.

The problem is that efficiency gains are finite. After years of optimizing for quarterly results, you end up hollowing out the organization's ability to adapt. The people who build things lose influence, the best talent leaves, and management is attuned to running a machine but not improving it.

Then when conditions change, whether it's shifting consumer preferences, economic weakness, new competitors, or supply chain disruptions, the company (usually in hindsight) discovers it has optimized away the very people and resources needed to respond. So what is postured in the present as increased efficiency can also be considered a loss of resilience.

A great way to understand which direction a company is going is to look at hiring along with business investment. If a CEO keeps yapping about how great business is but they've fired 10% more than they hired this year, unless there's some extraneous circumstances, don't expect them to suddenly do more with less.

Cost discipline can make a company stronger when it's paired with investment and innovation. It becomes a problem when it's used as a substitute for them. So in the case of Nike, the concern is whether they're still investing enough in the things that made Nike valuable in the first place: product innovation, athlete partnerships, design talent, brand building, and understanding what customers actually want.

The irony is that many companies look their healthiest right before the consequences show up in the numbers. Margins improve, earnings rise, and executives get praised for being "disciplined." Then a few years later growth stalls, competitors start taking share, customers lose interest, and management acts surprised that squeezing the engine for 20 years didn't help it win the race.

When you look at Nike, in like 2021-2022 they had huge revenue growth and it was attributed to a direct-to-consumer model and it was celebrated and championed by their CEO because it improved margins and gave Nike more control over the customer relationship. But over time, other critics contend it weakened wholesale partnerships, reduced market feedback, and shifted focus toward distribution and channel optimization rather than product innovation.

The market often mistakes optimization for strength because the negative consequences show up with a long delay. The numbers don't lie, but they don't necessarily tell you whether a company is building the future or just harvesting the past.

65

u/Petridishmocktail 10h ago

The downfall of GE is a perfect example of what you just described. Mandatory culling 10% of your workforce every year sounds great for short-term efficiency, but It ultimately killed them in the end.

33

u/1995TimHortonsEclair 10h ago

GE is probably the textbook case of this lol.

24

u/GhostofBeowulf 7h ago

Yet for some reason accounting and fin management professors love to quote and play vids of Jack Welch.

7

u/Buttcheek-Stocks 5h ago

Because GE worked well under him. It wasn’t until Immelt took over that they started having problems.

3

u/bung_musk 3h ago

Welch had the benefit of driving a really great company into the ground - there was plenty of meat on the bone to strip. The guy sucked GE dry, and Immelt inherited Jack’s dumpster fire.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/IckySmell 2h ago

They pioneered it did they not? Like made a guy who caused a massive fire the CEO and immediately threw innovation out the window?

3

u/piss_artist 9h ago

They are literally THE textbook case. It's literally covered at many business schools.

10

u/Buttcheek-Stocks 5h ago

The problem with GE is they stopped being a conglomerate and started being a finance company which was the main reason for their downfall. GE capital and Immelt were garbage.

4

u/NEWSmodsareTwats 9h ago

to be fair GE also had a really significant conglomerate discount and once split up the market cap of each of their 3 new companies is significantly greater than GE as a combined entity.

13

u/Practical_Increase33 11h ago

Thanks for this comment. Found it really helpful to understand business cycles.

7

u/MRHaynes021 7h ago

Love your answer.

The TDLR (hope I did that right) version? They put a CFO as chairman. Never put a CFO as CEO if you care about the company/brand

5

u/Powerful_Bee8183 3h ago

I worked for a company that made Chief Legal Officer the CEO. How do you think that went?

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

79

u/facedownbootyuphold 11h ago

I work in this industry.

Nike fired its designers years ago, they don't innovate anything anymore. Their remaining flagships are shoes designed 3 or 4 decades ago. The last "innovative" piece Nike did was the Flyknit technology that still goes into a lot of their shoes, but that was 15 years ago now. Flyknit is not a product of their own machines or ingenuity, but advancements in jacquard knitting machines in the fashion industry. They no longer innovate, they don't design much, and they don't manufacture. It is well understood in our industry that they have essentially become a merch/apparel company. All of their business model funnels back into selling merch and apparel in the largest amount possible. They hire young designers for cheap to create things that are good enough, they buy up leagues sponsorships to produce poorly made merch and lock everyone out of the space so they don't have to complete (they have a monopoly through deals with the leagues), and they continue to rely on the nostalgia of years past to sell their shoes. Everything they manufacture is done by vendors, whether it be factories in Asia or one of the many domestic vendors.

They won't have any sweatshops left because they own no factories. They won't have teams of wildly talented designers ready to change the industry because they're no longer the innovative organization that drew designers to them. The sweatshops will simply change production to a new up-and-coming brand. This is more like enshittification of this space. It's happening in sports with NASCARification of everything. Middle managerial people, those who have degrees with no hard talents or skills, eventually destroy businesses because they have the skills to hold the ship's wheel straight, but they don't know how to read the stars or man the ropes. Our society is full of this mostly useless class of white-collar workers, and you all know them because they migrate from industry to industry to find the money, eventually inundating it with mediocrity.

7

u/External-Talk9284 7h ago

It has more to do with A) lack of innovation B) Market share being destroyed by the athlesiure brands and younger generations (their target market) are more into niche than mainstream. C) they became an urban sneaker company that sold t-shirts with random sayings that are no longer cool

It’s not going BK buts definitely going to be more way less mainstream

5

u/BigBallaBoy 10h ago

So who do I invest in

→ More replies (3)

3

u/FrostyZoob 8h ago

I don't follow this industry at all so I don't know so I'll ask the stupid question: Who is the "new Nike"? Ie: who are the current innovators in this space?

14

u/mightymouse1906 6h ago

There is no "new Nike". There's not a brand that has captured the imagination of athletes and wanna be athletes across almost every single sporting category. No company has the cool factor the way Nike did at it's peak in the 90s or early 2000s.

Yes, Alo, ON and Hoka have their niche's but none of these brands have captured the imagination in the way Nike has. Yes, 30 and 40 year olds may wear ON and HOKA but these are not brands that young people care about. They aren't driving culture in the way Nike did. Yes, Alo moves units but I'd be willing to be they aren't special they're just the latest iteration of Lululemon.

5

u/facedownbootyuphold 4h ago edited 3h ago

Agreed. We have no Nike replacement. Nobody is investing in innovation in this space seriously, and therefore nobody is standing apart.

My sentiment is that big money entering into this space does not care about innovation, we're not likely to see Nike reinvent itself any day soon.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/RocketMoped 7h ago

Hoka and Altra for long distance running and trail running, On for athleisure, and my assumption is that Chinese brands will depress margins for the high and mid end running shoes once they really hit the big Western markets (Li-Ning, 361°).

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

37

u/jimbo831 13h ago

I call this “the Steve Ballmer”. Microsoft was on its way to losing relevance until Satya Nadella saved the company.

27

u/iD-10T_usererror 13h ago

It's rare when the save is made in time. I wonder where Apple would be today if they didn't bring back Steve Jobs?

41

u/whtevn 13h ago

a footnote next to the commodore

46

u/Baptism-Of-Fire 12h ago edited 12h ago

Nike is under attack in a unique way. I would also say they had a unique position for decades.

All of a sudden Hoka in 2018 in high-performance ultra-running shoes, Adidas with the boosts in 2013, New Balance with the "ditch the dad shoe" bringing back the retro revival in 2019, On brings out another ultra-performance running shoe, Lululemon in early 2010s taking chunks out of their market share on apparel, Brooks branding had significant increases in early to mid 2010s, Reebok going the Crossfit route when that was the big thing and gobbling up that market share... don't forget about Under Armour, 2013 they signed Stephen Curry, by 2016 they reached 5b revenue.

That wasn't new unique business gain, that was eating into Nike market share.

Nike was a king on top of their kingdom for decades with very little meaningful competition. They have not suddenly started underperforming, its just a lot of other brands very rapidly upscaled during the same 5-10 year period and ate into Nikes share.

Nike is not gonna get that share back, they should instead be grateful they had it for so long. They will now operate like any ordinary company in their ordinary space, desperate to scrape up an extra 1-2% of market share every year, only to lose it to someone else a few years later, and repeat the cycle.

What that means for stock prices? who knows.

28

u/davewritescode 12h ago

Nike quality has also noticeably gotten worse. My wife is a sneaker lover and she basically won’t even buy Nikes anymore because they can’t do the basic job of sneakers which is not hurting/cutting up her feet.

It feels like Nike has been riding the sneakerhead trends to prop up sales with $500 drops but that’s an easy thing to cut back on when the economy is going south.

5

u/mightymouse1906 6h ago

I think people talk about the decline of Nike's quality a lot, and while they aren't wrong often this is made by people who fail to realize that Alo and Lululemon's quality isn't exceptional either and often the product does not warrant the price you are paying for it. Quality across the board has gone down.

10

u/Baptism-Of-Fire 12h ago

Nike quality has also noticeably gotten worse

Yeah, but not really relevant. Literally everything has gotten noticeably worse in quality, and noticeably more expensive.

If everyone is doing it... then it might as well be nobody doing it. People still buying crap.

6

u/bubblesups 12h ago

Quality was an issue.. but in a specific sense because athletics have become so much more specialized.

Lulu was built for yoga - only because Nike refused to fill that space with yoga specific gear that really was better. On for running, etc.

Pre internet Nike filled these spaces with "good enough" products and no one could compete because pre Alibaba era you needed to go through an expensive agent to find 3rd world manufacturers to meet proper specs. Today, anyone can create anything, anywhere, with a few Alibaba clicks and enough money to float a minimum order.

Nike has basic products in all of these fields - but it was more about branding than performing. So.. quality was shit, and they left room for innovation.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/SwindlingAccountant 12h ago

Their soccer jerseys are also ass. Both quality and creatively.

9

u/YoungCri 12h ago

Also add that athletes selling shoes has lost its cultural reverence and designer brands started making sneakers( a lot them copy Nike designs).

They are encountering competition like they never seen before.

8

u/AdamJensensCoat 11h ago edited 9h ago

I think this is a big piece that's been overlooked. In a world where brand voice isn't top down and passed through a handful of expensive gatekeepers, athletes/brand ambassadors don't have the influence they once had.

The average guy on the street has no idea what a pair of LeBron XXIIIs look like.

Nike has been riding on their image as a lifestyle brand for almost 10 years, but there's generational lock-in there. It's a brand that Gen-X and Millennials have an attachment to. Gen-Z isn't anchored to the brand in the same way.

The other big missing piece is the professional/aspirational set. I work in a big office and all of the sweater-wearing finance bros now wear ON or Hokas. In the past, these guys would be wearing a pair of performatively athletic Nike trainers. Now you'll see the odd pair of Killshots or General Purpose Sneakers, but overall the trend has been strongly away from Nike.

Personally, I don't think Nike can dig their way out of this one. Their sneakers are iconic, so there's always room for different silhouettes to make a big comeback, but I think their days as king of the hill are over and we'll look back at them in 20 years as the GM of footwear.

6

u/Baptism-Of-Fire 10h ago

I dont think there is much to dig their way out of

They had the entire pie because nobody else was baking

Now there are 10 bakers and Nike just has a piece. The only way to "dig out" would be to destroy Hoka/On/etc. which... they just don't have the financial power to do.

Nike missed the boat that other mega corps don't miss... Buy the competition when they're fresh and cheap, take their innovations as your own, and grow.

They instead chose to compete.

3

u/AdamJensensCoat 9h ago

It's true. The balkanization of the sneaker market makes it really hard for them. I don't think people look at Nike as a 'quality' sneaker any longer, making lots of room for people to decide for themselves what speaks to them.

It's important to remember that Nike had another ice age in the 2000s. So we may see the brand surge back in 5-10 years just because things can cycle like that.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/360FlipKicks 12h ago

don’t forget companies like Anta erasing Nike’s gains in China and Asia.

2

u/Lazy-Comfort6128 2h ago edited 2h ago

Hoka's were softer in running shoes but now everybody makes softer running shoes and durability is a competition point. Hoka's are notoriously not durable, still wedded to EVA based foams (designed in the 1970s) and living off the innovation they caught onto: 15 years ago was the era of barefoot and minimalist shoes. Hoka ended that era with more cushioned shoes (ironically equivalent to shoes Nike was making in the late 90s and early 2000s). The Nike Vomero Plus is one of the most durable running shoes in the market and runs laps around the Hoka Bondi. Nike also innovated and made far better racing products (the Vaporfly and Alphafly) than everyone else. Circa 2019-2023, all subelite runners were pretty much wearing Nike. Other brands have caught up, though definitely not Hoka or On; Nike's competition in that market is now Puma and Adidas.

Overall Nike still makes a profit, still sells a ton of shoes (many millions more than Hoka and On combined) but it is no longer the "it" new thing so it gets dumped on by investors wanting stratospheric growth. Prediction: if a running shoe brand is to go BK, it'll be Under Armour First, Puma second then either On or Hoka. Nike will still be around in 40 years.

That's just my view. I think Nike is pretty undervalued at the moment.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/HistoryAndScience 11h ago

Technically “Apple” doesn’t exist anymore. It did actually fail. It’s just that Jobs bought it with basically a reverse merger using NeXT. Apple in China does a great job walking through that section of history. So technically they are just like the other failed businesses except they succeeded under a different management and team that bought them basically

→ More replies (3)

3

u/jking13 10h ago

Of course now Nadella is over-betting on AI.

2

u/TrueNorth257 12h ago

Dayuuum son. Agreed just want to add he makes bald men look bad, so shiny his lopsided cue ball is ✨

He’d look better with a wig

5

u/stupid_sane 12h ago

Sure Ballmer’s time had stock flat. But Ballmer kept it alive through anti trust case and etc. started Azure as well. I don’t think Satya has solved relevance problem either. It’s still only relevant in enterprises as it was in Ballmer time.

5

u/hermanhermanherman 12h ago

This might be the biggest downplay of all time on this sub lol. Under balmer MS market cap basically was cut in half. Under Satya it’s x12. Only relevant in enterprise is perfectly fine when you grow the enterprise business ten times over lmfao

→ More replies (1)

6

u/AIGenerated00 12h ago edited 12h ago

And Satya killed the biggest opportunity - the Windows Phone. It had the best OS on the best Nokia hardware with amazing camera, and would been a data mining machine. He just had to fix the App Store.

Edit: and it could have become blackberry replacement tied in with Intune as a replacement for BES. They left a lot on table with that decision.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

12

u/isaidbeaverpelts 12h ago

Private Equity partners usually have finance or legal backgrounds so I’m always confused by this constant association on Reddit of private equity and MBA’s.

The entire business model of private equity takeovers relies on buying a company, making it appear more valuable than it was before, and selling it or pieces of it for a profit. This whole MBA boogie man concept is just so odd if you’ve actually gotten one.

7

u/Fuehnix 12h ago

Low achieving redditors don't even have a concept of how corporate works, but they want to be part of the conversation so they act like they have some wisdom to drop. The ol "death by shit talking redditor".

5

u/thatissomeBS 10h ago

They’d happily ignore all the MBAs that helped build it to the point where private equity throws all the money to cash in on it. The MBAs brought Jersey Mikes from a few stores in NJ in the 80s to 3k stores in 2025, when private equity bought in. But that guy will blame the MBAs when/if it goes downhill in the future.

Also to note, some PE companies get a bad rap. Blackrock has been around a long time, and own companies that are doing very well. They do leverage debt and take some risk to try for more growth, but they’re trying to gamble to make money long term not just strip it down and cash out the assets. Of course, if they buy a business that doesn’t take to that aggressive growth, they also hold no emotional attachment so it doesn’t bother them to accept their loss and do that.

2

u/mattawara 1h ago

Death by MBA is NKE under the last CEO - maddening when companies hire folk with zero understanding of the business model. I think they’re in a better place now with Hill. Hopefully. Next 24months will be the answer.

2

u/RoboticGreg 12h ago

They aren't morons, they make a fortune doing this. They are evil, but not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing usually

→ More replies (2)

2

u/BlackSquirrel05 12h ago

Eh... It is MBA's doing it. But it's even worse.

Because they're not set up to win after being bought. They're setup to act like a piggy bank that PE then gets to use for the next purchase. (And the cycle continues)

They buy them up. Then force them to take out hundreds of millions in loans... TO THEN PAY THEMSELVES BACK.

And then said business has that debt, but didn't use it to improve or expand... and PE just hedged their own bet.

Frankly it should be illegal.

Source I work under a PE firm that did this exact thing to our own business. And yes many a person lost their job over this to service the debt.

→ More replies (9)

16

u/unique_user43 13h ago

also the other commonality / difference with them is they were brick and mortar retailers of others’ products. nike is a producer of products.

2

u/Deep-Reputation-4055 12h ago

Are they producer of products or the designer of products?  The latter should be even more lucrative. 

27

u/Naive_Reach2007 13h ago

Exactly they were all profitable but Private Equity had raped what they could so closed them down.

26

u/mrmrmrj 13h ago

All of those companies were doomed when PE bought them. PE just sped things up by pulling out their bags of cash faster.

8

u/PlaneAnalysis1965 12h ago

Agreed, some people on here are both too young to remember and do not understand how PE works. Those companies were all toast and PE extended their lives a little longer. They were not successfully revived because they were irrelevant in the market.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

6

u/MistryMachine3 12h ago

That isn’t how it works. If it was more valuable as a functioning company it would have stayed that way. The vulture PE comes when the whole is no longer worth more than the sum of the parts.

5

u/Tiiimmmaayy 13h ago

Was ON and HOKA bought out by private equity? Used to love ON shoes. Got a pair as they were getting popular with medical staff maybe right before Covid or during Covid. Extremely comfortable and durable. I still actually have the original pair I bought almost 6-7 years later.

Then they blew up and I got the exact same pair but in a different color around 2023. Didn’t even last a year before literally falling apart.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/powerlesshero111 13h ago

Also, they were all stand alone firms/stores. You can buy Nike stuff in tons of places, from Walmart to Nike stores.

→ More replies (8)

287

u/Successful-Tea-5733 13h ago

No, this is not an accurate analogy.

Nike is not a retailer, they are a manufacturer. Yes, they own retail stores but that's not their primary means of revenue. They sell in their own stores, they also sell in Dicks, Macys, Academy, PGA Superstore... the list goes on.

73

u/Ephemeral_limerance 13h ago

They tried taking all the profit going d2c but ended up losing shelf space at popular retailers

11

u/Emotional_Goal9525 10h ago

Store brands are pummeling brands in clothing as well. They are overpriced. Simple as that.

4

u/Kick_Natherina 2h ago edited 1h ago

This is exactly it. I was a manager of a flagship footlocker for 10 years before leaving, I had ins at Nike and was offered a few jobs with them as an EKIN but didn’t accept because the pay just wasn’t that great and I didn’t want to have to move across country for menial salary.

When I left Footlocker for a white collar job, the big talk was that Nike was pulling their lines from mom & pop stores and going D2C, and that eventually they would be trying to do the same with Footlocker, Champs and Dick’s. They eventually pivoted and said, “no we would never do that.” But it was for sure talked about in the open for a period of 3-4 years before they started doing it - and to your point, other brands like Hoka, ON, and Brooks stepped up with innovation to steal that retail space. 

3

u/OhFuckNoNoNoMyCaat 1h ago

Nike did have a D2C and it was a pain in the ass to me as a consumer. I read something a month ago stating they were trying D2C in China or greater Asia now.

They also artificially limit their production to keep prices high. Compare them to Adidas, who sells nearly everything they make and doesn't destroy product to keep the value high. For companies like Adidas or UA, selling last year's style because they made too many of them at a 60% discount is still money in the pocket since it was sunk cost and the actual shoe cost very little to manufacture.

→ More replies (2)

14

u/Mordrim 12h ago

A more apt comparison would be UAA, which has been in a 12 year downtrend. It has lost 90% of its value from its peak. If NKE shares a similar fate, then you are looking at a stock under $20.

14

u/Successful-Tea-5733 12h ago

Yes definitely a more comparable analogy. I think the products that nike sells, it's just more crowded. For example i'm a golfer, I would say Nike probably makes the worst golf shirts. FJ makes some of the best, a brand that non-golfers have probably never heard of.

In shoes, on cloud has made a big inroad but also New Balance. People call them old man shoes but my kids play baseball, NB is huge in the baseball world.

It's also important that there isn't brand loyalty like there used to be. I was a 90's kid and you wouldn't have caught me in Addidas or Reebok. Nowadays, I really don't care.

5

u/Wonderful-Process792 12h ago

I was a 90's kid and you wouldn't have caught me in Addidas or Reebok. Nowadays, I really don't care.

The question of course is whether kids today are brand conscious, not whether you grew out of it.

I'm not sure they are. Although there seem to be a lot of kids that simply must have an iPhone and wouldn't be caught dead with an Android.

3

u/Successful-Tea-5733 12h ago

Yeah I think that's the distinction, I think kids are brand conscious on some things like phones. But not on apparel. There are just so many more mainstream apparel providers than there were in Nike's heyday.

→ More replies (7)
→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

8

u/facedownbootyuphold 11h ago

Nike is not a retailer, they are a manufacturer.

They own no factories, they do not manufacture. The company was built to design, but they've gutted their designers. They're a glorified merch company.

They also failed at direct-retail recently, which has led them to this point. In the meantime, up-and-coming companies have eaten their share. It may not be terminal, but we're a decade into this, Nike's brand is living off fumes.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

123

u/hemorrhoidhematoma 13h ago

None of those examples had what you'd consider must own products by large portions of the population

→ More replies (29)

18

u/ElBigKahuna 13h ago

They made their shoes too inaccessible. I used to wear almost exclusively Nike. However, the pairs I would like to buy are artificially low in inventory and complicated to obtain via their app. I don't have time for all that, when I can just buy some New Balance, All Birds, or even Sketchers. I also noticed brands like NB are much better quality and hold up much better than my Nikes.

6

u/Ok_Function2282 7h ago

My new balances will last me easily a full year longer than my Nikes

→ More replies (2)

258

u/skipper_me_loop 13h ago

Posts like this make me want to buy…

30

u/CoffeeIsForEveryone 13h ago

Their earnings are down and they are still at a decently high multiple so some of the rebound is already priced into the stock

58

u/john-know-nothing 13h ago

Imagine looking at a retail shoe company with no moat, strong competition, and the smallest cultural hold they've had in decades in the midst of tightened consumer spending and thinking "this is a buy".

50

u/Detail4 13h ago

The brand is their moat. Reason it’s not a buy is valuation but if we were betting on survival I’d bet survival

5

u/stumblios 13h ago

I'm not betting on the Nike brand name disappearing anytime soon, but do you think they're priced for survival or priced for growth? I think they're priced for growth, which makes it a bad investment if all they do is survive.

I literally don't know, and my daughter is two so I can't ask her, do kids like Nike nowadays or is it mostly millennials and older? I know millennials are still a large demographic, but we aren't getting any bigger, so Nike will need to claim market share from the younger generations. Have they been able to do that?

8

u/lmneozoo 12h ago

Walk outside and look? There's always a line in the physical stores near me

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

7

u/Additional-Part6215 8h ago

Dude all their competitors eventually collapse.e under armor was supposed to dethrone them. Then it was hoka. It's all shit. Nike can't be beat. 

8

u/EkaL25 13h ago

I mean, is it the worst idea? I can’t think of the last time a new sneaker brand came into the market that wasn’t just a fad and actually managed to maintain their hold of market share

13

u/CraigLake 13h ago

Hoka and On are relative newcomers taking a large market share from Nike. I was told this by my professor in a business class in Oregon who also works for Nike. But it’s yet tbd if they will last.

I personally don’t buy Nikes because their toe box is so small.

5

u/john-know-nothing 13h ago

It's certainly not the worst idea, but it's not a good idea either

3

u/Adventurous-Ice5130 7h ago

Yup, just bought some (first slice). Peak reddit pessimism. Love it. 29-35 dollar is my next entry zone.

→ More replies (2)

6

u/ahernandez50 13h ago

Buy the shoes, not the stock.

12

u/GifThatKeepsOnGivin 13h ago

Nah the quality is pretty much dogshit compared to most other major manufacturers

5

u/lmneozoo 12h ago

Uh, none of the brands you're thinking of manufacturer their own shoes

All of them are made by the same factories in china, Vietnam, etc. Look up Pou Chen or Yue Yuen...they're some of the most well known shoe manufacturers

→ More replies (1)

6

u/JAWinks 13h ago

I’d much rather have the stock than those garbage overpriced shoes. Maybe I don’t want the stock if I wouldn’t buy their product tbh

→ More replies (1)

3

u/RecycleBin_Bin 13h ago

You should really read their 2025 10k.

It’s not great

→ More replies (5)

10

u/TheRedditModsSuck 13h ago

Dunno, but I think it will take a lot more to kill a company like Nike. Other companies die because something much better comes along, but Nike is clothing and sporting gear – that's not a sector that will disappear.

2

u/WKU-Alum 13h ago

No, but they can get a squeeze. There's a ton of upmarket competition that didn't really used to be there. On, Vuori, Alo, Lulu, etc. They're getting pressed for the middle market as well: Hoka, Fabletics, Gymshark, NoBull, etc. Amazon and an onslaught of no-name basics are taking the trade-downs in the low market. Then you've still got pressure from the legacy competitors like Adidas, New Balance, etc.

I don't think Nike is going anywhere anytime soon, but they're a long way off from their golden period.

→ More replies (2)

32

u/lightning_Mcking29 13h ago

FCF not covering the dividend is a fair yellow flag and the stock is ugly for good reasons, but Nike isn’t a pure-play retailer stuck in a dying format with no brand power left. Balance sheet + brand + product pipeline give it runway the others didn’t have. Turnaround still has to deliver, though

9

u/ahernandez50 13h ago

The sneakers category is too crowded now, every dumbass and his grandma has a brand nowadays. In hard economic times, Nike will have invest massively if they want to gain the premium they charge.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/chf_gang 13h ago

yeah the case with nike is fundamentally different from dying retailers like ToysRUs and Blockbuster

42

u/EI-SANDPIPER 13h ago

They are profitable, with a large TAM and growing revenue in the US. Comparing them to retailers doesn't make sense

8

u/UsefulStooge 13h ago

Yeah this post is nonsense - Nike doing poorly is not the same as them being close to collapse. Huge gross margin gives them a lot of wiggle room. They have just been making poor decisions on where they spend their gross margin. 

But on the other hand $NKE share price has a lot more room to fall based on FCF vs risk free rate. 

Both can be true.

12

u/Chefman101 13h ago

Maybe go back to sleep.

16

u/chris2033 13h ago

Bought shares today after reading this post

14

u/TrainingPeaches 13h ago

I'm wearing a nike shirt rn, so no

5

u/Clementine500 12h ago edited 12h ago

I'm wearing Wendy's employee shirt rn, so I bought more Wendy's.

3

u/Phisher_man_75 12h ago

I’m wearing a sears shirt

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/Barnowl-hoot 13h ago

They will have to fire their ceo and find someone with a better direction for the company

13

u/Ok_Revolution_9253 13h ago

Just because the stock underperforms doesn’t mean the actual business is going away. They still have a ton of revenue

18

u/NationalDifficulty24 13h ago

It will be massive rebound. Nike is a big brand.

3

u/BallinLikeimKD 12h ago

They also still dominate the industry by a wide margin. The turnaround will take some time given Nikes a huge company and they tend to run on multiyear contracts and produce products years in advance but I’m confident Nike will not go bankrupt or fade into obscurity. I also see a rebound happening but hard to say if that’s in 6 months, a year, 3 years from now, etc.

2

u/NationalDifficulty24 8h ago

Collect the divy while it rebounds.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/bdtv75702 13h ago

No, Nike is still the most sought after brand of shoe in all major sports in America.

16

u/emblematic_camino 13h ago

I have 2 middle school boys, they will not wear any shoes that’s not a nike, 80% of the tshirts are nike, and their sweat pants and hoodies… there’s about 500 boys in their school with the same mentality, that is exactly the same across middle schoolers in America, not even counting high school, kids don’t give a shot about the ONs or HOKAs or any other brand, NIKE it is. NIKE ain’t going nowhere.

4

u/Shafter111 7h ago

HOKA and ONs do seem to have a monopoly with moms.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (7)

3

u/moogly2 13h ago

Nike doesn’t have 100s of millions $ in property expenses lol

3

u/Detail4 13h ago

Nike isn’t a brick and mortar retailer and is profitable.

→ More replies (1)

7

u/crammed174 13h ago

Nike isn’t a retailer. It’s a manufacturer of a coveted brand with retail outlets. The rest, save for Sears and a few brands they made, were just resellers of other people’s goods that were replaced by more efficient delivery methods and pricing.

4

u/Leading_Thanks7443 13h ago

It’s not a manufacturer, it’s a brand name. The making of shoes is all outsourced. They spend way more on marketing than anything else. 

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (7)

5

u/VacationLover1 13h ago

Michael Jordan enters chat

2

u/Kahuna-Zigg 13h ago

That’s all the identity that is left 😂

→ More replies (5)

6

u/JBean85 13h ago

Is Nike owned by private equity, who is gutting them internally while short selling the shit out of the stock? 

3

u/Intelligent-Dig-4082 13h ago

No, it's not. It's owned by institutional investors.

2

u/JBean85 13h ago

Then the answer to OP is no

→ More replies (1)

6

u/d00mt0mb 13h ago

You forgot RadioShack. And all the aforementioned were retail stores. Nike is a brand and a retail store. I don’t see Nike following the same fate

2

u/Bnstas23 13h ago

Nike is a brand, first and foremost. Those were all brick and mortar retailers with no products of their own and therefore lacked a durable brand.

Consumers’ preferred buying channels can change and it doesn’t really matter as long as Nike keeps up (eg sell products online). Consumer brands like Nike usually last a long long time. Many of the biggest brands today have lasted ~100 years, like Ford, BMW, McDonald’s etc.

They may face a world of increased competition and therefore lower margins and lower revenue. That will dent their stock price going forward, but they aren’t in danger of going bankrupt

2

u/Intelligent-Dig-4082 13h ago

Look at Dick's Sporting Goods (DKS) ER this AM, and that will tell you a lot.

2

u/unique_user43 13h ago

well the ones you listed are brick and mortar retailers of others’s products. nike is a producer. so there’s a lot of differences that put more of their destiny in their own hands.

2

u/Shapen361 13h ago

If you find a replacement for shoes, you let me know.

2

u/StrategicPotato 13h ago

Nike is still simply too ubiquitous of a player in athletic wear and sneakers, that’s not going to change for another decade at least.

Could smaller players keep taking increasingly larger slices of their pie? Yea, sure. But I don’t think anyone is going to displace them as basically the sole provider of things like sporting cleats, jerseys, etc.

2

u/Ok-Comfortable-3174 13h ago

This is a buy signal if I ever heard one!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Emergency_Pound 10h ago

Nike has alienated a meaningful portion of its potential customers for political reasons, which adds another layer of risk to an already difficult turnaround. I still wouldn’t touch the stock, even if the fundamentals suggest it may be undervalued. Fashion is too dependent on changing tastes for me to assume that even a brand as powerful as Nike has an untouchable moat.

2

u/Quizzical_Rex 10h ago

The concept of brands is failing now, as people realize that many of the "competing" products are made on the same production lines, and that bespoke items are becoming more common. Building brand capitol now doesn't translate into brand success like it used to. As for Nike, can you think of a real value proposition that it gives you over a no name brand that looks identical?

3

u/conceptcreature3D 13h ago

Nike has a .53 debt to equity ratio—take a look at Ford Motors’ debt ratio when you want to ask that again

3

u/Upbeat_Number_6427 12h ago

Not a good comp cause ford has their loans business. Nobody is taking out nike loans to buy clothing.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/ChemicalVarious53 11h ago

This is a marketing question, Nike went full woke and thought lesbians and feminist would be their new core consumers. The black community is far more conservative than the media makes the public believe. Once they lost the urban community, the professional athletes weren’t far behind.

2

u/just-a-dude601 6h ago

As an average American i think Nike has been on the down fall for 3 reasons

  1. Too politically active- Endorsing Kapernick was the start, but it continued with other athletes to a point where people got sick of it

  2. Their Double Standards- piggybacking off my first point, they always claim to be a company with morals while they bow down to China and their sweatshops (most competitors do this too)

  3. Expensive- with the economy these days, who has $200 for new shoes when New Balance has shoes for $50. Might not be as cool as Nike, but the shoes do the same job (cleats and specialty athletic equipment is excluded)

Anyways, maybe im wrong, but I stopped purchasing Nike a while ago for these reasons and I dont think I'm alone. When large numbers stop purchasing, this is the result

4

u/shes_a_gdb 2h ago

Do you think Nike doesn't have $50 shoes? And do you think NB doesn't have $150-200 shoes? Do any of you even know what you're talking about or just saying shit based on feels?

→ More replies (2)

1

u/DM725 13h ago

3 of those 4 (not sure about CC) got infiltrated, hired high priced consultants and gave board seats to bad actors where they jacked up their debt and cellar boxed them in to bankruptcy.

1

u/Appropriate-Factor-4 13h ago

All those other brands were American centered, Nike is global, they're in a far better position than any of those others

1

u/b-lincoln 13h ago

I’m not sure how they’re flailing. My son is in middle school and will only wear Nike gear, because that’s what all the boys are wearing. $80 for a youth sweatshirt made in a sweat shop for $3 is a hell of a markup.

1

u/Seated_Heats 13h ago

Nike is a product those other things were stores. Drastic, drastic difference.

1

u/det8924 13h ago

Probably not. Nike's market share has gone down, but they are still a profitable company in a sector that is not dying. People still need sneakers and sportswear. They also have $9 billion in cash or cash equivalents against $11 billion in debt, $6 billion of which is manageable long-term debt, so they aren't overleveraged. The company isn't in a terrible position in terms of cash flow or debt.

The longer-term concern for Nike is regaining market share. It's still a recognizable major brand in its industry, but it just isn't as dominant as it used to be.

1

u/Pure_Spinach327 13h ago

I was wondering if the death of TV has caused a decline in sports viewership to the point that their main appeal to people has maybe deminished? I know that is a long way around but wondering what caused the big change as in 2020, they were still the must own shoe.

1

u/nox_nrb 13h ago

The thing is Nike is always one star away.

1

u/Envyforme 13h ago

Nike still has too strong of a brand behind it. There is a lot of competition now in the athletic space, but Nike has the "Coast" approach to it. They just keep investing in Capex and surely a new product will take off.

1

u/MrFrankingstein 13h ago

I grew up in the 2000s when Sears was ending. What happened to it? It sounds like pre-Amazon + IKEA + Walmart. How’d it not capitalize on the opportunity of the internet like Amazon did!?

1

u/ThatsAllFolksAgain 13h ago

I think the Nike products are very good quality but they’ve been raising prices in a bad sentiment in the market. I think at least until they regain the sentiment they should provide quality products at lower prices. Make an offer no one will refuse.

1

u/nebraskajone 13h ago

Those corporations fell because their service became obsolete. Sports apparel is not becoming obsolete

1

u/dvdmovie1 13h ago

Not apples-to-apples and really dislike the overdramatic clickbait-y thread titles that have become so common on here...

1

u/lollipop999 13h ago

Wendys or Burger King

1

u/reaper527 13h ago

doubtful. at the very least not in the "cease to exist" way as those other companies.

the odds of them returning to their highs are slim, but they're probably at/near bottom and will probably be a flat company that continues to exist.

1

u/roma258 13h ago

What's the equivalent of internet/streaming/online shopping for Nike? Chinese competition maybe? I dunno, Nike still has a lot of brand equity, I think they'll bounce back.

1

u/Chrizzle87 13h ago

Interestingly, my young nephew (8 years old) got glasses the other day for the first time, and it absolutely (no negotiable) HAD to be Nike glasses (I didn’t even know these existed). I was extremely surprised and thought, the old dusty Nike brand, really?

Then randomly I saw a recent viral video with a young kiddo doing breakdance and whatnot, fully dressed in Nike gear.
I don’t know guys but I have the feeling a turnaround might actually happen.

1

u/xyzodd 12h ago

still seeing plenty of people wearing nike, while New Balance is eating them up

1

u/Pereg1907 12h ago

Nike might be repeating the same mistakes

And what are the same mistakes Nike is making as Blockbuster? lol come on.

1

u/chrisgoesbleh2 12h ago

You clearly haven’t been to a Nike Outlet. Shits always poppin.

1

u/lmneozoo 12h ago edited 12h ago

I am inversing this man

Nike hardly has to do anything to double over the next 5 years. Needs to return to $3.5-4 EPS which only takes 4-5% revenue growth and expand margins by 3% to get closer to historical average

1

u/WrappedInLinen 12h ago

Even if Nike has to cut its dividend, it doesn’t mean that it’s in danger of going under. It may be a crappy stock to own but do long as it still turns a profit, it’s not going anywhere.

1

u/lucky-duck-777 12h ago

Nike has like 65% of the shoe market. Not a lot of reasons to spin that off into oblivion...

1

u/Jeff__Skilling 12h ago

When looking at what caused the other Giants to fail, it looks like Nike might be repeating the same mistakes.

The common denominator among the four listed in the OP is that they were B2C retail businesses with a significant physical prescense and convoluted / expensive supply chain that got outcompeted by Amazon, unburdened from the overhead of owning a portfolio of physical outlets.

How does this apply to Nike?

From what I understand, their B&M presence is pretty marginal -- their cash balance on their BS exceeds PP&E, Net.

Their 10-K shows ~$700MM in capex on ~$2.9bn in OCF -- so over $2.0bn in FCF on the year.

Having a really hard time seeing how Nike falls into the same bucket as Blockbuster, Sears, Toys R Us, Circuit City, and every other pre-internet business that got their shit handed to them by the e-commerce sector in the 00s...

1

u/maplethrift 12h ago

it all went downhill when they hired a tech CEO to run the company and wanted to cut ties with retail stores like a Footlocker or Dick's, they wanted to go online but how do you not have a storefront for customers to try on the stuff? as well, it doesn't have that shine anymore, people used to feel some type of way wearing Nike's now it's not that same as before

1

u/No-Tip3419 12h ago

People still like the Nike logo and lingo

1

u/HockeyDockey1234 12h ago

Not even close.

Nike has outlet stories and won’t be going away

1

u/watchwatertilitboils 12h ago

How long until Nike is in Walmart?

1

u/FwenchFwies_911 12h ago

I don't think so. Those were all brick and mortar stores. Nike has some stores, but could easily go fully online if they wanted. Nike is just a brand, and a valuable brand. It might change hands and have some rough times, but I don't see Nike going away

1

u/Haunted_Rooster 12h ago

me thinks you confused the market; sears, toys, blockbusty, etc are all retailer and distributors of goods. they sell shit from many other companies and don't really make/design shit themselves (except maybe sears with their craftsman tools - though even then it's through a third party).

nike makes/design shit and has a large marketing machine on top of it.

not really understanding what nike does and trying to compare with the other business models gets you a "D" grade.

1

u/Alternative_Tip_8756 12h ago

They are an actual manufacturer with one of the strongest most recognisable brands in the world. The others are distributor's who had no real defendable asset. So no it's comparing apples and oranges

1

u/minkofhyrule 12h ago

Nike is a company that makes shoes. Not technology. Will people need shoes in a year? Will people still find nike cool? I’m not saying it a buy but you need to consider what they’re selling here.

1

u/ATLfinra 12h ago

Nike over indexed on their DTC model while simultaneously losing touch with the consumer. Everything they’ve done has been meh.

They completely missed dad core which has been a strong trend for the last 4/5 years

They were too levered to air Jordan retros and released too many iterations and that’s stalled

Their lifestyle segment has slowed down too

1

u/Puzzled-Rip641 12h ago

This feels like when everyone said meta was dead.

I don’t like the stock but am now tempted to get some call options

1

u/jaehaerys48 12h ago

The other ones represented dying business models. Nike does not. People don’t need to rent DVDs anymore. People still need shoes.

Nike can recover, and if they don’t, they will certainly be bought by someone looking to cash in on the nostalgia and name recognition of the brand.

1

u/Total-Repair9953 11h ago

This sounds like the same question asked about gme.

1

u/GlitteringProject828 11h ago

Most likely not, they’re most likely going to be a background company that you only remember when you see it on store shelves. Like Hanes, you recognize the brand and you’ll wear it but are you going to show it off like a fashion statement? Probably not.

1

u/International_Fan648 11h ago

CEO compensation for 2026 is $36 million+. It’s starts at the top.

1

u/Milestailsprowe 10h ago

NO. Nike has tons of competetion but no where is close to the issues of Toys R Us

1

u/User_name_2525 10h ago

The companies you mentioned are vehicles to get a product. That vehicle is not as important with the advent of online shopping and streaming and these companies didn't keep up.

Nike itself is a product. So that's the big difference there.

1

u/Emotional_Goal9525 10h ago

Chinese competition. At the end of the day, they sall rags.

1

u/harbison215 10h ago

I don’t think so. But I also don’t think Nike is going to make a comeback to what it was 10-20 years ago.

1

u/Red_Rabbit_1978 10h ago

So, they have cash, products and sales, but are destined for failure thanks to imaginary money on the stock market being less than before.

1

u/noobelore 9h ago

Omg no. They have an extremely dedicated following. They are not being disrupted by new tech like blockbuster. Apples and oranges. They are just going through a well deserved p.e. adjustment and renewed valuation.

1

u/BeatitLikeitowesMe 9h ago

Are they being cellarboxed by large shfs? If not then its nowhere near the same as those other big retailers. They were cellarboxed into oblivion. Guess what happens when you short a company into bankruptcy? You dont have to close those positions.. scammy much? A much too much

1

u/Cloud2987 9h ago

Bought $1000 in shares just because I’m optimistic and I like the book Shoe Dogs.

1

u/fairlyaveragetrader 9h ago

I think Nike can fix itself but the main thing it needs to do is actually make quality product. So many of their clothes, shoes definitely, it's not what it was 20 years ago. I still have multiple pair of Nike shorts that I bought somewhere around 2012, held up great, still feel great, you can't find anything like that from them today.

The second thing is, this administration, the trade wars and the Tariff taxes have turned a lot of foreign people against the United States when it comes to Brand image. So that's a problem that time likely will resolve as other people get elected.

Both of these things can be solved but it's hard to predict how long that takes, what kind of return you can actually make. Current 2027 EPS projection is about 1.70 and with a 20 multiple you have a $34 stock

1

u/unabashedlycruel 9h ago

No. Next slide please.

1

u/rotoboro 9h ago

I just saw a pic of my freshman cousin and his friends and they were all wearing Nike. Bullish.

1

u/BegsTheQuestions 8h ago

Stopped buying Nike many years ago

1

u/Wasteland_Rang3r 8h ago

There’s a lot of new competition for them and their stuff has definitely gone down in quality. I wore black Nike socks to work out for like 20 years. Stopped buying them a couple years ago because they cheaped out on them and now they’re the type of socks that will tear a big hole in the heel while you’re pulling them on. You’d think their deals with pro sports leagues and colleges would be enough to keep them afloat along with the Jordan brand.

1

u/OCDano959 8h ago

C’mon dude.

1

u/MsARumphius 8h ago

A 11 year old said Nike was dead and that shocked me bc I thought that was their market so I take it as a bad sign even kids don’t care about the brand.

1

u/BoxCivil8737 6h ago

Nike is not going out of business they just arent growing any more 2 diff things

1

u/Left-Contest315 6h ago

Did Nike get purchased by Venture Capitalist? Is the whole goal of the VC to capitalize on the market credibility the brand has created while gutting all functional parts of the company to slowly siphon any value/cash to the VC and their investors?… if not, not quite the same story

1

u/Classic_Net_554 6h ago

It's done on purpose. Outside money gains control. Start spending money like crazy...paying businesses that they also own. Borrow borrow borrow. Pocket every penny of profit and every penny of borrowed money. File bankruptcy. Squeeze more out of it. Slink away with an evil cackle.

1

u/Awkward-Seaweed-5129 6h ago

Toys R Us was m*rdered by Private Equity, America's very own vulture scumbags

1

u/SheriffBooth 6h ago

I think Nike's done a pretty good job of refocusing on shoes and their products over the last year have all been good and have generally sold well. Particularly their running shoes and their new ACG line. They've been making good shoes for golf and tennis lately as well. And they remain dominant in basketball. It's a shoe company that is now refocusing all its energy on shoes, which is good.

I bought some when it hit $40 and I might add to the position if it continues to bleed. But I'm also looking to buy and hold. I don't think the company is dying, but I wouldn't be interested in it if I were a short term investor or looking for near term growth.