Dick's Sporting Goods stock rises after new gun rules don't hurt sales

[mystery-ak]

Dick's Sporting Goods stock rises after new gun rules don't hurt sales
By Josh Delk - 05/30/18 12:43 PM EDT

Shares of Dick's Sporting Goods soared on Wednesday after reports the company's first-quarter earnings exceeded expectations, swaying investors' fears that its new restrictions on gun sales would hurt profits.

The sports store's shares surged by 23 percent when markets opened on Wednesday, as last quarter's $1.91 billion in sales toppled estimates from last year, which had projected $1.88 billion, CNBC reports.

While same-store sales reportedly dropped by 2.5 percent due to declines in hunting and electronic sales, investors had worried that the company's move to stop sales on assault-style weapons would cause greater damage. 

more
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/389897-dicks-sporting-goods-stocks-up-despite-gun-sales-restrictions

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Well, they hurt sales from me, as that will never happen again.

[driftdiver]

A biased read on the cause.   

[Concerned]

The numbers don't lie.  Looks like capitalists in a free market have spoken with their dollars about Dick's policy.  Similarly, I'll be interested to see what signal the market sends to Starbucks about their recent policy change.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The numbers don't lie.  Looks like capitalists in a free market have spoken with their dollars about Dick's policy.  Similarly, I'll be interested to see what signal the market sends to Starbucks about their recent policy change.

What numbers are you referring to?

Do you realize statistics can be manipulated to the end you desire?

Speaking as a former Economist

[RoosGirl]

Did anyone ever go to Dick's to buy a firearm?

[NavyCanDo]

Dicks here in WA was never a place to buy firearms, unless you were looking for a bolt action deer rifle or shotgun, and then like waiting 20 min for a clerk to help you. Never since they opened did they sale handguns and ARs here.

[Concerned]

What numbers are you referring to?

Do you realize statistics can be manipulated to the end you desire?

Speaking as a former Economist

These numbers:

The sporting goods store's shares surged by 23 percent when markets opened on Wednesday as last quarter's $1.91 billion in sales exceeded estimates from last year, which had projected $1.88 billion, CNBC reports.

I do realize that "statistics" can be manipulated but these are company financials.  If these financials are untrue and "manipulated", perhaps you should notify the SEC with your evidence.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

These numbers:

I do realize that "statistics" can be manipulated but these are company financials.  If these financials are untrue and "manipulated", perhaps you should notify the SEC with your evidence.

You directly spoke to Dick's policy on guns to explain a stock gain.

That is not evidence that people embrace what Dicks is doing on guns.

Let's see ala Target whether the stock holds up.

[Oceander]

You directly spoke to Dick's policy on guns to explain a stock gain.

That is not evidence that people embrace what Dicks is doing on guns.

Let's see ala Target whether the stock holds up.

Immaterial.  What is material is that the campaign by certain people against Dicks because of its position on guns does not appear to have had any significant effect, as demonstrated by the numbers.  If it had a significant effect, then Dicks would not have outperformed expectations. 

[Sanguine]

Dicks here in WA was never a place to buy firearms, unless you were looking for a bolt action deer rifle or shotgun, and then like waiting 20 min for a clerk to help you. Never since they opened did they sale handguns and ARs here.

Right, Dick's is full of lycra and spandex and is very trendy. 

[skeeter]

These numbers:

I do realize that "statistics" can be manipulated but these are company financials.  If these financials are untrue and "manipulated", perhaps you should notify the SEC with your evidence.

Maybe their sales won't end up suffering as a consequence of their policy announcement, but when they announced the policy change - on 2/28 - the quarter was already two thirds over.

Lets see what happens next quarter. Of course the media got the headlines they wanted so they'll be moving along now.

[Concerned]

You directly spoke to Dick's policy on guns to explain a stock gain.

That is not evidence that people embrace what Dicks is doing on guns.

Let's see ala Target whether the stock holds up.

Maybe their sales won't end up suffering as a consequence of their policy announcement, but when they announced the policy change - on 2/28 - the quarter was already two thirds over.

Lets see what happens next quarter. Of course the media got the headlines they wanted so they'll be moving along now.

Definitely fair enough to see what happens long-term to Dick sales.  I couldn't agree more.  The only point I was trying to make is that when Dick’s announced this policy, people here at TBR predicted/hoped it would have destructive results to Dick’s bottom line.  They said the following:

“I suspect this action is going to cost Dick's a lot more than the destruction of its inventory.”

“Stupidity should have a price.  I hope it is a heavy one for those Dick's.”

“The management at Dicks must be full of liberal d-bags.  Anyone seeing this as a "sales winner" to draw in new customers must be crazy in the head.”

“I think Dick's will see flaccid times ahead.”


I was simply responding to these sentiments, but if you guys think this policy will not ultimately "cost Dick's", will not "have a price", and will not cause "flaccid times ahead".  We'll see.  So far, not so much (at least from the evidence that I've seen).

[endicom]

Any chance of waiting more than a week before declaring an effect?

[skeeter]

Definitely fair enough to see what happens long-term to Dick sales.  I couldn't agree more.  The only point I was trying to make is that when Dick’s announced this policy, people here at TBR predicted/hoped it would have destructive results to Dick’s bottom line.  They said the following:

“I suspect this action is going to cost Dick's a lot more than the destruction of its inventory.”

“Stupidity should have a price.  I hope it is a heavy one for those Dick's.”

“The management at Dicks must be full of liberal d-bags.  Anyone seeing this as a "sales winner" to draw in new customers must be crazy in the head.”

“I think Dick's will see flaccid times ahead.”


I was simply responding to these sentiments, but if you guys think this policy will not ultimately "cost Dick's", will not "have a price", and will not cause "flaccid times ahead".  We'll see.  So far, not so much (at least from the evidence that I've seen).

So those you were responding to may ultimately be proven right, but you felt you had to respond now?

Jumping the gun like this makes you appear as giddy at the 'news' as the girls at The Hill.

[Concerned]

So those you were responding to may ultimately be proven right, but you felt you had to respond now?

Jumping the gun like this makes you appear as giddy at the 'news' as the girls at The Hill.

Generally, I'm giddy about data, facts, and evidence (like company financials).  I wish everyone else was too.     As I said, if you feel this quarter's financials are premature, "fair enough", let's see if the next quarter is "destructive", that Dick's pays a "price", and that they see "flaccid times ahead".  Time will tell.

[Frank Cannon]

The numbers don't lie.  Looks like capitalists in a free market have spoken with their dollars about Dick's policy.  Similarly, I'll be interested to see what signal the market sends to Starbucks about their recent policy change.

No the don't and that is why this story is bullshit. Dicks was trading at over $40 a year ago. Now they are popping campaign corks now because it just touched $30? Give me a break. It's a shit company circling the drain.

[Concerned]

No the don't and that is why this story is bullshit. Dicks was trading at over $40 a year ago. Now they are popping campaign corks now because it just touched $30? Give me a break. It's a shit company circling the drain.

I'm discussing the impact of their gun policy (announced on February 28) to their financials.  The stock was around $32 then.  It closed around $38 today.  Did that policy hurt their sales and stock price as some predicted/hoped?  Some argue it's too early.  I say "fair enough", and we’ll certainly know more as more quarter’s of financials come in, but what I've seen to date is that it hasn't had "destructive" impact to the company.  If someone has such evidence, hopefully, they'll provide it.

[Oceander]

I'm discussing the impact of their gun policy (announced on February 28) to their financials.  The stock was around $32 then.  It closed around $38 today.  Did that policy hurt their sales and stock price as some predicted/hoped?  Some argue it's too early.  I say "fair enough", and we’ll certainly know more as more quarter’s of financials come in, but what I've seen to date is that it hasn't had "destructive" impact to the company.  If someone has such evidence, hopefully, they'll provide it.

[driftdiver]

I'm discussing the impact of their gun policy (announced on February 28) to their financials.  The stock was around $32 then.  It closed around $38 today.  Did that policy hurt their sales and stock price as some predicted/hoped?  Some argue it's too early.  I say "fair enough", and we’ll certainly know more as more quarter’s of financials come in, but what I've seen to date is that it hasn't had "destructive" impact to the company.  If someone has such evidence, hopefully, they'll provide it.

The stock fell on the reaction to their policy.  It recovered based on a restoration to the price it was pre announcement.

When quarterly reports come out and they post yet another quarter of falling sales the price will go down again.  It's been falling for a while and alienating outdoors people isn't a recipe for success.

[mountaineer]

Right, Dick's is full of lycra and spandex and is very trendy.

Their clothing is very high-priced. I have bought a couple pair of golf shoes at Dick's, but only when they were clearance-priced. I also once bought some .22 ammo there and, like NavyCanDo said, there was absolutely no one to help at the counter.

There are better sporting goods and shooting stores. I've moved on.

[Frank Cannon]

I'm discussing the impact of their gun policy (announced on February 28) to their financials.  The stock was around $32 then.  It closed around $38 today.  Did that policy hurt their sales and stock price as some predicted/hoped?  Some argue it's too early.  I say "fair enough", and we’ll certainly know more as more quarter’s of financials come in, but what I've seen to date is that it hasn't had "destructive" impact to the company.  If someone has such evidence, hopefully, they'll provide it.

It sure as shit didn't help them looking at overall performance.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Immaterial.  What is material is that the campaign by certain people against Dicks because of its position on guns does not appear to have had any significant effect, as demonstrated by the numbers.  If it had a significant effect, then Dicks would not have outperformed expectations.

Nothing about Dicks material than its gun policy?

Right.  You must just look at people and decide they are good or bad based upon skin color, eh?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Any chance of waiting more than a week before declaring an effect?

Not if you are @Oceander .

Everything is immaterial if one has a certain agenda.

[Oceander]

Nothing about Dicks material than its gun policy?

Right.  You must just look at people and decide they are good or bad based upon skin color, eh?

You focused on the wrong element, and assumed that the point was that the good results indicated that people approved of Dicks gun policy; that is not the case, the numbers indicate that reactions to the gun policy do not appear to have had any material effect on Dicks results.   

As usual, you simply cannot seem to think logically.

Speaking of which, where is that proof that due process is limited to citizens?