Recently, I had the chance to E-Mail Microsoft Investor editor, Jim Juback, about NIKE. . . he recently dropped NIKE from his recommended list. This was my response to his decision (keeping in mind that I long 100 shares right now)
NEEDAWINNER: I think you are terribly wrong about dropping NIKE. They have a global presence and great brand recognition. Yes, times are tough for NIKE, but I think they will bounce back in a couple of years and again become one of the darlings of Wall Street. It will just take some time. . .I hold the stock and will continue to hold NIKE in my long-term portfolio.
AND THIS WAS THE EDITOR'S RESPONSE (I RECEIVED HIS RESPONSE THIS AFTERNOON VIA E-MAIL)
---- JIM JUBACK I hope you're right, but for me Nike has become a fashion stock but a consumer brand name story. Fashion stocks have short cycles and big ups and downs. I don't think they're in the same category as a Gillette or Coke. Not that you can't make money in them, just don't think that I can identify a 5 year competitive advantage over Reebok, et al. Last straw for me was when I started to see fashion stories about Timberland replacing Nike as footwear of choice among urban kids. Jim -----
I welcome all thoughts to this schmuck, as I will (with your permission) personally e-mail your response to him.
jim juback's reply to you is actually correct. wall st. is characterizing nke as a rock solid global brand (like coke or gillete). nke is definitely a well known brand and nke is a well run/managed company however nke is in the fashion industry. the shoe business/apparell business has a major fashion element and "barriers to entry" are relatively minimal. for example addidas is accumulating a doubling of backlog for the fall '98 season, timberland is also accumulating a large backlog of future orders. many small shoe vendors are also increasing their fall bookings. don't be so naive as to think that nke's dominance/shelf space is rock solid. consumer tastes/retailer tastes can change quickly. also why do you call this fellow Jim Juback a schmuck? afterall you are the one who requested that he send you a response. so he sent you a response you didn't like and then you call him a schmuck? man your harsh.
new definition of schmuck-someone who doesn't agree with you??? not sure if I agree with him or not, but he certainly has a valid point of view. why do you even bother to ask questions if you are so intolerant?