Props To Whatever Admin Passed on Under Armour For Adidas

Generally getting stock options instead of cash upfront is the better deal, you end up with an appreciating asset instead of just cash. Especially in the bull market we have been in over the past 8 years. Of course, if those stock options are for a failing company than the point is moot.



Not sure if anyone on here actually understands this stuff at all.

Stock is stock. If you are given $10M in stock, it is stock. The reason a company gives it is because it is "equity", it technically doesn't cost the company anything, and it dilutes all the other shareholders.

Stock OPTIONS are completely different. It is hard to value them up-front, though for accounting purposes, you usually use a well-regarded index such as the Black-Scholes model. A stock option is an OPTION to purchase stock, and it is completely dependent on what your strike price is. If you give someone stock options to "pay" them for something, then you usually give a low strike price. If you use stock options as an incentive to stay with the company and/or increase share value, you create a higher strike price.

From the face of the information provided above (both the summary of compensation, as well as the news reports of the loss in value), Auburn was given stock worth $10M at the time of the contract signing, and NOT stock options.

I work on stuff like this as my day job.
 
Advertisement
Generally getting stock options instead of cash upfront is the better deal, you end up with an appreciating asset instead of just cash. Especially in the bull market we have been in over the past 8 years. Of course, if those stock options are for a failing company than the point is moot.



Not sure if anyone on here actually understands this stuff at all.

Stock is stock. If you are given $10M in stock, it is stock. The reason a company gives it is because it is "equity", it technically doesn't cost the company anything, and it dilutes all the other shareholders.

Stock OPTIONS are completely different. It is hard to value them up-front, though for accounting purposes, you usually use a well-regarded index such as the Black-Scholes model. A stock option is an OPTION to purchase stock, and it is completely dependent on what your strike price is. If you give someone stock options to "pay" them for something, then you usually give a low strike price. If you use stock options as an incentive to stay with the company and/or increase share value, you create a higher strike price.

From the face of the information provided above (both the summary of compensation, as well as the news reports of the loss in value), Auburn was given stock worth $10M at the time of the contract signing, and NOT stock options.

I work on stuff like this as my day job.

You’re probably right in that it’s some form of stock holdings - I wonder if RSUs or something like that are issued at this level (I’m just a lowly employee who takes advantages of stock options and RSUs). Anyway, when stock is valued like that, it’s most likely stock not options.
 
Generally getting stock options instead of cash upfront is the better deal, you end up with an appreciating asset instead of just cash. Especially in the bull market we have been in over the past 8 years. Of course, if those stock options are for a failing company than the point is moot.



Not sure if anyone on here actually understands this stuff at all.

Stock is stock. If you are given $10M in stock, it is stock. The reason a company gives it is because it is "equity", it technically doesn't cost the company anything, and it dilutes all the other shareholders.

Stock OPTIONS are completely different. It is hard to value them up-front, though for accounting purposes, you usually use a well-regarded index such as the Black-Scholes model. A stock option is an OPTION to purchase stock, and it is completely dependent on what your strike price is. If you give someone stock options to "pay" them for something, then you usually give a low strike price. If you use stock options as an incentive to stay with the company and/or increase share value, you create a higher strike price.

From the face of the information provided above (both the summary of compensation, as well as the news reports of the loss in value), Auburn was given stock worth $10M at the time of the contract signing, and NOT stock options.

I work on stuff like this as my day job.

I don’t exactly know the content of the contract between UA and Auburn, so I don’t know how they structured the stock payment.

But some of us are more than familiar with the concepts of ESO’s, RSU’s etc. Especially if we’ve benefitted from them.

What I have a hard time understanding is why Auburn would accept stock instead of cash as a portion of the payment if the stock was valued at current market price. It makes literally zero sense. Which is why I think this has to be more than, hey, in lieu of 10 million in cash here’s 10 million worth our stock at today’s closing price
 
Last edited:
UA's apparel costs too much money. When they came out with the workout shirts that could keep you cool and dry, it got peoples' attention.

A combination of other companies catching up and undercutting UA, along with UA getting into other failed apparel ventures is the reason they are losing money.

In my opinion, at least.
 
Advertisement
They didn't pay for the stock.

Nike and Adidas are under investigation.

UA will survive.
 
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that all this new moisture wicking performance fabric is ***ing polyester!
Who ever came up with that re-branding was a genius.
 
Are you rocking Russell athletic from Walmart then? Cause all the big brands are over priced at full retail. I just buy the **** on clearance cause I’m not paying $40 for a workout shirt. $12 at sams for clearance UA. Now we’re talking. Lol


269804-john-c-reilly-yep-john-c-reilly-animated-gif.gif
 
Generally getting stock options instead of cash upfront is the better deal, you end up with an appreciating asset instead of just cash. Especially in the bull market we have been in over the past 8 years. Of course, if those stock options are for a failing company than the point is moot.



Not sure if anyone on here actually understands this stuff at all.

Stock is stock. If you are given $10M in stock, it is stock. The reason a company gives it is because it is "equity", it technically doesn't cost the company anything, and it dilutes all the other shareholders.

Stock OPTIONS are completely different. It is hard to value them up-front, though for accounting purposes, you usually use a well-regarded index such as the Black-Scholes model. A stock option is an OPTION to purchase stock, and it is completely dependent on what your strike price is. If you give someone stock options to "pay" them for something, then you usually give a low strike price. If you use stock options as an incentive to stay with the company and/or increase share value, you create a higher strike price.

From the face of the information provided above (both the summary of compensation, as well as the news reports of the loss in value), Auburn was given stock worth $10M at the time of the contract signing, and NOT stock options.

I work on stuff like this as my day job.

I don’t exactly know the content of the contract between UA and Auburn, so I don’t know how they structured the stock payment.

But some of us are more than familiar with the concepts of ESO’s, RSU’s etc. Especially if we’ve benefitted from them.

What I have a hard time understanding is why Auburn would accept stock instead of cash as a portion of the payment if the stock was valued at current market price. It makes literally zero sense. Which is why I think this has to be more than, hey, in lieu of 10 million in cash here’s 10 million worth our stock at today’s closing price



I understand, I'm certainly not criticizing any posters at all.

ESO's are usually employee stock options and follow a particular format so that someone can be compensated, but the tax is deferred until the time of the exercise. Even though you can exercise the options freely (there may be an initial waiting period), the options are yours, though the options aren't really "worth anything" prior to your exercise.

RSU's are restricted stock units, and anything with the word "restricted" in it usually means that the corporation itself can't even yet take a deduction because YOU don't actually OWN the units yet until the restrictions are removed. This is a very tricky section of the Internal Revenue Code, but the short version is that it is usually NOT an "option" for you to exercise, you merely have to wait out the time and restrictions (i.e., ongoing employment).

The bottom line is that most of that stuff is for employee compensation purposes, and is likely forfeited if you leave the company. But the stock that Auburn got was pure payment, and upfront.

As I mentioned before, in a large non-employee deal such as what UA offered AU, UnderArmour probably offered "more" total compensation than they would have offered in an all cash deal, because stock technically doesn't cost the corporation anything (by the way, this is common even in corporate acquisitions). On Auburn's side, they probably think "hey, we can put this $10M of stock aside, and when it doubles, we have the money to build a building or add onto the football stadium". Or maybe the money goes into the football scholarship endowment fund.

Bottom line, Auburn probably viewed the stock as a long-term appreciation situation. And possibly even that the "mighty Auburn Tigers" would add so much value to UnderArmour that Auburn itself would help to boost the stock price. Obviously, that did not happen, and now the stock has lost 75% of the value in a short period.

The reality is that the only way that Auburn gets to deduct the capital loss is if they sell the stock. And if they hold onto it, not only do they need to regain the original value, but hope for even more run-up in the price. Highly unlikely. Bottom line, Auburn already recognized $10M of income, and will have to pray that the stock is worth $20M someday.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
UA's apparel costs too much money. When they came out with the workout shirts that could keep you cool and dry, it got peoples' attention.

A combination of other companies catching up and undercutting UA, along with UA getting into other failed apparel ventures is the reason they are losing money.

In my opinion, at least.

They were no doubt first to market with that stuff and they still make really good stuff. I acutally prefer the look, fit and feel of their apparel over Nike, Adidas, etc. Withouht knowing their financials, I'm guessing they spent a lot of cash flooding the midwest market (chicago, UWisc, ND, etc.) and offering huge deals to schools like UCLA, ND, etc.
 
why the **** would you combine a uniform deal with essentially investing in a clothing company as a university? that seems beyond retarded. your endowment is managed by asset managers - but you directly buy $10MM in shares of some dumbass apparel company?

I was thinking it was just a sweetener to the deal but it looks like it was over 15% of the total compensation in their agreement.
It's part of this new world order where everyone who watches a few episodes of Shark Tank now thinks they're a private equity firm and the smartest guy in the room. UM has tripped on this wire too in other outlets but appeared to learn it's lesson on this one.
 
Every single apparel company has a line of moisture wicking clothing items. They're literally all the same besides price. Couple that with UA's failure to pay attention to the super popular "street wear" line of sneakers and you've got a floundering company. I'm super happy that UM did not get stuck with them as an apparel sponsor.
 
why the **** would you combine a uniform deal with essentially investing in a clothing company as a university? that seems beyond retarded. your endowment is managed by asset managers - but you directly buy $10MM in shares of some dumbass apparel company?

I was thinking it was just a sweetener to the deal but it looks like it was over 15% of the total compensation in their agreement.
It's part of this new world order where everyone who watches a few episodes of Shark Tank now thinks they're a private equity firm and the smartest guy in the room. UM has tripped on this wire too in other outlets but appeared to learn it's lesson on this one.



Exactly.

Take the cash.

If you want to buy adidas stock with the cash, then buy adidas stock.

Someone needs to do an analysis of how much "extra" compensation you tend to get with stock over cash, and then chart the growth in the stock (versus the risk and chance of a loss in value). I'll bet it's not a huge windfall, unless Apple was our apparel provider.
 
Advertisement
Every single apparel company has a line of moisture wicking clothing items. They're literally all the same besides price. Couple that with UA's failure to pay attention to the super popular "street wear" line of sneakers and you've got a floundering company. I'm super happy that UM did not get stuck with them as an apparel sponsor.

They also decided they wanted to become a tech company instead of a clothing company and invested well over a billion dollars in stuff that is wildly inferior to the FitBit and the Apples of the fitness tech world.

And Kevin Plank coming out and butt licking Trump after the election was pretty much the nail in his coffin. When your two biggest brand assets come out and call you an *******, you're in trouble.
 
Hahaha. Excuse my regional stereotyping but the thought of someone explaining to a bunch of Auburn hilljacks how their stock is now less than their bagman budget is quite comical.

Miami would never do this. We probably demanded straight cash. Unmarked bills. We've been stupid with buyouts in the past but that school won't mess around in demanding money.

was thinking something similar. these yokels have no business gambling important money on wall street.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top