Jonah Lupton
CEO & CIO of FirstWave Capital, Long-Biased Growth
On Holding is the better stock than Nike by a wide margin on growth and valuation. On just grew EBITDA 31% year over year and trades at only 12 times next-twelve-month EBITDA. Nike has no revenue growth and EBITDA down 28%, yet still trades at 18 times, and only that low because its stock has fallen 50% in a year. x.comÂ
Lululemon, Nike, Under Armour and On look like cursed value traps because rising competition and unpredictable fashion trends keep eroding their positions. Lululemon has lost its niche dominance as the luxury standard and is now one of a dozen rivals, such as Vuori, Alo and Athleta, chasing the same buyers. Lululemon sits at six-year lows, Nike at 12-year lows, Under Armour at all-time lows and On back at 2022 levels. The products may still be good, but competition is overwhelming. x.com x.com … Show more
Nike may turn, but On and Hoka appear to be widening their moats, and cleaner economics with more durable advantages are preferable. Nike's FAST Graphs chart is one of the ugliest in a while, raising the question of how much of its moat remains. Possible catalysts are product innovation, a wholesale recovery, China stabilization and cost savings. On is taking market share, and street observation in New York showed On and Hoka standing out on people's feet. x.com x.com x.comÂ
On Holding is the better opportunity right now, supported by its recent earnings guidance. x.comÂ
If conditions are this tough for On Holding, the rest of the apparel and footwear space, including Lululemon and Nike, is likely faring worse. x.comÂ
Lululemon's demand keeps deteriorating, and takeover hopes are a risky reason to hold it. It cut full-year guidance again, with Q2 revenue down 4%, Americas sales down 8% and comparable sales down 9%, sending shares below $100 for the first time since 2019. Michael Burry calls it his largest position and sees a possible private equity takeover, but a Stage 4 decline can last longer than expected, as PayPal holders learned when Stripe chose not to bid. x.com x.comÂ
If one insists on a recovery play in sporting apparel, On Holding seems best suited thanks to its balance sheet. Long-term buy-and-holds of apparel stocks are highly unlikely to work, which makes the space hard to get behind. Trends are fickle: in Southern California, younger gym-goers no longer wear On, only older people. x.com x.comÂ
Nike, like other apparel makers, is uninvestable because a durable moat is near impossible in this business. Consumer preferences keep changing, requiring constant new marketing to keep people excited, and making a physical product leaves an inherently low-margin business with little long-term pricing power. A major turnaround is possible, but the business model gives no confidence in its long-term strength. x.comÂ
Nike keeps getting its lunch eaten by competitors, with no clear way to turn the ship around. It now expects fiscal 2027 revenue to decline by high single digits, per @negligible_cap. Caitlin Clark isn't the savior, and the stock isn't worth touching. x.com x.comÂ
On Holding could rerate quickly from 9 times forward EBITDA back to 20 times if its growth decline slows or reverses, possibly in early 2027, while it holds premium gross margins. Over the past two quarters it deliberately held prices and protected its premium positioning, pulling back from wholesale toward direct-to-consumer. Its apparel business is growing 84%, small now but a clear sign its category expansion is working. x.comÂ
Lululemon, Nike and On are poor investments because their brands depend on the fickle consumer to keep them trending. The same applies to the latest restaurant chains. @CoorsLightCEO counters that this is easy to say after the fact, since Nike was an absolute compounder until 2022. x.com x.comÂ