Nike exits the S&P 100 after 18 years and a $200B market-cap wipeout

Post by standeven » Mon, Sep 14, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

michaelt wrote: post #104

nielsk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s a thing with all carbon-plated shoes. You get 200-300km out of it. They are usually only worth it, if you run around a sub-3 marathon. It can be worth it for shorter distances but you should have someone looking at your running style because those shoes increase your likeliness of injury if your running style isn’t well or you can keep it up for the whole distance when you are getting tired. All people I k…

> All people I know who use them, just run them once before a race to try them out and after that they are like a very good suit which you only use for special events. Doing all your marathon training in one type of shoe then switching to a different, new shoe on the day is certainly a choice.

Post by throw282735 » Mon, Sep 14, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

earth-tattoo wrote: post #203

hyperlinerapp wrote: post #24

The marketing campaign they launched in April 2023 also deteriorated their brand position. It earned them woke coins, but the NPV of all those future woke coins flows was negative.

[flagged]

Post by coffeebeqn » Mon, Sep 14, 2026, 4:27 PM UTC

Elte wrote: post #277

boxed wrote: post #197

The article has one heading which is "Why is Nike dropping?" But to me when looking at that graph the question is: what in the world happened in 2020-2021 to make it go up that much? The graph looks like some kind of crypto scam or AI hype, but neither makes any sense for a shoe company. Can anyone explain the rise?

Supposedly the pandemic caused quite the running boom since it was the easiest sport to keep doing despite lockdowns. Combine that with a bunch of bored retail investors with stimulus checks... I don't know if this is the actual reason or not, but it seems like it might have had something to do with it.

Post by ndiddy » Mon, Sep 14, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

sfmz wrote: post #224

alexpotato wrote: post #219

There is a great article [0] that has some interesting points about this: - Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" - So much so that they were one of the only companies where men bought more clothes than women - The powers that be wanted to go after the "Adjacent Whale" (explained in the article) that was the female consumer - They ended up alienating their core customer base while competing poorly wit…

> Nike used to be very "male coded" e.g. "Be like Mike" There are very-few male-coded places left. I think any Mall is like 80% for women and 20% food court. Beside that, there are jewelry stores, nail salons, spas, hair salons. Drive around the 'burbs and the only male-coded place is probably hardware stores and Pizza Hut

Post by rc5150 » Mon, Sep 14, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

ahartmetz wrote: post #303

weinzierl wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"In my entire life it felt like the Nike/Adidas duopoly was unbreakable, and then it felt suddenly that Hoka was everywhere." You mention Adidas as if they were in the same boat with Nike. While Adidas suffered from the Kanye West disaster this was a one time blunder and they rebound quickly. in Europe I see On on the rise too, but Adidas is omnipresent.

AFAIK, Adidas has been more niche* in the US, which makes sense given its German origin. I'm German and I don't recall a time when Adidas wasn't either #1 or #2 here. Kanye West barely registered. * It's reportedly associated with hip hop culture, for example. Widely popular brands don't have such specific associations.