To all ye ‘Under Armour is too Expensive’ detractors, simply keep in mind that not only does UA have $400/$500mm in growth over 3-years, but a plan to get there. Here’s our S-Curve…
We already put out a note on our thoughts on the quarter to be reported on Tuesday (10/10: UA: How Have Expectations Changed?), so I won’t rehash that now. But as we head into UA’s quarter, let’s keep an important backdrop in place. That is that this is a company that can grow – for a long time – and it has the plan, the people, and the infrastructure to do it.
The biggest pushback we get on this name is ‘it’s too expensive.’ If you want to look at p/e or EBITDA, then be my guest. Yes, on those metrics, it’s expensive. But if you stuck to trading ranges of those multiples with UA in the past – well – you’re probably not one of the ones making the ‘valuation’ case to me today. As we’ve noted several times, when looking at EV/Total Addressable Market Value, it’s tough to find something cheaper in consumer.
We admit…it’s easy for someone to throw out a large dollar number as to market size and then claim a company as ‘cheap’. We, of course, did not do that. We went into each category of UA’s business, and ramped each one according to realistic expectations based around the capital UA is deploying into its business. Ultimately, we map out how the company gets to $1.5bn in sales in 3-years (vs. sub $800mm in 2008), a glimpse of which is below. Details behind our analysis are available to our Premium Access subscribers. Please contact for more depth.
