UA

rainman_104

There is truth to that. I'm not buying NKE or UA just because they're down in the dumps, and I'm not buying LULU because they have strong headwinds.

Robodr0ne

The more I think abour it, 100% US tariffs on any country buying russian oil, US buys russian oil, russia uses the money to buy soldiers from Kim to fight UA, Kim uses the proceeds to build nukes to threaten the US. Also, russia uses the oil revenue to buy drone components from china, china use the money to bully everyone in south china sea... ok, US perphaps gave up on securing the freedom of navigation there. Now, russia suoports drone production in iran, iran atacks everyone and everything in hormuz, US needs to attack iran because of nukes (doesn't matter that Kim has them), iranian refineries are collateral damage... driving up oil.prices... Boss, not only am I tired of winning, but I am f*cking confused.

reddituser12346

Seeing UA in Ross/Marshall’s pretty regularly

cryptic_mang

Totally agree. These big brands got cocky and complacent thinking that they had brand loyalty. I was in Dicks the other day, the prices of the Nike and UA clothes were offensive. Like bro…no one is paying $90 for a long sleeve shirt right now.

AtlantikSender

UA is doing the same thing rn. I don't see that working out; especially because all these big brand names don't actually make the products, they just sell the license. That's why the quality YOY is all over the place. People are getting wise to the bullshit, but these big brands remain blind.

DeckardsDark

UA? They're cooked haha. Only like racist boomers rock with UA

Nasty_Tricks69

Sounds more like Nike than UA tbh

Mnshine_1

UA and relevant? New balance, Asics, Hoka, and ON and Puma in running shoes, UA is a rare sight

deevee12

Never fucking invest in gym clothes UA, LULU, NKE were at the top of the world not long ago, now they are left for dead The same thing will happen to the ones that are “in” today Not everything is meant to V like a tech stock

FellowYellowNate

I feel like I see lululemon more than UA these days, not that I advise.. you know what, y’all do whatever the fuck you want. Big thing Nike messed up was not being an able to take advantage of their own resale markets, not that I have a good example they could’ve followed but they once were pretty good with innovation. And collabs dried up, it’s like they never spent the time and money on what could’ve pushed them through and now here we are.. well not me, I’m not touching the slow burning dumpster fire that is retail tickers.

Hefty_Scallion7076

UA is still filling the niche that it was designed for, that being base layers. The brand doesn’t really have cultural appeal but I’d say any time I’m playing a sport I’ll see just as much UA as Adidas

ClassGrassMass

UA is great quality and not mad expensive tbf

rainman_104

UA? Seen their stock lately? They were the first to get hammered.

thisshitsstupid

UA still seems to be around for millennial somewhat. Neither have managed to capture a significant youth audience though. This could very well be anecdotal or regional though. I see UA pretty regularly. Not as much as I use to. But I honestly dont know the last time I seen anyone wearing Nike anything.

schaef999

Is UA still relevant? Seems it declined years ahead of Nike and haven’t seen it come back at all. Adidas is killing it though

thisshitsstupid

Its going to take something significant to turn them around. Nike is dying. Which is a crazy thing I never thought id say, but clothing lives and dies by trends. And nothing of Nike has been trendy in many years. The market got a lot more competitive and companies like UA and Adidas have managed to at least stay somewhat relevant, while Nike has failed to respond any any meaningful way.

Anal_Recidivist

I found a brand new Nike snowboarding sweatshirt while thrifting last week. Hands down the most well made clothing I’ve ever used. It might legitimately stop a .22. The specialty Nike stuff is still solid but you pay for it to the point it’s no longer worth it. UA is absolutely eating their lunch rn. Half the dudes in my office are wearing UA at any given time, I’m sure it’s the same across the country

Pitiful-Recover-3747

Not just Nike. Under armour went the same way. My shirts from pre pandemic UA are in better shape than the ones I got last Christmas. I just assume forever 21 makes everything now.

slick2hold

This stock is dead. It will go the way of UA and reebok. The ahole ceo that took nike out of sports stores f*cked it all up for Nike. And dumb as Cramer championing it. It a shoe company. Its an apparel company. No one will dish out 200+ bucks for shoes with trying them on or at least are familiar with the brand and style. You basically have killed new customers

Practical-Battle-502

Sketchers for shoes, puma/rebook/adidas/UA for clothing. Nike is barely surviving. Look at LULU too

Original-Standard-42

Im really liking UA here ..I think this is a great entry point. What do you think ?

Original-Standard-42

Really liking UA for a huge profit ...great squeeze possibility...what do you think ?

Original-Standard-42

UA Under Armour is looking very ripe .35% short after a earnings beat...what do you think ..?

Original-Standard-42

Talking g about UA under Armour

Original-Standard-42

Under Armour..this looks very ripe !!! The numbers are there for huge profits. Ticker UA ..what do you think ? This can havd huge returns for our portfolios ..what do you all think about this. Please let us know. 30% of stock shorted

Original-Standard-42

Under Armour This looks very ripe !!! The numbers are there for huge profits. Ticker UA ..what do you think ? This can havd huge returns for our portfolios ..what do you all think about this.

Original-Standard-42

Under Armour This looks very ripe !!! The numbers are there for huge profits. Ticker UA ..what do you think ? This can havd huge returns for our portfolios ..what do you all think about this.

Original-Standard-42

This looks very ripe !!! The numbers are there for huge profits. Under Armour Ticker UA ..what do you think ? This can havd huge returns for our portfolios ..what do you all think about this.

Original-Standard-42

This looks very ripe !!! The numbers are there for huge profits. Ticker UA ..what do you think ? This can havd huge returns for our portfolios ..what do you all think about this.

Swearwolfofwallst

Nike are 3x what I would pay for a new balance/adidas and now even UA runner, cross-trainer or sport/casual shoe. I haven't bought a pair in 30 years because they have no moat around cool nor athletic shoes anymore.

slimkay

> Nike lets federer leave because...reasons? Because he was at the end of his career and my guess is Nike didn't want to get into a bidding war with Uniqlo (who at the time was desperate to grow into athleisure). Then, ON offered Federer equity on top of cash, which made this a no brainer. > this is just one brick in the wall of nikes decline. Perhaps, it's early to tell. The entire section is getting hammered. ON's revenue growth is slowing sharply indicating its approach towards discounts is showing its limits and it will start to have to discount more heavily to sustain sales velocity. Also the Mbappe deal means ON will have to invest tons on football R&D but also marketing. So definitely a bold call by ON management, one which could pay handsomely, or not (as we saw, UA, New Balance have not been able to penetrate that market).

PushingSam

I for one never heard of ONON until I read this post, the moat is that outside of a specific sub-clientele I don't think it matters much. Uniqlo and UA are also less recognizable. Nike also simply has some near irreplaceable products to some, like the Airmax shoes. The issue is, they can't grow on them, or football (non US variant) related shirts.

lucideuphoria

Depending on what period you were talking about UA had negative profits but was growing revenue at very high rates. People love businesses that don't make a profit but gaining market share because eventually they will scale out and generate a lot of profit supposedly. People love looking for the next Facebook etc.

Michael_Korleone

No shit Sherlock i already known Lulu is deteriorating, I literally brought up underarmour that posts negative earnings but had a massive technical rally after 80% decline and unlike UA Lulu has a strong balance sheet

Michael_Korleone

Lulu is already the cheapest priced clothing brand by PE ratio in the SP 500. Some retail brands like UA have negative PE ratio (unprofitable) and is less hammered than LULU.

DangerousLiberal

Good regard. You don’t even understand what I tried to say. I’m saying the fundamentals of Lululemon can further deteriorate like what happened to Underarmor 10 years ago… UA was a high flyer stock at one point as well!

Michael_Korleone

Since you bring up underarmour it literally loses money as company yet its stock found a temporary bottom after less of a decline than Lulu which is actually still very profitable. If even UA can bounce while going bankrupt I think Lulu is at least due for a bear market rally

johnmiddle

u fotgot UA

shadow_nik21

Hey! It is you again finding a new way to show your lack of understanding 🙂 Headcount per region was always public / available to investors no? So your point that they knew this "secret" and based on publicly known risks decided to sell stocks is funny. Was obvious to anyone that company with 80%+ headcount in affected countries is prone to these risks. If there is demand for company services - where do you think they will grow - in the regions they know and operate in with almost no competition or in new geos where they need to fight incumbents / absence of infrastructure (IT education etc)? Do you say they should ve not grow (I.e lose existing demand) or grow with worse margins? I won't check the numbers, but I bet that share of RU / BY / UA was constantly declining since whenever because they went from purely CIS-based company to worldwide presence, so from 99% presence to 80%. There was no managerial malice. Pre-war company had premium valuation exactly because of the risks premiums (only they operated in goldmine CIS region having access to high quality cheap labor, knowing how to work with local specifics etc because they grew out of this region - same as let's say Globant in LATAM). Then geo risks materialized killing finances / growth / valuation. It is life, companies come and go

Drew707

Yeah, I loved the feel of the UA shoes, but the Bluetooth thing was such a gimmick if you already had a Fitbit like I did. Once Vans came out with the MTE trail shoes, I switched to them. Slightly less comfortable, but water resistant and no app.

RSI_daddy

Bought in at \~$41.80, sold about 80% of my position when RSI was way overbought around $493. Glad I did what I did, company was way undervalued in 2017. Still not upset with my position and I think the bloodbath is a bit overblown. Social sentiment gets washed out after some time as long as fundamentals and management isn’t idiotic. I’ll likely sell the remainder of my position when we see a bigger RSI reversal. Still way better company than Under Armour, both from a marketing and performance standpoint but ethically and socially not great. Wouldn’t buy any more stock in either UA or Lulu

BengalFan85

Ngl I do like my Metcon 10s so far but that’s comparing them to some UA Rock shoes I had so I guess garbage is better than flaming garbage.

unil79

Actually a good buy now, Caitlin Clark is going to save them, just like what curry did with UA.

Drew707

You joke, but I once had to update the firmware on a pair of UA running shoes.

ibuyio

I own Nike stock. A swing trade turned into a long hold. It's a long story. Anyways, I run marathons. I own a hundred shoes. None are Nike because Nike has a problem. A durability problem and a price problem. PE wise it still sucks. Divi wise it still sucks. Is it near a lical bottom? Maybe. Buy low sell high. Stop loss this pos company and don't be surprised it goes the way of UA.

RuleSafe6767

Waiting for heaps of lulu short in masive unorganized bins in the Cosco center isles, with people just walking past. That what eventually happened to UA, and i didnt buy that crap either.

theJMAN1016

Comparing Nike to UA or frankly even Adidas is laughable.

DrinkNKnowThings

What is crazy to me is at the time of my posting this I don't believe Under Armor is even mentioned. 10 years ago it was bigger than Adidas and every kid was wearing UA hoodies. Clothing and fashion is a tough business.

CraigLake

Does UA make shoes anymore?

boomers_town0331

I haven’t purchased NIKE products for about 16 years now. For shoes I buy mainly MIZUNO and ON and on occasion I’ll get a pair of UA because they are usually pretty inexpensive. For athleisure I go with MIZUNO and ALO

Maverick6946

UA would go before Nike

elbosston

The problem for Nike in the US is that it used to have almost the monopoly on sportswear and sneakers (Adidas, Reebok, and UA cut into the sales a little bit, but they aren’t strong enough to make it an oligopoly besides Adidas. Nowadays, people are turning more to other brands and Nike shot themselves in the foot by taking their shoes out of stores like Foot Locker and Dick’s and focusing on DTC. Brands like New Balance and ASICS became trendy and also ON and Hoka blew up as well. There’s also competition in the athleisure side of things as well with brands such as Vuori and Lululemon. The market space for Nike is just hard now.

OhFuckNoNoNoMyCaat

I remember the Dunk-apocalypse. I'd been buying Dunks for decades and all of a sudden I couldn't. It's an old school basketball shoe and I find it comfortable for all day wear. Of that similar cupsole style I'd say the NB 550s are a bit ahead on comfort. But as I said, Adidas and to an extent, UA, is constantly running sales on overproduced items so picking up a $90 of shoes to half off or less or something like an Evo SL for $70 is worth it. I seldom see any Nikes go on sale beyond the typical 15-25%. Nike is effectively high on their own supply when it comes to marketing and item availability. But u/DiXtractie brings up a valid point. The Dunks SB were and still hard very limited in production and either you get it at MSRP via a wait list or pay through the nose. I mean we can say the same for unrelated brands too such as Stanley or Owala. Watching their meteoric rise and steep fall has been entertaining.

mightymouse1906

Does anyone even care about Under Armour? Is there anything they've done that has been notable in the past decade? Not trying to be cheeky but I'd argue the window of their relevance was tiny. Again, I think context here is important. Nike is 'dead' and they did $46B in rev. It was flat YoY. Adidas the most mature of it's competitors did \~$28B in rev. UA did.. $5B and almost 4% less than the year before. The competitors are going to take decades to even catch up.

OhFuckNoNoNoMyCaat

Nike did have a D2C and it was a pain in the ass to me as a consumer. I read something a month ago stating they were trying D2C in China or greater Asia now. They also artificially limit their production to keep prices high. Compare them to Adidas, who sells nearly everything they make and doesn't destroy product to keep the value high. For companies like Adidas or UA, selling last year's style because they made too many of them at a 60% discount is still money in the pocket since it was sunk cost and the actual shoe cost very little to manufacture.

Glittering_Dig3798

this bop from 2004 keeps getting spammed on twitter. it's been stuck in my head for days https://youtu.be/jsgQ1-UA_9k

No_Method_210

Self driving cars. 500 Falcon 9 safe landings with boosters that have flown 30 times. Snatching rockets out the air. Starlink is being installed on AA and UA fleets, also Lufthansa. Yeah he is just a deluded dreamer

Bleacherbum95

I actually own some NKE and this post is ridiculous. The hope is they can trade flat while figuring out a turnaround, but look at UA. It was fine until it wasn't and it has never recovered. It's not "safe." You either believe they can turn it around and take the risk or you sit it out. This seems like peddling your bags.

Dangerous_Term7638

I’ve tried on all the other brands and I still find Nike the most comfortable and stylish. They’ve taken down UA, Lulu is flailing, and I see ON going the same way. Still a long-term believer in the brand staying one of the most valuable on the planet.

ViolatoR08

Since a kid in the 80’s I only wore Nike. Jordan’s, the latest Air Max, R4 Shox and even a few customs made on their website from the early 2000’s. Their quality is trash and the shoes lack comfort for whatever it is you’re doing. Doesn’t matter the sport or activity. I now run with ON Cloud’s. I fish in Columbia shirts and hunt with UA Boots. Nike shoes suck. The brand sucks. The company sucks. The stock sucks.

gleedo

Nope, Outright not true. Even from outlet to outlet nike is 50-100% more expensive than UA. I just shopped outlets for both this past weekend

Timmerz120

again, it depends on the reason why the US invades if its to do regime change, then yea its probably going to become Vietnam 2.0 or at least Afghanistan 2.0 That said, if all the US wants to do is force the regime to the table and get **proper** conditions on any treaty, all the US has to take is Southern Iran since that's where its oil production and storage is concentrated and then the other objectives would be to get troops to the underground production facilities for Shaheds and Missiles and properly demolish them with a nice side objective of removing any missiles in storage as a bonus. Notably the latter half shouldn't take long(for reasons I'll get to just shortly) and after they're done the US has no need to occupy the North which will bypass most of the potential that Guerillas have as for the points in specific, lets get to them: Mountainous Terrain isn't fun to fight in, but the issue is that currently Iran doesn't have much of any conventional fighting forces, and without a conventional opponent to slow you down the speed at which you can go through mountains won't be affected much(even aside from the fact that modern conflict can move much faster if given the opportunity, Ukraine again gives us a perfect example since the first few months the Russians were able to make massive gains before the UA was able to get the situation under control, and what turned Ukraine into a trench and treeline war is Ukraine's Conventional Forces, not Drones) Supply Lines are something that's being overstated as how difficult an obstacle they would be, remember that you're talking about the US Military, the military with the single most by FAR ability to bypass conventional supply lines, and even then for Supplies to be much of an issue you'd need to give the forces a hard fight, which disparate cells of Guerillas which granted are difficult to get much value out of bombing won't really be able to do

geltance

Considering Poles swept under carpet that time when UA missile killed Polish citizens.... a missile falling somewhere in a forest would be hypocritical to care about.

OrdinaryMix4013

#if we have another peace deal tomo, bro will have saved the same war 69 times.. a new world record. US A USA USA UA

Boromir-Wants-

It’s UA. After Capgains. Will net &1.4

KL_boy

I am sorry, but what is the competitive moat on these companies? UA and Iran are pumping these with cardboard, a lawn mower engine, off the shelves chips and fiber glass in some backyard shed.  Making them any more expenses defeats the purpose of theses drones. Not only that who wants to buy them these guys when you got Firepoint which (lasted I checked) is actually showing them blowing shit up in Moscow at their expo booth. But let say the US do decide to order a billion dollars worth of drones, they will 100% be ordering from their current suppliers. Why? Battlefield integration with their current platform, and it is big enough to deliver.

Mediocre_Swimming763

There is a massive difference between LULU and UA, if you cannot see that you must not be going outside at all. But the company has an absolute choke hold on both genders, UA did not😂 and was worn specifically by men, mainly who play sports. UA’s peak was also like 50 dollars where LULUs was above 400 dollars per share. Theres also a 6 billion revenue difference between the two in 2025 and 25-26 are the worst years the company has had. UAs peak was 5.8 B in revenue in 2022 where LULUs was this year at 11.10 billion. Financially they are not the same. If you think people are genuinely going to slow down buying this company you are out of your mind, once the tailwinds from the proxy battle and management locks in it’s over.

LabyrinthLayers

Feels like NKE pulling an UA. will it ever recover or just continue dying off

Beetlejuice_hero

I just can't imagine a scenario where NKE has a high chance of outperforming the S&P. Brutal, brutal sector. Fast changing trends, changing tastes, competition getting better. Not just about Adidas & Hoka & NB anymore (even UA shoes are improving - I know cause I wear UA to gym). Now formerly joke *Chinese* brands are getting big. Curry signed with Li-Ning.

Jasonmilo911

Similar size and scale reached as you point out. Half of it isn’t a different order of magnitude. Beyond the point anyway. UA played around, in and out of DtC for years. It’s a conundrum for the business, push sales or push price? No moat, so it’s easy to get stuck in the middle. About the inventory, just opened the site and every item in the store is marked down 25% to 50%. I’ve never seen a thriving retailer giving out a discount on all of its items.

bluntspoon

Nike was higher in August of 2014. He could Be holding a lot longer than 5 years. And UA? lolz

Jasonmilo911

My point is LULU is UA with a delay. Not because it’ll play out the same but because they are going thru the same things within an ultra competitive business where it’s next to impossible to have a moat. Nike’s moat, for decades, before they fumbled it, meant a better op margin compared to peers by few % points. UA was a fad, Lulu was a fad. Others are more trendy these days. It’s done.

Jasonmilo911

I said it before. I lived it with UA 12 years ago. LULU is going down the same path: \- International growth is not there, as in: it’s not what you think. Brand is relatively unknown (Im Europe based) and consumers have too many fashion options to overpay for an unknown brand (same happened with UA). Costs will outpace revenue growth. \- No moat, no margins. Inventory is destined to be sold at discounted prices. It’s already happening. Once the wheel is in motion, consumers will never see premium value in your product again. Nobody is buying UA t-shirt for 45€ knowing they can get them discounted at 10€. Lulu is done. Maybe a great company, great products. As a compounder story? Forget about it!

AlarmingCat7939

UA! Do something!

EmbarrassedCow2825

Why not in companies he likes and knows do he stays motivated? I'm not basing these necessarily because I think the stocks are good, but companies like : Hasbro, mattel, Nike, Starbucks, UA (might be the best if you want cheap), Nintendo, Capcom (another good one if you want cheap).

spaghettibolognaisee

Oversight/mistakes happen. Besides UA/RU. The whole world is still pretty newbish on drone interception.

crvarporat

Russia didn't do forced mobilization. They only have volunteers serving in UA. Slow and steady wins the race

Gulliveig

Unlike RU/UA, this would be a major disruption in world trade. You'd have many more sorrows than the wellbeing of your TSMC share price. Western trade with CN would almost certainly cease almost instantly. CN wouldn't survive such for a very long time. And I reckon they know that.

ChoosenByPepe

Yea, they are UA drones with USA label - 5xmore expensive but hey, its USA drone :D

krlkv

UA long range drones have longer range than any European missile currently in production. Missiles win because of the heavier payloads. Missiles lose because of the high costs. The game changers in UA war are long range drones.

Daymjoo

W... what? First of all, Ukraine has disrupted oil and gas flows more than Iran did. Brent peaked far higher during early UA than Iran. Secondly, both respective superpowers have used around 50% of their respective arsenals, in terms of the gear that matters in such conflicts: Air defense interceptors, cruise missiles and precision missiles. 13 countries have been intentionally bombed as a result. Not one but TWO naval blockades in the most trafficked maritime economic corridor in the world at the same time. And that's just the US. RU has used far more. Lost over a million men, 50% of its tank fleet, 15% of its war planes and helicopters etc. Both superpowers are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at their enemies. You're just not recognizing then as 'massive wars' because we haven't reached the level of casualties of WW2. But you're failing to recognize that we never will, and that the very nature of war has altered dramatically with the dawn of modern military tech. WW2 was a time when leaders (I don't just mean the commanders in chief cause you can replace an individual easily - see Maduro, but the entire leadership structure) were essentially immortal by today's standards. If you wanted to kill Hitler, you either had to send spies and assassins (there was **A LOT** of emphasis on counter-espionage and counter-terrorism at the time, and Hitler lived in bunkers and armored trains), which was tried and never worked, or literally invade Germany. There was just no other option. The US, in the first few days, killed 250 senior Iranian politicians, including 28 cabinet-level named executives. Including, you know, their Supreme Leader and most of his family, their Speaker of Parliament, their Commander in Chief of the IRGC, the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Minister of Intelligence, Minister of Defense, etc. It's the equivalent of the Allies assassinating Hitler, Eva Braun, Himmler, Goebels, Goering, Keitel, von Manstein and Guderian all within days. Unfathomable at the time. I'll conclude in the same way: We've normalized war so much that we've become oblivious to its horrors. The concept of Trump, Melania, Rubio, Hegseth, JD Vance, and Thune getting assassinated by Iran at the same time, then some guy in, idk, New Zealand or Ghana going 'It's not a "massive" war by any stretch.' is hilarious to envision.

randompersonx

It would be way too long of a post to run through the whole list of negative experiences I had with Spirit, but, iirc I flew them for two round trips … and the amount of service failures across those 4 flights was more than I’ve had in hundreds of flights on AA, UA, DL, and B6. I’m honestly in a state of surprise whenever I see anyone singing their praises. My mom, as an example, always used to sing their praises… and then every time she flew them would complain about how terrible every aspect of the airport experience and flight was… and then a week later would say she loved spirit. rinse and repeat for years. I suspect they were okay If you didn’t need to check a bag, or only checked a small bag that was very durable.

randompersonx

You’re getting a ton of downvotes, but honestly I agree. I’ve taken spirit a few times because they happened to have nonstop routes that would have been convenient for me in theory. In reality, my experience on Spirit was so bad that I’d rather have a connection on AA, UA, or DL. The staff seemed to delightfully try to make the experience as unpleasant as possible, at every step of the journey on the handful of times i flew them. And, as far as price goes… once you start paying for the upgrades like an assigned “extra space” seat or whatever they called it … compared to what I’d pay on another airline, the value prop disappeared. I’d assume the airline algorithms for AA, DL, UA do consider each other as peers … and to some extent JetBlue, Alaska, and Hawaiian. But spirit and the like were probably mostly seen as pests who were not competing in any sort of sustainable, fair, or rational way… and assumed passengers would either opt in to Spirit and just not be mainline customers… or opt out and never consider them either way.

Flimsy-Ad-858

That's never gonna happen. I'm pretty sure Scott Kirby himself is leaking the "internal UA memos" on the subject specifically to troll the media just so he can turn around and say hey this JetBlue thing seems pretty normal now by comparison.

l12

What is “UA success” btw?

l12

What is “UA success” btw?

StBean007

UA.ai 🤔

Silmarien1012

True. I am a die hard UA adherent going back to my military days but 10-15 years ago they tried to cut corners everywhere. I buy socks there’s holes in them after 3 weeks. They wised up and started issuing high end stuff again at higher price points but the damage was done. In dept stores they sell uninspired stuff on racks next to Champion

CuteHand

UA is a white dwarf about to go supernova for its last time. Dead brand. Was more popular outside the US but not anymore. Private Equity ownership coming soon.

Own_Newspaper_6347

Yes, exactly my thought. So much insider buying from GME, Nike, now UA. Everyone’s going AI and this is how the bubble bursts

ateranol

So now Witkoff, after having so much success with RU-UA war, will now be handling Iran talks? SPY 800

Relevant-Doctor187

They will prop up a corpse of an airline to say competition when approving the AA/UA merger.

FullCopy

UA CEO is framing the merger as great for customers. Yeah, that’s what mergers are about.

chrstgtr

You phone but this was basically what UA tried to do 10 years ago.

BoboThePirate

My dad imparted some logic on me. I think it’s excessive but it has helped me a lot. “If you had the amount your stock is worth in cash, would you buy the stock at its current price?” Now, if I took this to heart 100% of the time I’d be poorer than today, but it has helped me quite a bit regarding when to sell. I personally also incorporate some other logic like weighing why I purchased the stock and if it still applies, as well as what bin of money I used to purchase the stock. If it’s house money, I’m much more flexible. One example was PLTR, purchased at ~$7. I sold my initial investment worth at $40 because I would no longer buy them at that level, and rode the rest to $60-100 because it was house money. I sold because they’re a POS company and my initial reasoning (NATO integration following UA success) became less likely. If I kept holding I’d be richer but you never go broke selling at a profit.

gaflar

Sounds like a joke but UA already did this. HOVR bluetooth shoes. They just missed the boat on talking up how much AI is involved.

BoboThePirate

Fair question, but no. Almost perfectly coinciding with the Iran war, Ukraine has heavily targeted Russian export facilities in order to reduce the profits RU gets from skyrocketing oil prices. Traditionally, UA goes for refineries but they switched to focus on export capacity recently and have bumble-fucked their port facilities with drones, all fairy recently. Reuters has a few articles on it.

PlantSkyRun

UA and AA can afford to spread around much larger campaign donations.

moosewithamuffin

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7ROU2\_8UA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7ROU2_8UA) you're welcome.

r2k-in-the-vortex

You would be right, if it was just hormuz. But its not. USD status as reserve currency is already doing quite poorly. https://www.reddit.com/r/EconomyCharts/s/UA9C0sQf2z