This Stock's Unusually Active Options Should Have Investors Running to Buy
I'm obsessed with sports-related stocks. Always have been. I've followed Nike (NKE) for several decades. There's no business I won't watch if it's even remotely involved in sports & leisure pursuits.
It's been a while since I've covered a sports-related stock. The last was in late May with Amer Sports (AS) and On Holding (ONON). Before that, it was probably in January. It doesn't happen often.
Learn How This Options Strategy Generates Income and Limits Losses
Zeta Global (ZETA) Attracts Bullish Traders as AI Marketing Gains Traction
GS Iron Condor Could See a 33% Return in 3 Weeks
Get exclusive insights with the FREE Barchart Brief newsletter. Subscribe now for quick, incisive midday market analysis you won't find anywhere else.
So, today, as I considered a subject for my commentary, Wolverine World Wide (WWW), the Michigan-based maker of Saucony running shoes and Merrill hiking shoes, among others, stood out like a sore thumb.
Yesterday, it had two unusually active call options, resulting in above-average options volume of 6,707, nearly three times its 30-day average.
WWW first started transforming its business in 2022 by announcing its intention to divest brands such as Keds and its Wolverine Leathers business. It sold the former in February 2023 and the latter a few months later in August 2023. Other brands sold included Sperry business, which was sold in January 2024.
Focusing on Saucony and Merrill, the transformation continues, with significant progress being made.
With its shares down 17% in the past five years, a floor price appears to have been set around $10 or $11, so the downside isn't significant for making a bet on the lifestyle company.
Here's why yesterday's two unusually active call options make sense.
As I said, WWW had two unusually active call options in Wednesday trading (see below). Both have a decent amount of time for the bet to play out. Neither is excessively expensive. I prefer one over the other. I'll get to the reasons why in a bit. In the meantime, I'll consider the state of the business.
The company reported Q1 2025 results in early May. Overall, sales increased by 5.5% compared to last year. Excluding currency, they rose by 6.7%.
More importantly, its Active Group, which includes Saucony, Merrill, Sweaty Betty, and Chaco brands, generated 71% of its revenue in 2024 and saw sales rise by nearly 14% in the first quarter, excluding the impact of currency fluctuations.
Almost all of the Active Group's gains were from Saucony (up 31.3%) and Merrill (up 14.4%). From this perspective, the move to focus on the two brands looks to be paying dividends for Wolverine.
Further, the company's profitability in the quarter was much better than a year ago. Its adjusted gross margin of 47.3% was 80 basis points higher than in the first quarter of 2024. Its adjusted operating margin was 6.0%, 100 basis points higher.
As a result of the margin improvements, its earnings per share increased by 260% to $0.18 from $0.05.
'Merrell and Saucony fueled our growth with double-digit revenue increases, and we more than tripled our earnings year-over-year, again delivering a record gross margin performance. We've worked to reinvent Wolverine Worldwide for the future–focusing squarely on awesome product, amazing stories, and driving the business,' stated CEO Chris Hufnagel in the company's Q1 2025 press release.
How does the quarter stack up against previous first quarters? In terms of margins, reasonably well.
Its 47.3% gross margin in Q1 2025 was the highest over the past decade, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. However, its EBIT margin in this year's first quarter was 6.1%, which is better than it has been in recent years, but down from 11.5% in Q1 2018 and 11.0% in Q1 2021.
The headwinds faced, stemming from a shaky consumer and potential tariffs—since it manufactures most of its products through third parties in the Asia Pacific region—suggest that achieving double-digit EBIT margins may not be feasible in the near term.
So, Wolverine's valuation is somewhat hamstrung in terms of multiple expansion along with higher profits.
According to Barchart data, nine analysts are covering WWW stock. Of those, all but one rate it a Strong Buy (4.78 out of 5), with a mean target price of $20.55, which is higher than its current trading price.
In 2025, analysts expect the company to earn $1.05 per share and $1.28 in 2026. It trades at 17.1 times its 2025 estimate and 14.0 times its 2026 estimate. Over the past decade, its forward EPS multiple has ranged from a low of 7.56 times in Q4 2022 to a high of 19.49 times in Q1 2021.
So, it's neither cheap nor expensive, which suggests the analysts see the company continuing to improve profitability, leading to a higher multiple in the future.
Remember, one of its best first quarters in the past decade for EBIT margin was in 2021, when WWW stock was trading at almost 20 times forward EPS. If it doubles its EBIT margins in 2026, it will surely be a $30 stock by then, perhaps even higher. It traded in the mid-$40s in May 2021. It can get there again.
Betting on Wolverine isn't a slam dunk by any means.
The tariff question remains a significant uncertainty for the entire global apparel and footwear industry. It's impossible to know if the White House will ever solidify its trade plans for long enough so companies can make long-term plans.
That said, I think there's enough meat on the bone to suggest that Wolverine is on the upside of resolving its past business issues, making it an attractive value play for risk-tolerant investors.
Which brings me back to the two unusually active call options from yesterday.
While the Sept. 19 $20 call is cheaper with a $1.15 ask price, the Dec. 19 $22.50 call has twice the days to expiration, for only $5 more. Sure, it's further OTM (out of the money)—20.7% compared to 10.8% for the $20 call—but the additional time makes it worthwhile.
In the end, whether you bet on the $22.50 or $20 call, the worst-case scenario is that you lose $120.
I like the risk/reward proposition here.
On the date of publication, Will Ashworth did not have (either directly or indirectly) positions in any of the securities mentioned in this article. All information and data in this article is solely for informational purposes. This article was originally published on Barchart.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
23 minutes ago
- CBS News
"eBay for government" helps agencies and schools auction off property, Municibid founder says
A little slice of land in Ambridge Borough could be yours at a steep discount, and all the proceeds will benefit the local community. "We're like an eBay for government," said Greg Berry, CEO and founder of online government auction site Municibid. Berry says his company helps local governments auction off anything, from parcels of land and old desks to school buses and riding mowers. So far, about 7,000 local governments and schools use the online site to sell unneeded items to the public. The latest listing in Ambridge consists of a nearly 4,000-square-foot parcel of land along Glenwood Drive. Twenty-two bids have already been placed at just over $5,000. "A lot of times, smaller towns, and larger ones, have excess land or land that they've come into own in some form, and they don't have a need for it and they're looking to sell it," said Berry. He said maybe in this case, a neighbor wants to expand or a new park could pop up in the space. Berry says governments sell just about everything on his site. "While it's typically vehicles and heavy equipment and tools and land and things that you might expect the government to have and no longer need, it could be anything, such as sailboats and airplanes and jewelry and electric guitars," Berry said. Municibid allows consumers to sort and shop by state, borough or category. And when a winner scores a deal, here's how the costs break down. "When the auction closes and there's a winning bidder, the winning bidder pays us 9% of the winning bid amount, and then they pay 100% of the bid amount to the selling agency," Berry said. Gone are the days of going to the town hall to fill out a sealed bid. Berry told KDKA he used to work as a borough councilor and found that process far from transparent. "No one knew what the governments were selling, and if they did, the process was super inconvenient and intimidating and just wasn't very easy," said Berry. Besides the Ambridge property, KDKA found a lot of items up for grabs in the Pittsburgh area, including an ATV in Mt. Lebanon, a 2020 Ford Explorer in Castle Shannon, a Ford Crown Victoria police car in New Castle, and golf carts in Greensburg. Berry told KDKA some parents snag their teenagers' first car on the site, or business owners land some needed equipment at a fraction of the price.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
Crisis Averted—But What Was The Section 899 Revenge Tax Proposal?
WASHINGTON, DC - APRIL 23: U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivers remarks during the ... More International Finance Institute Global Outlook Forum at the Willard InterContinental Washington on April 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. The forum is being held alongside the 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group (WBG) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). (Photo by) There are myriad ways to express displeasure with international tax policy: you can file a complaint at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), leverage a charm offensive, or, if you're looking for a quick fix, you can slap a retaliatory tax on foreign investors, spook the market, and call it a day. The Trump administration opted for the latter—albeit briefly—with the seemingly now-defunct Section 899 provision, branded by some as the 'revenge tax.' This provision, tucked into the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, levied a targeted tax meant to punish countries that impose 'discriminatory' taxes on American firms – particularly tech giants. Now however, after some handshakes and a flurry of posts on social media, it seems the revenge tax has been scrapped. Quietly scuttled, its political usefulness exhausted—for now. What Was the Section 899 'Revenge Tax?' At its core, Section 899 was a legislative jab aimed squarely at America's trading partners. Buried in the GOP's sweeping policy bill, the provision would have authorized the U.S. to impose punitive taxes on companies headquartered in countries that were, in the view of the Trump administration, treating American firms unfairly. The sweeping new section of the tax code would have been titled 'Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes'—not exactly a subtle start. Section 899 didn't go after governments that it felt had treated U.S. firms unfairly, but instead targeted people and businesses with ties to 'discriminatory foreign countries.' That included foreign individuals, corporations not majority-owned by U.S. persons, private foundations and trusts, and just about any other foreign partnership or structure that Treasury didn't like the looks of. The goal was clear: foreign investors from offending jurisdictions were going to be made to feel real economic pain. The core mechanism was an annual ratcheting-up of tax rates by 5% on the U.S. income of 'applicable persons' – everything from dividends and royalties to capital gains and even real estate sales. Exceptions were few – the legislation even explicitly overrode Section 892, which exempts sovereign wealth funds from taxation. The triggering mechanism for the tax was any broadly-defined 'unfair foreign tax,' which included the Undertaxed Profits Rule from OECD's Pillar 2, Digital Services Taxes (DSTs), and any other tax Treasury later deemed discriminatory or deliberately burdensome to U.S. persons. In sum, it would have been sweeping. If passed, Section 899 would have been a weaponization of the tax code into a tool of transparent foreign policy enforcement. It would have marked a sea change in international tax policy, shifting tax rates away from economics and towards the punishment of deemed foreign policy sins. What Prompted this 'Revenge?' Likely the most salient policy shift that triggered this revenge tax was the OECD's Pillar 2. Championed by the Biden administration, Pillar 2 aims to impose a 15% global minimum tax on the profits of multinationals—regardless of where they are headquartered or what markets they serve. On paper, it was intended to end the race to the bottom of low-tax jurisdictions; in practice, it creates a complex web of policies and enforcement rules that can allow foreign governments to tax U.S. companies in situations where the U.S. does not. The Undertaxed Profits Rule allows other countries to claim the ability to tax if a company's home jurisdiction does not sufficiently tax its own domestic entities. Think of it as a foreign state saying, well, if you aren't going to tax your companies at 15%, we'll gladly make up the difference for you. To the Trump administration, this was unacceptable—a path to the European Union skimming revenue from American companies. The final straw was likely the imposition of DSTs—levies aimed at the revenue of tech giants like Meta and Google, often imposed by European countries that have grown tired of waiting for the U.S. to sign on to Pillar 2. Of course, countries considering and ultimately passing DSTs were merely exercising their right to tax American companies selling into their markets—but that is neither here nor there. Why Section 899 Was a Problem—And Why It Died For all its bluster, Section 899 had one main flaw: it was bad policy masquerading as tough politics. From the moment the bill hit the docket, or more accurately folks found it swimming around in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, alarms went off across the market. As it turns out, foreign investment doesn't like uncertainty. Section 899 would have injected a lot of uncertainty into the foreign investment market. The tax hikes weren't automatic, and there was no schedule that could be consulted by any one individual state; they turned on vague determinations like what was and wasn't an 'unfair tax.' Treasury could label a state a discriminatory foreign country based on opaque criteria and ramp up rates immediately—all without Congress lifting a finger. As is to be expected, trade groups warned of chilling effects on capital markets. Foreign governments viewed it as a backdoor sanctions regime. So it died – not with a bang, but with a post. Scott Bessent publicly called for the provision's removal, citing diplomatic progress. The death of the Revenge Tax doesn't mean this particular international tax skirmish is over, however, only that the battle was paused temporarily in favor of diplomacy. If global talks stall, or DSTs raise their heads again, no one should be surprised if a future Congress pulls out this playbook again.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jordan Brand Revenue Sinks 16% During Nike's Fiscal Year
Nike reported fourth-quarter financial results that slightly topped depressed revenue and earnings-per-share estimates, but the full-year picture reflects the brand's struggles, as 12-month revenue fell 10% to $46.3 billion. The worst-performing Nike segment was the Jordan Brand, where revenue fell 16% for the year to $7.3 billion. Men's, which represents roughly half the business, and women's were both down 6%, while kids' dipped 5%. Converse sits outside the Nike brands and was off 19% to $1.7 billion. More from NASCAR Teams Must Share Financial Data, Judge Rules NASCAR's Countersuit Against 23XI, Front Row Motorsports Advances 23XI Racing, Front Row Ask Appellate Court for NASCAR Restart Jordan has been an outperformer in recent years, while the overall Swoosh brand struggled, leading to the return of Elliott Hill in October to take over as CEO. Jordan's loyal customer base and iconic designs drove sales higher, including 6% the previous year when the overall company was flat. Yet, it has faced saturation concerns over the last year and a bigger challenge from Adidas. The fiscal year-end results are the one time a year the company provides financial results of its wholly owned Jordan brand, whose foundation was the signing of NBA icon Michael Jordan to an endorsement contract in 1984. The brand's revenue doubled between 2020 and 2024 as it expanded into more women's gear, non-basketball items and international sales. The 'performance' basketball sneaker market is down over the past decade, but the 'retro' or lifestyle business more than made up for the declines. Jordan's soaring revenues boosted the fortunes of the former basketball player, who earned an estimated $300 million overall last year, predominantly from Nike royalties. MJ is the highest-paid athlete of all time, with $3 billion in career earnings from salaries and endorsements, by Sportico's count, or $4.15 billion adjusted for inflation. New CEO Hill is a believer in the Jordan Brand as a pillar to restore Nike's dominance in the sportswear industry. He was the Nike executive who took the Jordan Brand international in the late 1990s. Nike's stock is down 17% year-to-date and closed Wednesday at $62.54. It is now off 65% from its high-water close of $177.51 in November 2021. Last year, Nike's stock was the second-worst performer among the 30 components of the Dow Jones Industrial Average with a 30% drop. Best of Most Expensive Sports Memorabilia and Collectibles in History The 100 Most Valuable Sports Teams in the World NFL Private Equity Ownership Rules: PE Can Now Own Stakes in Teams Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
