Dick's Destroyed $5 MIL Worth of "Assault Rifles"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yep, another breathless missal from breitbart. This was news 18 months ago.

i could care less that Dick's destroyed a big bunch of so called "assault rifles". AR-15 rifles aren't precious religious icons.
 
I don't care for Dick's policies, and would boycott them. But truth be told, I never shop there anyway. Their prices aren't very competitive and I don't care for the styles and products they sell.

The last time I bought something there was when they had Remington Thunderbolt .22 ammo on sale for $8.99 a brick, tells you how long ago that was, and crap ammo to boot. lol

Wonder how their shareholders fell about some exec squandering their money for his personal social ideology?
 
The market based economy that predominates our country makes it very easy for big business to push social and political agendas without having much fallout.

If they have the lowest prices, they can get away with quite a bit. Not everyone is in a position to pick and choose and a vast sum of folks are not so set in their principles to care one way or another.

Most of us on this site are like minded politically and social and if we are not of the same socio-economic class, we still share the same ideas regarding socio-economics.

If you could somehow sway the folks who don’t care to start boycotting then Dicks would be dead before Christmas.
 
On an AR, the "gun" is the lower receiver. They could have destroyed the lower receivers and recycled the rest of the parts.

Anyway, this company is well on the road to bankruptcy, and not just over the gun issue.
 
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor ,
Climate collapse in 12 years ,
Dick's destroyed millions of dollars worth o0f inventory for the betterment of society.

Next?
I waited and the mountain came to me.
 
they paid their money for those guns, they can take the loss of them anyway they like.
 
If you could somehow sway the folks who don’t care to start boycotting then Dicks would be dead before Christmas.

Right now I'm boycotting wal-mart out of 5-7k per year. Mostly groceries.

I've never bought from Dick's because they were never in my area. I never will buy from Dick's thanks to their lame policy. Low prices can be had on run of the mill made in china sporting goods all over the internet.
 
alsqr #26. Recently Dick's CEO made a big pose on CBS News about destroying their military style rifles and accessories. Yeah, they stopped selling them months ago. But the CEO made this announcement for the news.

ClickClickD'oh #14. In response to the possibility they might use the destruction as a tax write off, I searched "destroying unsaleable inventory as tax write off" and got:
MKS&H CPAs and Business Consultants
https://mksh.com/obsolete-inventory-book-vs-tax-write-off/
My summary:
If Dick's can no longer
(a) use their inventory in a normal manner, or
(b) sell it at a normal price,
Dick's can take a tax deduction in one of three ways:
1. Sell the inventory to a liquidator or junkyard. Tax deduction = fair market value - the offer received from liquidator or junkyard.
2. Donate the inventory to a charitable cause at no cost to the charity.* Deduction amount varies.
3. Destroy the inventory. Least possible tax deduction of the three options. Plus you must document the destruction to the IRS.
My take: The inventory is not obsolete nor is it unsaleable. The only thing preventing Dick's from using their inventory in a normal manner, or selling it at a normal price, is the Dick's head's decision to destroy a perfectly good inventory of legal firearms and accessories as a political message. I am not a CPA, business consultant, or IRS tax specialist, but I don't think Dick's would qualify for a tax write-off destroying their inventory as a political pose.

I suspect that the CEO's announcement is supposed to generate good vibes with the woke and save Dick's declining business. Like when KMart went on camera in Bowling For Columbine and discontinued guns and ammo.

___________________________
*2. Dick's could donate the military-style firearms and accessories to a gun club operating military matches under the rules of the Civilian Marksmanship Program; that would take the guns off their hands and keep them off the streets.
 
Last edited:
On an AR, the "gun" is the lower receiver. They could have destroyed the lower receivers and recycled the rest of the parts.

That's what I imagine they did. $5M as full boat retail priced inventory is what?....give or take 7000 rifles? Figure they sold off the complete uppers to a wholesaler for let's say $200 each, sell off the mags, sights, stocks, trigger assemblies...at the end of the day, probably still getting more out of them than they paid, and still show a loss on the books because they "destroyed" the gun, even if it was just the serialized lower.
 
I noticed that several folks have commented on the shareholders rights and how the CEO is basically destroying the value of the company. The truth is in today's economy, few people own individual shares with the rest being owned by pension funds, large institutional investors, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc. From what I remember, the Stack family is one of the larger individual shareholders but far short of the majority of shares. The business schools have been teaching for awhile that a corporate CEO and board should consider "stakeholders" of which stockholders are only one. Ironically, they never really emphasize employees as one of the stakeholders. Instead, the company should be managed to placate the stakeholders.

Anyway, the true peers for what the CEO is trying to please are not the poor individual shareholders but those that manage large blocks of the stock. The stock prices of many companies have become detached from their actual profit/loss performance which is where options, shorting, derivatives, and arbitrage via computer buying and selling among other strategies are affecting the price of the stock. Witness the huge valuations given to companies that have never made a profit and yet had stocks climbing year after year. You see similar problems with companies that are well established that appear to be self-destructive yet the stock climbs in price. That tells you that something else is going on here.

In reality, one can consider corporations as the heir to the outdated aristocracy idea. Corporations theoretically can last forever just as a lineage might, therefore the existing CEO, cough, baron, manages the estate in a temporary fashion but the estate itself is entailed via the stakeholder process just as barons were restricted in their activities by the king and custom. There is even a corollary to noblesse oblige which is the accepted b-school idea that corporations should do all sorts of "good works" such as promoting gun control. Note that the CEO controls this process, not the shareholders just as the baron could control when he chose to exercise that power.
 
alsqr #26. Recently Dick's CEO made a big pose on CBS News about destroying their military style rifles and accessories. Yeah, they stopped selling them months ago. But the CEO made this announcement for the news.

ClickClickD'oh #14. In response to the possibility they might use the destruction as a tax write off, I searched "destroying unsaleable inventory as tax write off" and got:
MKS&H CPAs and Business Consultants
https://mksh.com/obsolete-inventory-book-vs-tax-write-off/
My summary:
If Dick's can no longer
(a) use their inventory in a normal manner, or
(b) sell it at a normal price,
Dick's can take a tax deduction in one of three ways:
1. Sell the inventory to a liquidator or junkyard. Tax deduction = fair market value - the offer received from liquidator or junkyard.
2. Donate the inventory to a charitable cause at no cost to the charity.* Deduction amount varies.
3. Destroy the inventory. Least possible tax deduction of the three options. Plus you must document the destruction to the IRS.
My take: The inventory is not obsolete nor is it unsaleable. The only thing preventing Dick's from using their inventory in a normal manner, or selling it at a normal price, is the Dick's head's decision to destroy a perfectly good inventory of legal firearms and accessories as a political message. I am not a CPA, business consultant, or IRS tax specialist, but I don't think Dick's would qualify for a tax write-off destroying their inventory as a political pose.

I suspect that the CEO's announcement is supposed to generate good vibes with the woke and save Dick's declining business. Like when KMart went on camera in Bowling For Columbine and discontinued guns and ammo.

___________________________
*2. Dick's could donate the military-style firearms and accessories to a gun club operating military matches under the rules of the Civilian Marksmanship Program; that would take the guns off their hands and keep them off the streets.

I guess the IRS would have to approve that tax write off.

The same IRS that had no problem delaying and denying tax status claims to conservative leaning organizations.

So I have no doubt that their virtue signaling will be rewarded
 
Why didn’t they try to sell them back to the mfg? Strictly for show and hopefully more sales and acceptance to some folks probably Cabela’s and ProBass dancing.
 
Seriously, do you even know any hipsters?

I know of them...but have not truly studied hipster culture:D

But for serious...Sports Authority stopped selling guns around '05...went out of business around '15. Without "The Lodge" I don't see where Dick's will be substantially different than the now defunct Sports Authority
 
Is a middle-class woman buying some workout/yoga gear for herself and team sports gear for her kids. The hipster you pictured would never darken the doorway of a "mainstream" big box retailer. Not enough "curated" or "crafted" or "heritage."

"Artisan".

Dick's is socially conscious. Therefore, hipsters will darken the doorway. They just don't have the money that gun people do. They're not people, they're kids.
 
I know of them...but have not truly studied hipster culture:D

I get to "study" them by virtue of living in an urban area that they also inhabit. I encounter them on a daily basis.

Without "The Lodge" I don't see where Dick's will be substantially different than the now defunct Sports Authority.

They've got a nicer shopping environment in terms of decor and generally have less of a "this place is a freaking mess and collapsing and smells funny" vibe than Sports Authority did. Less linoleum-and-bright-flourescent-cleanup-on-aisle-6.

But in terms of product mix? Yeah, pretty much the same. I'm not sure their "superior shopping experience" will be enough, either. Also, general sporting goods and athletic/athleisure wear is extremely vulnerable to online merchants.

And the general-ness of Dick's contributed to their problem. Even before their gun-control plunge, serious shooters weren't generally buying their guns there. Serious camping and hiking folks aren't buying their tents at Dick's, either (that's what REI is for and a few others). Serious golfers aren't getting fit for their clubs at Dick's.

Their market is primarily people affluent enough to want "name brands" and stuff that is not outright junk, but not "into" the subject enough to know there is usually better stuff available elsewhere, and/or with more knowledgeable assistance.

Again: middle-class (and above) women shopping for themselves and their kids mostly.
 
Dick's is socially conscious. Therefore, hipsters will darken the doorway.

Nope. It's still too corporate. They re-tweet the anti-gun tweets of the CEO, but that's all.

This is all pitching to soccer moms, not hipsters.

Since I live approximately 1 mile from a Dick's, I have long familiarity with their demos. And I live around more hipsters than a lot of THR'ers. Unfortunately, this is a topic I think I know a bit about. :oops:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top