Talk about a company and discuss some of its comparables.
Nike trades at roughly 20× EV/EBITDA, premiums to Adidas and Puma on superior margins and brand, while Lululemon and On Holding trade higher on faster growth; a DCF complements comps given Nike's unique scale and DTC trajectory.
Intuition
Comparable company analysis works because similar businesses facing similar risks and growth prospects should trade at similar valuation multiples. The key is selecting comps that genuinely match on the dimensions that drive value — growth, margins, risk, capital intensity, channel mix, and brand strength — not just surface-level industry classification. For Nike, the best comp set spans global athletic and lifestyle brands with asset-light models and meaningful DTC exposure, even if no single company perfectly matches Nike's scale.
Watch
A common trap is selecting comps purely by industry without considering differences in growth, margins, channel mix, and brand positioning. An interviewer may push back: 'Why not include Skechers, Deckers, Crocs, or Anta?' You should explain that some of these can be useful reference points, but the most relevant comps are the companies that best match Nike on global brand strength, product mix, DTC exposure, margin profile, and scale. You should also acknowledge that Lululemon and On are more growth-oriented stretch comps and should be weighted accordingly.
Deep Dive
Demonstrate the ability to select a real company, identify appropriate comparable companies, and articulate the criteria and metrics used to compare them.
Selected Company: Nike, Inc. (NKE)
Phase 1: Company Profile
- Global athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment company
- Market cap: ~ (illustrative, mid-2024 range)
- Revenue: ~ LTM
- Business model: asset-light (outsourced manufacturing), brand-driven, mix of wholesale + direct-to-consumer (DTC)
- Key growth lever: DTC / Nike Direct digital push
Phase 2: Comparable Selection Criteria
| Criterion | Why It Matters |
|---|---|
| Industry / Sub-sector | Athletic / lifestyle footwear & apparel |
| Business Model | Brand-owner, asset-light, wholesale + DTC mix |
| Scale | Large-cap, global distribution |
| Growth Profile | Mid-to-high single-digit revenue growth |
| Margin Profile | Operating margins in the 10–15% range |
| End Market | Consumer discretionary, sport/lifestyle |
Phase 3: Selected Comparables
| Company | Ticker | Rev (~$B) | EV/EBITDA (illustrative) | EV/Revenue (illustrative) | Why Included |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adidas | ADS (Xetra) | ~$24 | ~18x | ~2.2x | Closest direct competitor, global footwear + apparel |
| Puma | PUM (Xetra) | ~$9 | ~13x | ~1.3x | Third major athletic brand, similar model |
| Under Armour | UAA | ~$6 | ~15x | ~0.8x | US athletic brand, DTC push, smaller scale |
| Lululemon | LULU | ~$10 | ~20x | ~4.5x | Premium athletic apparel, high DTC mix |
| VF Corp (incl. The North Face) | VFC | ~$12 | ~12x | ~1.0x | Multi-brand apparel, overlapping consumer |
| On Holding | ONON | ~$2 | ~35x | ~5.0x | High-growth athletic footwear challenger |
(All multiples are illustrative midpoints for demonstration purposes.)
Phase 4: Key Valuation Observations
Nike itself trades at roughly:
- EV/EBITDA: ~
- EV/Revenue: ~
- P/E: ~
- Nike commands a premium over Adidas and Puma due to stronger brand moat, higher margins (~12-13% EBIT vs. Adidas ~8%), and larger scale.
- Lululemon and On Holding trade at higher multiples due to faster organic growth rates and higher DTC penetration, but are meaningfully smaller.
- Under Armour and VF Corp trade at discounts reflecting weaker brand momentum and margin pressure.
- The relevant comparable range for Nike's EV/EBITDA is roughly , anchored by Adidas/Puma on the low end and Lululemon on the high end.
Phase 5: What You Would Flag in an Interview
- Nike's comp set is imperfect — no single company matches its combination of scale + brand + margin + growth.
- Lululemon is a stretch comp (yoga/lifestyle skew, almost pure DTC) but included because the Street often groups them.
- On Holding is a growth comp, not a size/margin comp — useful for triangulation but should be weighted lightly.
- You would complement this with a DCF because comps alone cannot capture Nike's unique DTC transition trajectory.