1. From a pure economic/financial perspective this branding campaign doesn't make sense.... unless, you realize a much bigger picture. A hidden bigger picture. 
2. On its face, it just seems absurd. Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?
3. I've spoken to some very excellent business actuaries on this today; and one specific conversation finally helped to make it all make sense.
4. A multinational corporation would never make a branding decision adverse to their financial interests. *Unless*, there is a hidden risk unrelated to what is visible on the surface. That hidden risk has nothing whatsoever to do with Colin Kaepernick.
5. The bigger risk to Nike has nothing to do with Black Lives Matter, U.S. Consumers, or Antifa-like political advocacy. The bigger financial risk to the Nike Corporation has everything to do with Geopolitics and International Trade.
6. Here's the hidden aspect. Nike Inc. has hitched its massive existence to a 10-year business plan that is dependent on the continuance of recently negotiated contracts.
7. Those contracts for the manufacture of the Nike products they sell are all based on international agreements with Asian companies. Some ASEAN countries; but specifically the most quantifiable risk stems from specific China and North Korea contracts.
8. The current Donald Trump administration objective toward renegotiated trade deals with China represents the most significant and mostly quantifiable threat. This is the epicenter of the issue.
8. President Trump is likely, some would say predictably, about to levy a massive round of tariffs on imported Chinese goods. Nike would be one of the U.S. manufacturing companies hardest hit by such a move. ustr.gov/about-us/polic…
10. (sorry for the two 8's) The hearings on $20 billion worth of Chinese tariffs ended today. It is not coincidental that Nike stakes out a political position in opposition to those pending tariffs. ustr.gov/about-us/polic…
11. But wait.... it gets worse. The Nike contracts with China have almost certainly been sub-contracted to *non-publicized*, generally secret, manufacturing facilities in North Korea. reuters.com/article/us-nor…
12. The people I have spoken to virtually guarantee that Nike goods and apparel are made in North Korean sweatshops. The contracts are with Chinese companies, but a corrupt Beijing process allows many companies to use DPRK sweatshops as sub-contractors.
13. Due to the scale of operations, Nike uses contracted manufacturing in multiple nations. The use of sub-contractors allows plausible deniability toward the North Korean facilities by the parent corporation signing the contract. business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/nike/ko…
14. This presents a dual risk. #1 there are likely to be tariffs on Chinese imports; and #2 there are current sanctions against companies operating in North Korea.
15. A multinational company doing simultaneous business with ASEAN nations, China and North Korea for the majority of their manufacturing is *extraordinarily* exposed to the risks inherent within a U.S. -vs- China/DPRK trade reset.
16. A 20% drop in Nike value (based on current evaluations), as a result of branding themselves w/ Kaepernick, is nothing compared to the staggering financial risk inherent within multi-billion manufacturing contracts that can become worthless overnight.
17. Losing the entire supply chain, all future inventory, and the inability to manufacture goods would cost much more than if half of the U.S. consumer base stopped buying Nike products.
18. Many of the current DPRK sanction breeches have been overlooked (but not unnoticed) by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin. asahi.com/ajw/articles/A…
19. Therefore the Nike Company would be sympathetic to, and financially dependent on, alignment with the objectives of the Chinese Communist Party. In fact, with so much on the line, Chairman Xi Jinping would openly embrace and assist anti-U.S. endeavors around trade.
20. To the extent that Beijing (the ultimate decision-maker and approval body) would willingly lower production costs to offset any drops in U.S. revenue.... A rather interesting quid-pro-quo.
21. And that answers the question in #2) "Why would any major corporation intentionally stake out a branding position that is adverse to their financial interests?"
22. They, meaning Nike, wouldn't.
23. And they, meaning Nike, didn't.
24. The Nike political branding position is reconciled when you look at the bigger picture and see where the *real* financial risk aligns.
25. The Nike economic decision is to align with China, and by extension North Korea, for a position of mutual benefit. It is all about the proverbial $$$$ and Nike's best financial play is to mitigate risk and assist Communist China in their trade strategy.
26. Those darned actuaries are brilliant at figuring this stuff out.
/END
/END
ADDENDUM: ustr.gov/about-us/polic…
