Dick's destroying lots of rifles

[Hal]

Interesting.....

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/irol/13/132215/dks_codeofbusconductandethics.pdf

It would seem that Dick's - or more to the point, the individuals making the decision to destroy perfectly salable merchandise, based on a political cause, are in direct violation of their own code of ethics.

 

[Tony Z]

First, here in north central PA, Dick's is definitely not a store to go into for firearm shopping (nor is Field and Stream). Their targeted shoppers are more millenials (and those that fancy themselves in a similar fashion), for golf, soccer, various sports clothes, camping and fishing. Having visited both stores, their inventory of "black" arms is not extensive. During my visits, foot traffic was not extensive, so this 'inventory reduction" may be a sought for excuse, in other words, Dick's waited for the next gun event to extract themselves from a market segment.

Dick's has a decent online business, and I have purchased items from them, that are competitively priced (retail stores are not).

I'm not an accountant, but I do own a manufacturing business, and I am familiar with inventory write-downs. Generally descriptions are limited to verbage such as "obsolete" or "stale". With Dick's, is the inventory "floor planned", in other words having the value under written by a lender or the manufacturer? Or is the inventory owned by Dick's? We don't know, but I would suspect the value is a very tiny percentage of the entire part of what Dick's holds. Further, do we know Dick's is actually destroying the inventory (as they claim), or will they hide it away in an obscure warehouse for "X" years, until some future time, when it actually is obsolete?

I'm not defending Dick's, but believe this was more a business decision than a societal decision (in a way). I believe this is more a means to focus on what is being defined as a core business direction, giving way to acceptable "write-downs" of inventory, to attain the goal.

 

[TruthTellers]

Two possibilities,

1) they are accepting the loss of both their cost and potential profit, in order to show the "ideological purity" of their management to the anti-gun people, who do buy track shoes and short, etc.

2) same as #1, but they have figured a way to write off, or minimize the financial loss.

If, for example, if they had run an ad campaign which promoted a product by torture testing it to destruction (to show how tough it was), they could write off the cost of the destroyed item(s) as part of the ad cost.

On the other hand, torching/crushing, what ever they are doing to destroy the rifles as a PR move and then expecting to get paid for doing it (and being able to write off a loss as an expense is "getting paid" for the loss in a way, I think that would be a tough sell to any auditor.

on the other hand, they are Dick's....

Thing is that those Anti's who might be those who buy shorts and shoes will always buy them for the lowest price, which will probably be from Target, Amazon, etc.

The Anti's aren't brand loyal people, well except when it comes to Apple, Facebook, etc.

 

[ATN082268]

They’ll claim some tax write off.

Slightly off topic but Businesses/Corporations don't pay any taxes. Whatever cost that is imposed on them by government is passed on to the consumer. A Business/Corporation may collect taxes for the government but they don't actually pay them.

 

[Lohman446]

Thing is that those Anti's who might be those who buy shorts and shoes will always buy them for the lowest price, which will probably be from Target, Amazon, etc.

The Anti's aren't brand loyal people, well except when it comes to Apple, Facebook, etc.

I think you are making some pretty strong and incorrect assumptions about "the antis" as a group.

If Dick's fails it will because of a failed business model as a whole. The destruction of a few AR15s is not going to be it. Considering there move to not sell them after Sandy Hook and later "reentry" into the market I think some here are giving far too much consideration to the purchasing power of the vocal pro gunners who "will never set foot in a Dick's sporting goods again." Frankly I am going to guess that group accounted for next to nothing in Dick's bottom line in the first place.

It would be like me stating "I'm never going to step foot in that restaurant again" when referencing a five star dining establishment. Considering I have not to this point and do not intend to it's a fairly meaningless statement.

 

[thallub]

Sometimes buy deer corn from the Lawton Dick's store. i always check the gun rack and have never seen an AR-15 rifle there.

 

[TXAZ]

Mackie244Bud wrote:

I do not agree with that statement!
These AR's are not:
1) Damaged Goods
2) Stolen Goods
3) Destroyed Goods... This is per as I stated expired or bad food..
Not because you just wanted to have a company bon fire and your product was the only thing available to burn! LOL!
This is NOT for destroying perfectly good profitable product!
You would never get it past the IRS.
4) Cost of Goods Sold...Not on your life!

IRS publication 538 (and other referenced docs) disagree with you.

Dick's like any other a "going concern" is given the latitude to run their own business the way the see fit. Companies that get out of 1 business and into another often dispose (including destroy) remaining inventory, give it away or otherwise dispose of without compensation. That's all deductible.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Interesting.....

http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_...tandethics.pdf

It would seem that Dick's - or more to the point, the individuals making the decision to destroy perfectly salable merchandise, based on a political cause, are in direct violation of their own code of ethics.

What part of the policy? I read it, and I don't see anything in there that "directly" applies to virtue signaling.

 

[Lohman446]

Virtue signalling falls under the same category as campaign donations, political support, and some marketing. Unless you can indicate the person making the decisions knew there was not a reasonable chance of present or future value from the costs incurred one would be hard pressed to prove an ethical violation. The person doing it could even argue that it was "experimental" in nature and done to measure the value of such stances.

 

[DaleA]

My "waste not, want not" grandmother would be appalled.

My recollection of Dick's based on the few times I shopped there was that it was even HARDER than Wal-Mart to find a clerk in the firearms department.

(My Wal-Mart strategy has been to go with a friend. One of us will cap an aisle while the other herds the clerk toward them. It's worked quite well to catch a clerk. Unfortunately 99% of the time they don't have the key to the ammunition cabinet so it turns out to be a 'catch and release' exercise.)

 

[Hal]

A conflict of interest exists when your private interests interfere with, or even appear to
interfere with, the best interests of the Company. As an associate, officer or director
of the Company, you must be free of any actual or perceived conflict of interest to
assure that you are able to exercise independent judgment with regard to the
Company's best interests.

Page 3
Destruction of perfectly good inventory, based solely on a personal belief that it does something beneficial?

All associates, officers and directors should act to protect the Company's facilities and
assets, including inventory, documents, property, facilities, offices and equipment, to
ensure their efficient use.

Page 11.
Destruction of perfectly good inventory, based on giving into political pressure\?

The Company does not contribute cash, services, goods, or any other items of value
to the campaigns of candidates for any elective office or to any political party or
"cause" that is political. Consequently, you are not authorized to make any political
contribution, whether in cash, goods, use of facilities or otherwise, on behalf of the
Company. You may not use the Company's funds, facilities or other resources for any
political purpose unless such use is approved in writing in advance by the Legal
Department.

Page 13.

Was proper authorization obtained?

Just saying/asking.

Being a publicly traded corporation as Dick's is, if I had any funds invested in them, I'd sure as heck want to know the reasons why perfectly good inventory was destroyed.

 

[rpseraph]

My recollection of Dick's based on the few times I shopped there was that it was even HARDER than Wal-Mart to find a clerk in the firearms department.

(My Wal-Mart strategy has been to go with a friend. One of us will cap an aisle while the other herds the clerk toward them. It's worked quite well to catch a clerk. Unfortunately 99% of the time they don't have the key to the ammunition cabinet so it turns out to be a 'catch and release' exercise.)

Dale, you made my day. Walmart, at least in MN, is terrible. I totally agree! The other problem is that even if you herd AN employee towards the counter, they have no idea what they are doing, don't have a key, don't know who has a key, and may or may not speak english (not judging, everyone needs a job and a chance to learn.)

I once cornered one and asked who could help me get some ammunition, and they said "I'm not really sure" and just walked away, not to find someone but just took off! Hahaha, I'm pretty sure my jaw dropped.

 

[rickyrick]

Most Walmart’s I’ve been to have a bell or buzzer at the sporting goods counter.
While on vacation I needed another cheap back pack, behold, they were locked up. I buzzed and someone came an unlocked the bags and took me to a register... apparently, people grab a bag and fill it up full as possible and run out of the store.

As far as Dick’s or any other sporting goods store goes, I can’t imagine any of them paying any and every tax out there and simply passing it on to the consumer. If there’s a magically way to write off destroying merchandise, they will.
One thing for sure, the customers will pay for those destroyed weapons, the IRS might too.

 

[riffraff]

As far as dicks goes they are supporting the gun manufacturers by destroying those guns - instead of going into circulation more will just be produced to meet demand ... it would be great if the anti gunners did this with remington, ie buy millions of dollars in rifles to destroy them as they could use the revenue.

As far as walmart, i typically buy ammo online but if in a jam i just find an employee first, i corner them, and say i need help at sporting goods. They get on the radio and within a few minutes someone shows, no sense waiting at the counter you will be ignored until you directly ask someone for help.

 

[NateKirk]

I've been in two Dick's store over the years, and I can only say...the name suits them well.

Probably because they run their stores on a shoe string budget and are unwilling to invest in adequate staff, a staff that they treat like the sludge at the bottom of the garbage disposal. People wonder why they get bad service; a lot of times its a reflection of store morale.

 

[JERRYS.]

I will not purchase anything there. it would be different if they sold their inventory and simply did not restock it. however, since they are making such a statement, I will move on to some other store.

 

[Sevens]

If smaller gun stores near any/every Dick's get even a small bump in business then I'm all for it. More rifles being made to replace the chump low-end rifles that Dick's claims they will destroy.

 

[Machineguntony]

If you’re a business owner, you wouldn’t want others telling you how to run your business. You have a right to your business judgment, right or wrong.

It’s a business. They can do whatever they want, if it’s within the law.

We can take our money elsewhere.

If they lose money or they see other retailer making money on ARs, they’ll change their position.

In the end, it’s a business, and the free market will win out.

Simple as that.

 

[Hitthespot]

This doesn't surprise me at all. While a little of the track of the original post. I pulled into a Dicks parking lot one time and there was a sign posted as you drove in that firearms were not allowed on the premises. I seen two employees working on some bicycles and asked about the sign. They didn't know anything. About 5 minutes later the manager of the store came up to me and asked if I was the one with a problem with firearms. I said yes, you have signs as your pulling into your store that state no firearms on the premises, yet you sell firearms. Isn't that a problem? He emphatically denied there were any signs. He said he had been coming to work there for a long time and there was no signs. I said I just seen them. You should go look. He went out into the parking lot, seen the signs and came back in mad as hell. I'm calling corporate right now. The signs were gone a couple days after that. That store eventually moved about 3 miles into a mall complex.

Anyway I thought I would share that story since we were talking about Dicks.

 

[Sure Shot Mc Gee]

For the TruthTellers

“We are in the process of destroying all firearms and accessories that are no longer for sale as a result of our February 28th policy change,” a spokesperson from Dick’s Sporting Goods told the media outlet. “We are destroying the firearms in accordance with federal guidelines and regulations.”