Dick's Destroyed $5 Mil. in 'Assault Rifles' Instead of Selling Them

I feel safer already…:roll_eyes:

Gotta love his “business savvy”…destroy $5M in inventory, to further alienate a customer base that has already cost you $250M in losses…I’m not normally a vindictive person, but I look forward to their demise (I shop anywhere BUT, Dick’s for the last couple of years now).

Guess all those gun-control advocates don’t quite buy as much gear as pro-2A folks.


Well, after 250M in losses, what’s another 5M? I wonder if you can claim a loss on inventory you’ve intentionally destroyed?


Business and politics do not necessarily mix well. This does not make any business sense to me (from the article):

During his October 6, CBS News appearance, CEO Ed Stack said the company ended up destroying $5 million worth of “assault-style rifles.”

Stack also admitted the Dick’s gun control stance has resulted in “a quarter of a billion [dollars]” in loses. But Stack does not regret the gun control stance. Rather, he is considering taking the company even further down the gun control path.


Personally I’m a huge fan of what these big companies are doing. Stop selling guns and ammo.
All they’re doing is helping small gun store owners. I miss the days of the mom and pop type sporting good stores that you could loose a day strolling the aisles.


Stock holders have to be shaking their heads.


Greg1: Stock holders have to be shaking their heads.

at a quarter billion dollars in lost sales, I’m guessing they’re shaking their fists.

while their stock doesn’t show a major downturn after the early-March 2018 announcement of stopping gun sales, their stock surely would have benefited from that quarter billion dollar income… and instead… meh. I don’t wish them any luck on fixing it though.


Nothing more than grandstanding for liberal tool antigunners and politicians. It’s same as Walmart ending ammo sales, same Grandstanding BS Nonsense. In addition to that any accountant worth their Salt will write it off as either a loss or Depreciate it out. Dicks will go out of business in a few years just like Morrie Mages did in Chicagoland when I was a kid growing up in Chicago.
Don’t nobody convene a soup kitchen for Dicks, the Parent Company is KIDSQ and last reported income was $8.26 Billion for 2018


Dick’s paid for them. The manufacturers got their money, Dick’s destroyed their own property. The manufacturers made more AR’S, sold through other gun stores, to hard working Americans. The manufacturers made more money, the Americans got the rifles they wanted, and Dick’s cost themselves money. I’m good with the whole scenario. :+1:


But they did not destroy any “ assault rifles!” They destroyed semiautomatic rifles.


If only they were Colt rifles…might have been enough to keep them in the AR15 game…… :joy:

(too soon? :thinking::grin:)


Could have donated them to various Police units. It may have been a tax write off.



They will still be able to write them off as a cost of doing business. I am sure they will show up on a tax return as “Cost of Goods Sold” even though they did not put them out for sale.


Could This Be The Reason Why Dick’s Sporting Goods CEO Destroyed Millions Of Dollars Worth of Guns?



1 Like

Wait… let me see if I have this right… hes a big republican donor, and he wants to run as a 3rd party candidate, and he thinks his anti-gun stance and the destruction of millions worth of ARs is going to work FOR him?

Seriously there has to be something wrong with his brain function there…


If I own stock in Dicks and saw this I’d be making some serious inquiries into his actions at the cost of the stockholders with the SEC.


As an Accountant, Dick’s would not be able to use this as a Cost of Goods sold. It should be properly charged as an expense. An argument could possibly be made for it to be a contra asset account and charged against Goodwill (Goodwill is an asset account that is for the difference in what your company is worth vs the difference someone would pay for it).

Example your company value = value of assets minus liabilities =$1 million, but a competitor is willing to pay $2 million. Once company was sold, new owner would take a $2 million dollar charge against assets, add value of assets and liabilities to their accounts at a net of $1 million, but would have to start an asset account called Goodwill and add the additional $1 million to that asset account.

But if I was the auditor, I would question a $5 million charge against cost of goods sold, and would make them aware that it was an expense, as it was a voluntary gesture, that was not required. However, as big as Dick’s is it probably wouldn’t reach the standard of materiality, so the whole argument would likely be moot.

Now as a Forensic Accountant, this would definitely be material.

Sorry for Accounting geek out.:crazy_face:

This is a very simplified description. As I doubt anyone on a pro 2a forum would want to read the entirety of the accounting trail. If interested you can pm me for a more detailed description of the accounts affected.



Ya just cant fix stupid.


Happy Community Anniversary, @FREERAVEN23!!


Although I’m against the anti-2a issues, I would be willing to bet that the “hunting” section of Dick’s was 1. only a tiny fraction of it’s sales, and 2. potentially eating up it’s inventory space for higher margin merchandise. I wonder if they used the tragedy as a reason to dump that department all together, and get free advertising through the media hype.

Over the last few years, their stock has started back on stable growth, their sales have grown every year, their sales have also eclipsed most of their rivals, and they’ve even started competing in the online space with high tech distribution facilities. Add to this the relatively low stock price from it’s valuation a few years ago and it’s dividend might be catnip for some investors looking for diversity… especially with the recent dip (I think related to Lease-Accounting Rules May Have Hurt Companies’ Valuations, Study Says).

Personally, I won’t shop there. However, I still think that it was a business decision relative to sales, and that they used this to fix the potentially bad PR from selling a firearm to the Parkland shooter (not the one used in the tragedy). I don’t know the numbers, but I think that the boycott might have affected their decision to sell their “Field & Stream” stores: Dick’s Sporting Goods is selling 8 of its hunting-centric Field & Stream stores, and it could signal a shift in the company’s gun strategy