1

Assignment 1: Lululemon Financial Analysis

Introduction

As of 2019, the global sports apparel industry generated US$181 billion and is projected

to grow further by 15% by 2025 (Shahbandeh, 2021). With heightened awareness of the

importance of having a more active lifestyle, the athleisure phenomenon is rapidly gaining pace.

In recent years, this segment has been driving the growth of the sports apparel industry.

Athleisure is a combination of the words “athletic” and “leisure,” which refers to “casual

clothing designed to be worn for both exercising and general use” (Lipson et al., 2019). While

established brands like Nike and Adidas are the dominant players in the market, there are

relatively new players, such as Lululemon, that are steadily carving their portion of the business.

This paper seeks to conduct a financial analysis of Lululemon by looking into its profitability,

liquidity, and solvency metrics in relation to its peers (Puma, Under Armour, and Columbia

Sportswear) using each company’s financial statements from the fiscal year 2019. This analysis

concludes with the key takeaways, limitations of the study, and recommendations for the

business moving forward.

Company Overview

Lululemon is a designer of athletic apparel and accessories which they distribute

globally. The brand mainly offers sportswear for yoga, running, and training, with women

currently comprising most of its customers. While retail apparel is a highly competitive industry
 2

with usually low margins for mass-marketed products, Lululemon has been able to position itself

as a premium brand for athletic wear targeting the health-conscious millennial market with

higher disposable incomes. Lululemon is considered a pioneer in the athleisure movement and

has been growing its revenue at 19% CAGR since 2016, while its peers have only been growing

at an average of 10%, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Horizontal Analysis of Revenues from FY 2016 to FY 2019

TOTAL REVENUES (2016-2019)

(US$ BILLIONS)
7
Billions

6
5
4
3
2
1
-
2016 2017 2018 2019

Columbia Sportswear Co. lululemon athleti ca inc

Puma SE Under Armour Inc

Note. From Mergent Database

Despite its more limited product portfolio compared to its peers, Lululemon has been

growing rapidly through its strong marketing efforts, brand community, and vertical retail

distribution strategy, allowing them to have more control over its customers’ experience

(Lululemon, 2020). One of the key metrics for retailers is average sales per square foot, which

indicates the efficiency in using retail space to generate revenues. According to market research

firm eMarketer, Lululemon had the highest average sales per square foot among clothing

retailers in 2017 at $1,491 annual sales per square foot, compared to Under Armour’s $549

(Camoin Associates, 2018). In 2019, Lululemon’s average sales per square foot has grown even
 3

further to $1,697 as it launched two experiential stores in the United States, which feature

workout studios and snack bars to further strengthen its community-based marketing (Salpini,

2019).

Lululemon’s revenue growth has been fueled by its “Power of Three” strategy which

includes product innovation, omni-guest experiences, and market expansion as its key pillars

(Lululemon, 2019b). By 2023, Lululemon aims to double men’s, double digital, and quadruple

international revenues. For its product innovation pillar, Lululemon has grown its revenue by

34% and expanded its product offers with the launch of self-care personal-care products in 2019

(Lululemon, 2020). Lululemon’s key competitive advantage lies in its unique designs and

cutting-edge materials that address the specific needs of its target market, allowing it to charge a

premium on its products (Ballard, 2020). While Lululemon expanded its geographical footprint

in 2019 by opening 51 stores in North America, Asia, and Europe, it also continues to invest in

its digital capabilities, which resulted in a 35% increase in its direct-to-consumer revenue from

its website and mobile app and a 9% increase in in-store sales as seen in Figure 2 (Lululemon,

2020).

Figure 2

Lululemon’s Revenue per Channel (FY 2018 vs. FY 2019)

 4

Note. From Lululemon 2019 Annual Report

Analysis of Financial Health

Conducting regular financial analysis is critical for any business to ensure its long-term

viability, its ability to serve its stakeholders’ interests, and its capacity to address its financial

obligations. Kingyens et al. (2016) noted that the retail apparel industry is particularly vulnerable

to bankruptcy because of its highly competitive environment due to low capital investment

requirements and barriers to entry, resulting in low profit margins. Hence, continual monitoring

of their financial health should be a priority for businesses in the retail apparel industry.

Profitability

Profitability ratios indicate a company’s ability to operate efficiently such that the

revenues it generates can cover its costs and provide value to shareholders. Through their

financial analysis of 85 retail apparel firms, Kingyens et al. (2016) found out that profitability

ratios are significant predictors of potential bankruptcy. Measures such as profit margin, return

on assets (ROA), return on equity (ROE), accounts receivable (AR) turnover, and inventory

turnover were substantially high for active firms compared to those which declared bankruptcy.
 5

Despite the expectations that total asset turnover is the most important component for a highly

competitive industry, the values for active and bankrupt firms did not have a significant

difference (Kingyens et al., 2016).

Among the four retail apparel companies, Lululemon has the best profitability margins in

2019, which also reflects an increase compared to 2018, as seen in Figure 3. Since it positions

itself as a premium brand of athletic wear, Lululemon’s pricing has been on the higher end given

its unique selling proposition for its products with features such as second-skin, four-way stretch,

and moisture-wicking that resonate very well with its target market (Marci, 2020). Because of its

distinctive product offers, Lululemon’s customers are willing to pay a much higher price of $100

for a pair of leggings compared to $40-$60 offered by its competitors. As a result, Lululemon

enjoys a favorable mix of higher-margin products, and it can afford to provide minimal

markdowns (Lululemon, 2020). Moreover, its lower cost of goods sold also drove the increase in

its gross margin, as shown in the vertical analysis in Figure 4. While its net profit margin

increased, Lululemon’s net income has been impacted by an increase in selling, general and

administrative expenses due to higher employee incentives and costs of digital enhancements, as

well as higher income tax expense. Looking into the EBITDA margin, which minimizes the

effects of non-operating expenses, Lululemon’s EBITDA margin has increased more

significantly by 6%. On the other hand, Under Armour’s net profit margin is noticeably lower

than its peers and was even negative in 2018. Such poor performance has been due to its

efficiency challenges since 2017, which it has been addressing through its restructuring plans

(Mirabella, 2018).

Figure 3

Comparison of Profitability Margins (FY 2018 vs. FY 2019)

 6

PROFITABILITY MARGINS (%)

Columbia Sportswear Co. lululemon athleti ca inc Puma SE Under Armour Inc

56
55
49

50
48

49
47
45

27
21

17
16
15

15

11
10

10
8

8
5
4

2
GROSS NET PROFIT EBITDA GROSS NET PROFIT EBITDA
-1

MARGIN % MARGIN % MARGIN % MARGIN % MARGIN % MARGIN %

2018 2019

Note. From Mergent Database

Figure 4

Vertical Analysis of Lululemon’s Income Statement (FY 2018 vs. FY 2019)

Note. From Lululemon 2019 Annual Report

Looking at the profitability measures which indicate management effectiveness,

Lululemon continued to provide impressive returns for its shareholders, as seen in Figure 5.

These results further validate that Lululemon has healthy margins on its products and has

effectively utilized its assets to produce income. Compared to its peers, Lululemon has been

generating more than double in returns across the three metrics. Apart from its high average sales
 7

per square foot mentioned in the earlier section, Lululemon’s shifting focus to the direct-to-

consumer channel has also contributed to its high asset turnover (see Table 1) and consequently,

its return on assets. Its direct channel’s operating margin is 50% higher than physical stores as

return rates have been very low, saving the company from associated costs of order returns

(Ballard, 2019). In addition, Lululemon only owns one distribution center in Ohio, while the

three others are leased, avoiding the capital-intensive requirement of distribution centers and

focusing its investments on digital and customer experience enhancements instead. Another

factor that contributes to Lululemon’s attractive ratios is its stock repurchase program. In March

2019, it repurchased one million shares of its common stock worth $500 million using its cash on

hand (Lululemon, 2019a). Through stock repurchase (buybacks), financial ratios that measure

capital efficiency increase as it reduces outstanding shares and assets used for the buybacks

(Reda, 2018).

Figure 4

Comparison of Profitability Ratios Related to Management Effectiveness (FY 2018 vs. FY 2019)

MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS RATIOS (%)

Columbia Sportswear Co. lululemon athleti ca inc Puma SE Under Armour Inc

52
46
38
31
27
23 23 24 22
21
19
16 15
12 11 12
7 9
6 4
2

RoA % -1 RoE % -2 RoI % -1 RoA % RoE % RoI %

(Operating) (Operating)

2018 2019

Note. From Mergent Database

 8

Table 1

Comparison of Asset Turnover (FY 2018 vs. FY 2019)

Asset Turnover 2018 2019

lululemon athletica inc 1.58 1.49
Columbia Sportswear Co. 1.22 1.15
Puma SE 1.53 1.45
Under Armour Inc 1.26 1.16
Note. From Mergent Database

In terms of profitability for investors, Lululemon offers considerable basic earnings per

share and P/E ratio compared to its peers (see Table 2). Its high P/E ratio reflects bullish market

expectations for Lululemon’s business performance as its stock has been outperforming the S&P

500 Index and the S&P Apparel, Accessories & Luxury Goods Index (see Figure 5). However,

Lululemon has not been distributing dividends as it prefers to reinvest its earnings into the

business, so its shares are more suitable for investors who are seeking price appreciation. Under

Armour’s P/E ratio of 108 was not sustained in the succeeding months as its EPS has become

negative since the beginning of 2020 (Macro Trends, 2020).

Table 2

Comparison of Basic EPS and P/E Ratio (FY 2019)

Earnings & Valuation

(as of Fiscal Year 2019) Basic EPS P/E Ratio
lululemon athletica inc 4.95 48.56
Columbia Sportswear Co. 4.87 20.67
Puma SE 1.76 1.68
Under Armour Inc 0.20 108.00
Note. From Mergent Database

Figure 5

Lululemon Stockholder Return vs. S&P 500 Indices (2015 – 2020)

 9

Note. From Lululemon 2019 Annual Report

Liquidity

Liquidity pertains to a company’s ability to pay for its short-term financial obligations,

particularly to its suppliers and creditors. While it is essential for a firm, Eljelly (2004)

highlighted the importance of liquidity management to avoid holding unnecessary liquid assets

that could be utilized for operations or invested in higher-yielding instruments. Columbia

Sportswear has the best quick ratio and current ratios among the four retail apparel companies,

but Lululemon is not far behind (see Table 3). Columbia Sportswear’s share of current assets is

also noticeably high, which signals the need to revisit its liquidity management strategy to

optimize its cash use. All firms seem to have sufficient current assets for their short-term

obligations, although looking at the quick ratio, which only considers more liquid assets and

excludes inventory and prepaid expenses (Goel, 2015), Puma may not have sufficient cash or

cash equivalents to cover its current liabilities.

Table 3
 10

Comparison of Liquidity Ratios (FY 2019)

Liquidity Ratios lululemon Columbia Under

(as of Fiscal Year 2019) athletica inc Sportswear Co. Puma SE Armour Inc
Working Capital ($’000s) $ 1,187,520 $ 1,244,831 $ 1,035,527 $ 1,280,200
Current Ratio 2.91 2.97 1.59 1.90
Quick Ratio 1.82 1.86 0.82 1.05
Net Current Assets as %
of Total Assets 36.19 42.46 21.07 26.43
Receivables Turnover 105 6.49 8.48 7.74
Average Collection
Period 3 56 43 47
Inventory Turnover 3.80 2.71 2.78 2.93
Days in Inventory 96 135 131 125
Note. From Mergent Database

Despite its premium pricing, Lululemon has substantially high receivables turnover,

which translates to an average collection period of only three days compared to its peers, which

collect payments at around 50 days due to payment arrangements with credit card companies.

This implies that Lululemon’s credit collection is efficient, and its customers can pay for their

purchases quickly. Furthermore, Lululemon’s inventory turnover is the highest among the four

retailers as it only releases limited quantities of certain product styles, especially those made in

collaboration with fitness celebrities, thus making them seem more valuable in the minds of its

customers (Ballard, 2018).

Solvency

Solvency provides an indication of a company’s long-term viability based on its capacity

to pay its long-term debts and their associated interest (Goel, 2015). Solvency ratios also indicate

its reliance on leverage to fund its business operations, which can help creditors and investors

gauge its capacity to take on further debt in the future. Based on the figures in Table 4, the retail

apparel firms included in this analysis have fairly healthy solvency standing as their debt to total

assets and debt to equity ratios fall below the industry average of 0.70 and 2.10, respectively

(Ready Ratios, 2019). Lululemon, Columbia Sportswear, and Under Armour have a good
 11

balance of asset funding from equity and debt. Meanwhile, Puma is more leveraged with its total

liabilities greater than its total shareholders’ equity. Despite this, Puma generated €440.2 million

operating income (EBIT) in 2019, which is almost 33 times higher than its interest expense of

€13.9 million for the year (Puma, 2019). Given its higher debt gearing, Puma needs to ensure

that it continues to generate substantial operating income to cover the regular payments for its

liabilities, or it may also seek to minimize, if not eliminate, its long-term debts, similar to what

Columbia Sportswear has done.

Table 4

Comparison of Solvency Ratios (FY 2019)

Solvency Metrics
(as of Fiscal Year lululemon Columbia Under
2019) athletica inc Sportswear Co. Puma SE Armour Inc
Debt to Total Assets 0.41 0.37 0.57 0.56
Debt to Equity 0.68 0.59 1.28 0.28
Interest Coverage 116.16 - 32.66 11.15
Free Cash Flow $ 212,185,000 $ 160,000,000 $ 370,029,000 $ 360,000,000
Note. From Mergent Database

Concerning free cash flow, all four firms reflect positive net cash flow from their

operating activities which they can use for discretionary purposes. Lululemon significantly

decreased its stock repurchase, so it was able to increase its free cash flow in 2019 compared to

the previous year, where it ended with a negative net cash flow. One of the ways Lululemon has

been utilizing its cash is for seeking strategic partners which can help expand its product

portfolio and enhance its customers’ experience. Following the recent trend in home workouts, it

acquired Mirror, a start-up that offers a mirror-like equipment for streaming workout classes, for
 12

$500 million cash in June 2020 (Maheshwari, 2020). Indeed, this acquisition can potentially

propel Lululemon’s omnichannel ambitions as the high-tech mirror can serve as another

distribution segment for its retail business.

Overall financial status

Altman (1968) derived the Z-score model using common financial ratios to predict

whether a firm is in danger of going bankrupt within two years. A Z-score of greater than 2.9

signifies that a firm is in the safe zone, while a Z-score of less than 1.81 means that it is in the

distress zone. Following the prescribed formula, the four retail apparel companies are within the

safe zone, as seen in Table 5. Lululemon has a significantly high score compared to its peers

because of its high market capitalization at $30.2 billion as of the end of 2019. Since 2015,

Lululemons stock has grown by 650% as investors have been optimistic about Lululemon’s

ability to deliver consistent and robust sales growth (Sun, 2020). With Lululemon’s continued

growth despite the pandemic, it is highly likely that it sustains its impressive performance in the

longer term.

On the contrary, Under Armour has the lowest Z-score among the four and has presented

an underwhelming performance in its sales and profitability measures. From its peak in 2015

with a stock price of $51, it has fallen to $21 due to controversies surrounding its corporate

culture and accounting practices, its failure to keep abreast with the changing consumer

preferences, and the bankruptcies of some sports apparel retailers (Creswell & Draper, 2020).

Hence, Under Armour must implement profound transformations in its business operations and

its culture so it can recover successfully from its slump.

Table 5

Comparison of Altman Z-Scores (FY 2019)

 13

Overall Financial Health (as of Fiscal Year 2019) Z-Score

lululemon athletica inc 16.95
Columbia Sportswear Co. 6.64
Puma SE 4.91
Under Armour Inc 4.07
Note. From the author’s calculations

Limitations

Looking into financial ratios provides a good baseline to assess the financial health of an

enterprise; however, it is important to note that non-financial factors also come into play in

determining business viability. This analysis mainly focused on the financial aspect of the four

companies based on their latest financial statements, and although certain non-financial factors

have been mentioned, the discussion has not been in-depth due to the identified scope of this

study. Beyond measuring profit and financial effectiveness, companies need to take a holistic

view of their role in relation to society and environment. Given the recent issues plaguing the

retail apparel industry related to disposal of chemicals used in fabric production, worker

exploitation, and fast fashion, just to name a few, some retail apparel companies, such as those

belonging to the Sustainable Apparel Coalition (SAC), are moving towards ensuring their

adherence to sustainability practices and reporting (Kozlowski et al., 2015). Retail apparel

companies could adopt standardized reporting methodologies such as the Global Reporting

Initiative (GRI) to analyze and benchmark their performance on the non-financial aspects of their

businesses (Sasse-Wehahn, 2019).

Recommendations and Conclusion

Based on its financial metrics, Lululemon demonstrates that it has managed its resources

effectively to generate above-average sales, profitability, and financial health. It has been

outperforming its peers across key financial performance measurements because of its solid
 14

strategy to innovate based on evolving consumer needs and preferences, build strong brand

equity and connection among its customers, and expand its market reach by making it accessible

through multiple channels and locations. Given its consistent and robust financial results,

Lululemon is indeed a promising retail apparel player that has a huge potential for carving out a

dominant market position in the future. In contrast, Under Armour provides some indications of

financial distress and operational inefficiencies that it needs to address through a comprehensive

transformation strategy.

To ensure its continued success, Lululemon must sustain its ability to listen to its

customers’ pulse to deliver relevant products and superior customer experience. The recent

acquisition of Mirror provides a big opportunity to enhance its omnichannel strategy and create

more frequent touchpoints with its consumers. By capitalizing on the home workout trend that

has gained significant traction during this pandemic period, Lululemon can emerge successfully

despite this current slump in the retail apparel industry. With increased awareness of the

importance of sustainability, Lululemon should also adopt practices such as using upcycled

materials and circular business models (Baier et al., 2020). Having a holistic view of the business

that incorporates sustainable practices to financial and operational efficiency should further

strengthen Lululemon’s business viability.

 15

References

Altman, E. (1968). Financial Ratios, Discriminant Analysis and the Prediction of Corporate

Bankruptcy. The Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589-609. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.2307/2978933

Baier, D., Rausch, T. M., Wagner, T. (2020). The Drivers of Sustainable Apparel and Sportswear

Consumption: A Segmented Kano Perspective. Sustainability, 12(7), 1-21.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072788

Ballard, J. (2018, November 3). 3 charts that show Lululemon Athletica beating competitors. The

Motley Fool. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/11/03/3-charts-lululemon-athletica-

beating-competitors.aspx

Ballard, J. (2019, April 16). Why Lululemon’s digital business is so profitable. The Motley Fool.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/04/16/why-lululemons-digital-business-is-so-

profitable.aspx
 16

Ballard, J. (2020, August 2). 1 thing Lululemon Athletica does better than anyone else. The

Motley Fool. https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/08/02/1-thing-lululemon-athletica-

does-better-than-anyon.aspx

Camoin Associates. (2018, August 16). Average square footage and retail sales per square foot

across major brands. https://www.camoinassociates.com/average-square-footage-and-

retail-sales-square-foot-across-major-brands

Creswell, J., & Draper, K. (2020, January 26). How Under Armour Lost Its Edge. The New York

Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/business/under-armour-struggles.html

Eljelly, A. M. A. (2004). Liquidity – profitability tradeoff: An empirical investigation in an

emerging market. International Journal of Commerce and Management, 14(2), 48-61.

https://doi-org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/10569210480000179

Goel, S. (2015). Financial ratios. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-

com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca

Kingyens A.T., Paradi J.C., Tam F. (2016) Bankruptcy prediction of companies in the retail-

apparel industry using data envelopment analysis. In Aparicio J., Lovell C., Pastor J.

(Eds.), Advances in efficiency and productivity: International series in operations

research & management science (Vol. 249) (pp. 200-329). Springer. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/978-3-319-48461-7_13

Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C., & Bardecki, M. (2015). Corporate sustainability reporting in the

apparel industry: An analysis of indicators disclosed. International Journal of

Productivity and Performance Management, 64(3), 377-397. https://doi-

org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1108/IJPPM-10-2014-0152
 17

Lipson, S., Stewart, S., & Griffiths, S. (2019). Athleisure: A qualitative investigation of a multi-

billion-dollar clothing trend. Body Image, 32, 5-13.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.10.009

Lululemon. (2019a, March 28). Lululemon Athletica Inc. announces repurchase of one million

shares from Advent International Corporation [Press Release].

https://investor.lululemon.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lululemon-athletica-

inc-announces-repurchase-one-million-shares

Lululemon. (2019b, April 24). Lululemon unveils “Power of Three” strategic plan to accelerate

growth [Press release]. https://investor.lululemon.com/news-releases/news-release-

details/lululemon-unveils-power-three-strategic-plan-accelerate-growth

Lululemon. (2020, February). 2019 Annual Report. https://investor.lululemon.com/static-

files/8df91f4d-25a1-4e69-8b94-606f9c370440

Macro Trends. (2020). Under Armour PE Ratio 2006-2020 | UAA [Chart].

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/UAA/under-armour/pe-ratio

Maheshwari, S. (2020, June 29). Lululemon to Buy Mirror, a Fitness Start-Up, for $500 Million.

The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/business/lululemon-buys-

mirror.html

Marci, K. (2020, September 16). Spotlight on Lululemon’s pandemic-proof strategy. Edited.

https://edited.com/resources/lululemons-pricing-strategy/

Mirabella, L. (2018, February 13). Under Armour reports fourth-quarter loss of $88 million,

though sales top expectations. The Baltimore Sun.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-under-armour-earnings-20180212-

story.html
 18

Puma. (2019). Annual Report 2019. https://annual-report-2019.puma.com/en/downloads.html

Ready Ratios. (2019). Apparel and accessory stores: Average industry financial ratios for U.S.

listed companies [Data set]. https://www.readyratios.com/sec/industry/56/

Reda, J. (2018). Executive compensation and stock buybacks: The pros and the cons. The

Corporate Governance Advisor, 26(4), 1-7.

https://ezproxy.royalroads.ca/login?url=https://www-proquest-

com.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/trade-journals/executive-compensation-stock-buybacks-pros-

cons/docview/2071527570/se-2?accountid=8056

Salpini, C. (2019, November 20). How Lululemon’s Mall of America megastore puts

experiential retail on display. Retail Dive. https://www.retaildive.com/news/how-

lululemons-mall-of-america-megastore-puts-experiential-retail-on-displ/567702/

Sasse-Werhahn, L. (2019). The practical wisdom behind the GRI. Humanistic Management

Journal, 4(1), 71-84. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.royalroads.ca/10.1007/s41463-019-00054-

Shahbandeh, M. (2021, January 20). Total revenue of the global sports apparel market 2012-

2025 [Chart]. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/254489/total-revenue-of-the-

global-sports-apparel-market/

Sun, L. (2020, December 14). Why Lululemon’s stock is worth the risk. The Motley Fool.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/12/14/why-lululemons-stock-is-worth-the-risk/
 19

Appendix A: Altman Z-Score Computation

Current Working
COMPANY Current Assets Liabilities Capital Total Assets X1
Columbia
Sportswear Co. 1,875,746,000 630,915,000 1,244,831,000 2,931,591,000 0.4246
lululemon
athletica inc 1,807,938,000 620,418,000 1,187,520,000 3,281,354,000 0.3619

Puma SE 2,785,806,875 1,750,279,839 1,035,527,036 4,915,693,882 0.2107

Under Armour
Inc 2702209000 1422009000 1,280,200,000 4843531000 0.2643

COMPANY Retained Earnings X2 EBIT X3

Columbia
Sportswear Co. 1,848,935,000 0.6307 405,429,000 0.1383
lululemon
athletica inc 1,820,637,000 0.5548 897393000 0.2735

Puma SE 1,872,773,609 0.3810 468,867,061 0.0954

Under Armour
Inc 1,226,986,000 0.2533 209,842,000 0.0433

Market Total Z-
COMPANY Capitalization Liabilities X4 Sales X5 Score
Columbia
Sportswear Co. 6,769,000,000 1,082,144,000 6.2552 3,042,478,000 1.03782485 6.64
lululemon
athletica inc 30,190,000,000 1329136000 22.7140 3979296000 1.21269939 16.95
 20

Puma SE 11,960,000,000 2,812,079,598 4.2531 6,177,682,810 1.25672651 4.91

Under Armour
Inc 9,758,000,000 2693444000 3.6229 5267132000 1.08745706 4.07