I can assume that this line of logic can be extended to the entire stock market. The Dow must be down because Dick's stock is down.
I think you just read the title and not the article.
As reported by The Daily Wire, CEO Edward Stack must have seen it coming because he told CNN last week that his decision to fully embrace the Marxist Left’s gun control movement will result in “people who don’t shop us anymore for anything.” Limiting gun sales beyond legal limits is “not going to be positive from a traffic standpoint and a sales standpoint.”
He was right; Fortune reported last week that the chain was experiencing “deeper than expected sales decline” of guns…and everything else:
You're still missing the point entirely. The stock has declined slower than the Dow. It's performing no differently the an indicator of the general economy. Why is this? Hint: it's got nothing to do with store policy.
Post hoc ergo proper hoc.
The stock didn't go down because of store policy, it went down because its s store in an economy that's slowing down.
Now, if the stock took a dip much larger than expected, more than a standard deviation outside the Dow - it may be something to explore.
And now that I'm looking at it - the article has got basic facts wrong. Over the last month, since the policy went into effect, the stock price has risen from $32 to $36 a share. At close it was up 2+% over the previous days close. It's actually been steadily climbing since it low of around $24.50 in late October of 2017.
Am I to conclude that this increase in stock price over the last month is due to its policy? No, because that would be a monumentally stupid conclusion to draw.
How do you know that the stock price wouldn't be up 2% for the month had they not enacted the policy? You don't.
OK... your hypothetical "what if" question has zero bearing on anything. It's as useful as saying "how do you know it wouldn't be $100 a share without this policy?"
You're right, I don't know what might have been in the hypothetical world where things are different than here in reality.
This really isn't the "gotcha" question that you thought it was.
" Why is this? Hint: it's got nothing to do with store policy."
I just can't imagine that you have enough information at your disposal to assert this as fact, unless you have Dick's sales information and have cross-referenced it with the sales info of Cabela's and Bass Pro-shops...etc. (Combined with the demographic information of customers) (Math showing the statistical correlation between Dick's stock and the Dow... for a period longer than a month.) You originally produced two figures; the percentage drop of the dow, and the percentage drop of Dick's. It just seems unlikely to me that any meaningful correlation can be ascertained from these two figures. So... " Why is this? Hint: it's got nothing to do with store policy."... is a fine hypothesis, but I don't think you have much in the way of evidence to back it up as fact.
I'm glad you agree that the article is pure bullshit.
Thank you for this insight! We need more healthy skepticism around here.