Asics Stock Catches Fire Along With Its Dad Sneakers
Shares in the Japanese running-shoe maker have just about quadrupled
3 min
Asics , the 75-year-old Japanese sneaker brand, is having a moment. So are its shares.
The running-shoe maker’s stock price has quadrupled in total return terms over the past two years. Its financial performance is strong: Revenue in its last reported quarter grew 14% from a year earlier while its operating profit surged 53%.
Asics has long been a well-loved brand among the running community. Around a quarter of 54,000 runners who finished the Paris Marathon sported a pair of Asics, including both winners in the men’s and women’s races, according to the company.
In fact, even Nike can trace its roots back to the Japanese company. Nike began its business in the 1960s by importing and distributing shoes from Asics, then known as Onitsuka, in the U.S. Onitsuka Tiger remains a high-end fashion brand within Asics.
Asics has benefited from the Covid-19 pandemic: More people picked up running as a hobby when they had nothing else to do. At the same time, people working from home began giving priority to comfort in their footwear—discovering that lightweight shoes with cushioned soles designed for running are pretty comfortable for walking around in, too. Running-shoe upstarts such as Hoka and On Holding have also seen explosive growth in the past few years. Hoka’s sales in the quarter ended in March surged 34% from a year earlier, pushing shares of its owner , Deckers Outdoor , to record highs.
The performance running shoes segment is Asics’ largest by revenue, and it has tried to maintain a close-knit community of runners. Asics acquired Runkeeper, a popular fitness-tracking app among runners, in 2016. In recent years, it has been acquiring race-registration companies, including Njuko Sas in Europe and Register Now in Australia. Its loyalty program has nearly 15 million members globally.
But outside of runners and Onitsuka Tiger, Asics was perhaps best known for “dad sneakers” —a style of shoes that are picked more for practicality than aesthetics. Lately, however, some old Asics designs have become unlikely fashion symbols. Youngsters have apparently eschewed conventional beauty standards and embraced the uncool: Crocs and Hoka are some other examples of “ugly shoes” that have seen an explosion in popularity.
Asics has done its fair bit, too. Its collaboration with designers from Vivienne Westwood to Cecilie Bahnsen have generated lots of buzz on social media. For example, its redesign of its 2008 Gel-Kayano 14 sneaker with Canadian design studio JJJJound has been a smash hit . The shoe can sell for more than $1,000 on online marketplace StockX. Asics was the fifth most-traded brand on StockX last year, rising from No. 10 the year before. Revenue for the company’s more fashion-minded SportStyle division grew 52% year over year in the last reported quarter.
Even better news for investors is that the company has been more profitable, too. Operating margin in its quarter ended in March was 19.4%, compared with 9.5% two years earlier. Partly that is because the company has shifted its product mix to more premium products. It has also been selling more directly to customers than through wholesalers. Around 64% of its sales were through wholesale in the first quarter, down from 74% three years earlier. E-commerce sales have risen from 13% to 17% of sales.
Asics trades at 34 times forward earnings, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. That is a similar multiple as Deckers Outdoor but higher than bigger peer Nike, which trades at 25 times. The premium could be justified if Asics could keep growing its sales with better margins.
Asics is sprinting ahead. It still has room to run.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
A record-breaking $11 million sale at The Centennial Collection has set a new benchmark for luxury apartment living in Bondi Junction.
As interest rates, inflation and market sentiment fluctuate, investors are being urged to focus on data, not panic.
The Federal Budget may have softened some of its proposed tax reforms, but it has exposed a bigger issue: too many families are relying on wealth structures that no longer reflect the realities of modern life.
3 min
For many Australians, the 2026 Federal Budget initially felt like a direct challenge to the way wealth is created, held and transferred between generations.
The headlines were immediate: changes to capital gains tax, reforms to discretionary trusts, restrictions on negative gearing and increased scrutiny of investment structures. Unsurprisingly, affluent families, business owners and investors began asking the same question:
Is the way we hold our wealth still fit for purpose?
In recent days, the government has announced several significant amendments following industry consultation and public feedback, including exempting testamentary trusts from the proposed 30 per cent minimum tax and expanding capital gains tax concessions for small businesses.
The backdown is welcome. But it also highlights something much bigger.
This Budget has accelerated a conversation that many Australian families have been postponing for years.
The conversation is not really about tax. It is about wealth stewardship.
For decades, Australians have built wealth through businesses, property, investments and careful long-term planning. Yet many families have not revisited the legal structures surrounding those assets in years, sometimes decades.
We often see clients who have spent years building significant wealth, only to discover their legal arrangements no longer reflect their current circumstances.
Their children are now adults. They may own multiple properties.
They may have sold a business, entered a second marriage, become grandparents or accumulated digital assets that did not exist when their original estate plans were prepared.
The trust that distributes income may need to be reconsidered. The bucket company may no longer be so attractive.
The Budget has simply exposed a reality that already existed: wealth structures cannot remain static while life continues to evolve.
Importantly, trusts themselves are not the issue.
Trusts are legitimate planning tools that provide flexibility, protection and continuity. When used appropriately, they allow families to adapt to changing circumstances over time.
And neither is tax the issue, really. Getting the fundamentals right is more important for long-term, sustainable wealth than a few favourable tax treatments around the edges.
The real issue is complacency.
Too often, families create structures and assume the job is done. It isn’t.
Estate planning is no longer a document you sign once and file away in a drawer. It is an ongoing process that should evolve alongside your life.
We are also seeing a broader shift in how Australians define wealth itself. It is no longer just the family home and an investment portfolio.
Modern wealth includes businesses, digital assets, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, frequent flyer points and increasingly complex family arrangements.
At the same time, Australians are living longer than ever before, meaning wealth may need to support multiple generations simultaneously. This creates new responsibilities and new risks.
How do you help your children enter the property market without exposing family wealth to relationship breakdowns?
How do you structure wealth so that it remains a source of opportunity rather than future conflict?
These are the questions families should be asking now.
The recent debate surrounding testamentary trusts also serves as an important reminder that policy decisions can have unintended consequences for vulnerable Australians. It is encouraging that the government has listened to feedback and clarified its position.
But the lesson remains: the wealth landscape is changing.
Increasingly, governments, regulators and tax authorities are paying closer attention to how wealth is held and transferred. That means families cannot afford to adopt a “set-and-forget” approach to their structures.
The families who will be best placed for the future are not necessarily those with the greatest wealth.
They are the families with the greatest clarity. Clarity around ownership, succession and governance. And clarity around how wealth will transition from one generation to the next.
Ultimately, preserving wealth is not about avoiding change.
It is about preparing for it.
Because the greatest risk is not change itself.
It is losing the ability to respond to it.
Anthony Hunt is Co-Founder of Wealth Lawyers and former COO of Westpac Private Bank. He advises business owners, investors and affluent Australian families on wealth protection, succession planning and intergenerational wealth transfer
International AI strategist Justin Kabbani will headline the Kanebridge Property Summit in Sydney on June 18, with tickets selling fast.
Pure Amazon has begun journeys deep into Peru’s Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve, combining contemporary design, Indigenous craftsmanship and intimate wildlife encounters in one of the richest ecosystems on Earth.
