I went to a company on the Beijing Stock Exchange half a month ago and never wrote my research notes because I didn't know how to start.
In terms of performance:
There is still uncertainty about when the company will turn around, that is, there is still a lot of uncertainty about the company's business transformation from G to B.
From the level of the company's advantage analysis:
I didn't know that the company's competitive barriers were in**.
In other words, there is no moat in this company.
The products developed by the company before can be imitated by other companies, or even lower than it, so that the company cannot continue to make money.
The characteristic that distinguishes excellent companies from ordinary companies is that they are able to obtain high-quality profits through continuous expansion and reproduction, and thus obtain expanding free cash flow.
The so-called high-quality profits,It can be in the form of great earnings, sustained earnings, growing earnings, accelerating earnings, strong potential earnings, or both.
Just talking about the sustainability of profits, many companies are no longer able to do it.
In the research report with us, some people say that it is the first in the world, breaking the international blockade and breaking through the problem of high-end chips, and one of the biggest winners in the AI era. Balabala.
Huh
In terms of the company's current business transformation, the company said:
On the one hand, we will strengthen the expansion of existing industries, education and other industries, and on the other hand, we will actively explore user groups in industries such as industry, large enterprises, and military state-owned enterprises around new technology products.
For the B-end customer groups that these companies need to handle in their business transformation, there must be more than one company that wants to hug their thighs, so does the company really have an advantage over its opponents?
At least draw the company's industrial chain map, list the competitors of the same industry, and evaluate the advantages of the company compared with its opponents, so that it is more rigorous.
At the same time, in the process of research, we also felt the professional ability of the boss.
One thing is one thing. Compared to some very good public companies, the company does not have a moat;However, we can't deny what the company does well.
For example, the company's employment concept.
make wonders with the smart。
Do wonderful things with smart people.
This quote reminds me of Shell, which provides the basic operating system for the industry.
Shell provides a slot, as long as you are willing to plug into this socket, follow the rules, your input is here, and you can get the desired result (i.e. output).
The company may not be able to recruit high-end talents from Alibaba Huawei, but the company provides a process for cultivating talents, and you can also develop professional skills by following its process after you come. And choosing to cultivate a smart person will be much faster and more worry-free.
This talent training mechanism is like the "basic operating system" of the shell.
Considering that more than 70% of the company's employees are technicians, if the company's talent training mechanism is effective, then the company has mastered the key production factor of the industry - talent.
So, who came up with such a talent training concept?Do other employees other than the boss care about these things?Therefore, in the final analysis, the degree of externalization of the boss's personal ability in the company is the key to the company's business transformation and performance growth.
The ** of the corporate moat includes:
Branding;Patents;Conversion costs;Network effects;Cost advantage;scale advantage, etc.
Everyone thinks,
Which moat has less to do with the boss and people?
As far as my current shallow understanding is concerned, there are not many companies that can still maintain a competitive advantage after the boss leaves. Don't blame us for always comparing Kweichow Moutai and always comparing liquor, just ask:
Which industry and which enterprise can stand up to the first leader is either ** or **, one after another, but the company's performance can still grow steadily
In a 1994 letter to shareholders, Warren Buffett argued that the return on investment is not directly proportional to the complexity of the target.
Investors should be aware that your investment results are not the same as the scoring method of the Olympic diving competition, and it does not matter how difficult it is.
If you correctly invest in a company that has a single success factor, is easy to understand and can be sustained, the rewards will not be much different from investing in a complex company with multiple competing variables, even if the latter has been carefully and thoroughly analyzed.
Choosing an enterprise whose competitive advantage is linked to the management level of "people" is itself a risk. Why do so many people flock to companies with unstable competitive advantages?Probably human nature.