L'Avantage Compétitif Durable (ACD)

ffournier

Je veux juste ajouter qu'une compagnie peut valoir le coup, sans nécessairement avoir de moats. Il faut juste arrêter de voir des moats partout et surtout, ne pas les surestimer.

Et de mon côté, malgré les détails (merci en passant ), il est difficile de voir le moat de cette entreprise. J'avais tout de même acheté cette entreprise (position initiale ou augmentation, je ne m'en souviens plus, désolé ) pour un fonds étudiant à l'Université pour son caractère défensif.

Rejean_Prevoyant

Je comprend ton point de vue. L'exercice m'a permis de réfléchir au concept de bastille!

En effet, DG est très défensif. La cie performe mieux lors des récessions comme les consommateurs recherchent les aubaines. 

Au plaisir!

Montjoie

L'ACD a une vertu défensive qui doit être jumelée au côté offensif de gains de chiffre d'affaire de la société. C'est ce qui rend l'exercice intéressant et compliqué à la fois. Des gains de nouvelles parts de marché combinés avec des pertes de revenus existants, cela nous donne Coca Cola ou Danone, des actions qui font du surplace. Coca Cola est un bon exemple de moat du à une recette exclusive mais dont les fondamentaux du marché, boisssons sucrées, regressent.

Rejean_Prevoyant

Montjoie a dit :

L'ACD a une vertu défensive qui doit être jumelée au côté offensif de gains de chiffre d'affaire de la société. C'est ce qui rend l'exercice intéressant et compliqué à la fois. Des gains de nouvelles parts de marché combinés avec des pertes de revenus existants, cela nous donne Coca Cola ou Danone, des actions qui font du surplace. Coca Cola est un bon exemple de moat du à une recette exclusive mais dont les fondamentaux du marché, boisssons sucrées, regressent.

Merci pour cette précision! Je comprend mieux pourquoi certaines sociétés cotées avec une bastille forte par Morningstar ne sont pas nécessairement de bons investissements. 

Rejean_Prevoyant

Je suis tombé sur ce texte sur le site de Saber Capital Management. Très intéressant!

Importance of ROIC: “Reinvestment” vs “Legacy” Moats

https://sabercapitalmgt.com/importance-of-roic-reinvestment-vs-legacy-moats/

louis1000er

Une entrevue très intéressante que John Huber (Saber capital Management) vient de donner aux élèves de la Colombia Business School (l'Alma mater de Buffet): 

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/valueinvesting/sites/valueinvesting/files/Graham%20%26%20Doddsville_Issue%2041_v15.pdf (PAGE 29 à 43). 


«I think the best businesses are the ones that can grow without capital. That's the royalty on the growth of others idea I mentioned before. The next best situation is when a company can reinvest its earnings back into the business at high rates of return. The intrinsic value growth rate of a business is going to compound at the rate of the incremental return on capital, multiplied by the reinvestment rate.

I have another friend, Connor Leonard, who coined the term reinvestment moat. The classic example would be Walmart in 1975. They focused on being more efficient than competitors, passing savings to customers which naturally led to volume growth, and they reinvested all profits into building new stores in adjacent markets. They had a small footprint in Arkansas but were expanding across the country by replicating this simple business model. Walmart had very high returns on incremental capital, and it could reinvest 100% of its capital back into the business. I estimated the incremental returns on capital were 30% on average, and since they could reinvest all of those earnings back into the business, the earning power, and the underlying value of the business, was growing at 30%. Those are obviously great businesses to own if you can find them. 

I think the great reinvestment moats of today are companies that are investing in ways that show up on their income statements in the form of sales and marketing expenses or product development costs, and much less through their balance sheet in the form of capitalized physical assets like store locations and inventory. Walmart showed GAAP profitability, but negative free cash flow, because it was taking on debt to invest in more locations, which were capitalized and amortized over time. Today, internet companies are growing by investing in product development and through sales and marketing, which are expensed on the income statement as they are incurred. They don't need to lay out money for new equipment, new factories, new stores, or new physical assets. But, just like the reinvestment moats of yesterday, these companies should continue to reinvest if they're earning high returns and if the lifetime value of the customers exceeds the cost to acquire those customers. 

In any case, you want to understand the returns that any capital outlays are achieving and what the prospects might be. When a business gets to a certain maturity level, the smart thing to do would be to return capital to shareholders through buybacks or dividends. But if a business can create value by reinvesting back into the business, regardless of how those investments are accounted for, then they should make those investments. In other words, a lot of companies today are showing losses on their income statements just as Walmart was showing losses on its cash flow statement, but the steady state profitability of their model could be quite profitable» 

louis1000er

Un autre passage que je trouve particulièrement intéressant:

«When it comes to companies that have benefited from COVID, there's two main categories; those that have pulled forward demand, and then those that have borrowed demand from the future, and have to pay it back. The latter category might be something like Lowe's or Pool Corp. You might install a deck this year or put in a pool, but if everyone that was planning to do this over the next few years does it all this year, then there's going to be some value that is created by getting paid now instead of later. But there isn't necessarily a step function change in value creation.

On the other hand, if you have a two-sided marketplace, and you pulled forward five years of demand, then all of a sudden, you’ve fast forwarded into 2025. Your business took a giant leap higher, and now you will grow off of a much higher and stronger base. That growth rate might not necessarily slow down. It might be lumpy for a year or two, but some businesses have seen their moats and the returns on capital expand, and the nature of many of these businesses are that the strong often get stronger. If your network effect has gained the equivalent of five years’ worth of strength in one year, then not only will your revenue growth be much faster, but your business has also achieved a much more solidified position in the market.

If you've acquired five years-worth of customers, thanks to COVID, for very little cost, you've created enormous value because those habits have changed, and that would have taken many years and much marketing expense to achieve those same changes that have occurred.

A similar dynamic exists at the other end of the spectrum, where companies have been beaten down because of COVID. In some cases, these are permanently impaired companies and COVID has hastened their demise, and those are obviously the situations that you want to stay away from. But I think there are other, very high-quality businesses that have taken a hit this year, but will be fine long-term. In some cases, they might actually be able to capitalize on the turmoil that exists in their industry by buying competitors or taking share. Overall, there are real opportunities across the landscape for stock pickers right now, and I think it's an exciting time to be a curious investor. »