20190227【充实计划】第993期

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读840小时。

昨日阅读1小时。 总阅读时间128小时
The business of value investing – Six essential elements to buying companies like Warren Buffett- Charlie Tian 2009
https://bbs.pinggu.org/thread-695143-1-1.html (Page 126-136)
Calculating a true intrinsic value and the value management
阅读到的有价值的内容段落摘录
It is clear why the concept of margin of safety is the reliance on intrinsic value to make investing decisions, and the value of great businesses with wide economic moats is central to the value investing approach. Once we’ve taken those steps and found a business that looks attractive, we next need to determine the intrinsic value of that business, to find out whether an undervalued investment opportunity exists. Intrinsic value is determined by the cash inflows and outflows- discounted at an appropriate interest rate — that can be expected to occur during the remaining life of the business. This definition is painfully simple, but it works. Let’s apply it to a couple of businesses so you can see for yourself. You need to know the business inside and out in order to estimate cash flow growth with a high degree of confidence. The ability to assess the quality and competence of management thus becomes critical. Knowing how management spends company dollars tells you a lot about how much cash the company will produce years down the road. In short, do your due diligence etc., and when you are done, do it again. Calculating intrinsic value is simple and straightforward. It’s having accurate data that’s the difficult part. That’s why Benjamin Graham remarked: “You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right.” That’s also why Warren Buffett, the best investor on the planet, spends a lot of time focusing on businesses with durable competitive advantages, such as the brand value that Coca-Cola offers, or the monopoly - like industry that American Express operates in. They are dominant businesses with consistent long-term earnings power, which adds a layer of certainty when forecasting future cash flows. No matter how much due diligence on a business is performed, all investing requires a leap of faith. Most of that faith is placed in the ability of corporate managers to utilize the assets of the business to maximize shareholder value in an honest and ethical manner. While the ability and competence of management is crucial and should be considered when making any investment, investors should carefully read and understand these quotes from Warren Buffett: Our conclusion is that, with a few exceptions, when management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact. You should invest in a business that even a fool can run, because someday a fool will.
Management is important, but a good company is even more important. You will often hear value investors speak volumes on the superb management overseeing the companies that they have invested in, but if you look deeper, I’d imagine you will find that many of these investments are already excellent businesses. Great management at a great business is a home run. If you get both, you will be rewarded many times over if you stick with the investment.   Putting a great chief executive officer (CEO) in a great company is like icing on the cake. Such was the case when Roberto Goizueta took the top job at the Coca-Cola Company in 1981. During his time, the Coca - Cola brand became the best - known trademark in the world. Some of Coke’s most famous ad campaigns, such as “Always Coca-Cola” and “You Can’t Beat the Feeling, ”were launched under Goizueta’s leadership. During the 16 years in which Goizueta ran Coke, the total return on Coke stock was more than 7,100 percent. A $10,000 investment in Coca - Cola when Goizueta took the top job in 1981 was worth $ 710,000, including reinvested dividends, in 1997. By all measures, the 1980s and 1990s were destined to be great decades for the Coca-Cola Company. It benefited from the untapped global demand for its product along with a historical bull market in the United States. Nonetheless, no one doubts Goizueta’s magic touch on the fortunes of Coke. While management can make a vital difference, the value of quality management should be subordinate to the quality of the business. One of the fi nest companies in the world, Johnson & Johnson, illustrates the value of the business before the management approach. For over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has grown its sales and profit by over 10 percent per annum. Clearly, the company
has had more than one management team making acquisitions, creating expansion plans, and developing new products. Some of those management teams were more able and competent than others, yet Johnson & Johnson continued to show progress. To this day, Johnson & Johnson is one of the few companies that has unlimited growth potential with respect to the products it sells. This fact will remain true regardless of who steers the ship. Understand, however, that this doesn’t imply that any run - of - the - mill executive should steer the ship of the company. Incompetent and unethical behaviour can damage a company’s reputation. If the business is weak, this damage can be deadly. But if the business is loaded with strong fundamental economics, ultimately it will prevail.
阅读到的有价值信息的自我思考点评感想
Understanding all the above information helps us to put the management factor in perspective together so we can analyze and discuss the key considerations in assessing the quality of management in a business. The next list is of factors offers the most compelling considerations in “valuing” the management. In no order of importance, when investigating management, investors ought to give serious consideration to:
• Management ownership of stock
• Compensation structure of top management
• Qualifications and experience
• Operating results report card
Not many people would visit a restaurant if they discovered that the head chef was dining elsewhere. The same standard should be applied to our corporate “chefs”. Nothing is more indicative of complete alignment of interest with shareholders than meaningful ownership of company stock. The proper way to determine whether ownership is meaningful is based on percentage of net worth represented by the underlying stock as well as the consideration paid for the stock. Looking at percentage of net worth represented by stock ownership versus percentage of company owned is more meaningful especially when large companies are involved. If an executive is earning $10 million a year running a $100 billion company, owning 0.1 percent ($100 million) of the company can be very meaningful if it represents a significant portion of his or her net worth. Focusing on percentage of net worth represented by stock ownership allows for an apples-to-apples comparison when comparing management at large companies to those from smaller ones. The exception to this rule is if the CEO is a founder or other individual tightly associated with the business. For instance, Warren Buffett, who took over Berkshire Hathaway in the 1970s, owns over 30 percent of the stock. In this instances, substantial portions of net worth and company ownership are involved. How the stock is owned is also worth an investigative look. The reason has to do with stock options, or rights given to company insiders to purchase stock at a predetermined price. Debate abounds regarding use of stock options. Some defend stock options as a motivating incentive that aligns management’s interest with shareholders (increasing the stock price). Others see options as a blank- check way for companies to reward management at the expense of shareholders (diluting the existing shares). Regardless of your viewpoint, what is factually accurate is that options have an asymmetric payoff structure for those who receive them. An executive who receives options benefits tremendously if the company prospers as the stock options become more valuable. If the company performs poorly, the executive is not any worse off because the options expire worthless. It’s a classic case of heads you win big, tails you lose nothing. If the majority of stock owned by insiders is in the form of options that were granted that represent little or no cost to the grantee, don’t ascribe to them the same weight as you would to outright ownership of the stock. It’s much more impressive and confirming of their dedication to the success of the company to see managers make outright market purchases of stock just like any other shareholder. Understanding all of these considerations, look for management that eats their own cooking.

1. https://wallstreetcn.com/articles/3484682

2. 早盘A股持续震荡走势，沪指、深成指收涨，创业板微跌0.22%，信托、白酒等二线蓝筹集体爆发，航空航天、酿酒板块领涨两市，多元金融、银行板块跟涨，水井坊、陕国投A涨停。 招商证券指出，银行体系流动性整体合理充裕，基金仓位总体回升，各类资金共同提升A股流动性。

3. 感想： 市场开始震荡分化，投资趋于理性

4. 昨日阅读1小时

5. 累计阅读48小时

已阅读

学习1小时，累计55.5小时

昨日阅读1小时，本月累计阅读59小时。已经读完《薛兆丰经济学讲义》。今天学习OKR
我们给出的OKR的定义如下：

OKR是一套严密的思考框架和持续的纪律要求，旨在确保员工紧密协作，把精力聚焦在能促进组织成长的、可衡量的贡献上。

你可能会觉得这段话略显冗长，难于记忆。不过，鉴于很多企业在发起一个变革项目时，经常因术语含糊不清而导致员工不知所指为何，让变革效果大打折扣。因此，在你刚开始接触OKR时就给出一个严密的定义很有必要。这意味着当你提到OKR时，你和你的团队对它的理解是一致的，不会产生歧义。

让人费解的表述，会给员工传递模糊的信号，导致变革成果远低于预期。因此，在组织内使用一致的OKR术语和概念定义尤为重要。我们推荐你使用本书所给出的定义，至于你是叫它OKR还是别的什么，反倒不重要。莎士比亚有句名言：“名字有什么关系？把玫瑰叫作别的名字，它依旧芬芳。”最关键的还是你要使用经过仔细甄别的词语，在组织内传递一致的含义，以确保大家在这些方面达成共识。这些术语和概念也应和所有利益干系人沟通清楚。如果你期望OKR或任何新的提案被大家认同和接受，并最终能有所产出，每个人就必须遵从同一套操作手册。回到我们的定义上，我们把它拆解成几个小块去理解：

·严密的思考框架：OKR意在提升绩效，但如果只是简单地每个季度跟踪一下你的结果，你不会如偿所愿。在前面介绍OKR的前世今生时，我们提到了德鲁克，德鲁克有一句名言：“最严重的错误，并非由错误的答案造成。真正危险的事，是问了错的问题。”10当你检查OKR结果时，真正挑战你的应该是你如何才能超越那些数字本身。你应该像一个人类学家那样，深入思考它们对你而言意味着什么，从而让你能发掘出振奋人心的问题，帮助你找到未来的突破口。当OKR被严谨和规范地执行时，这一思考框架的作用会更加突出。
我的学习：
1、OKR的定义是思考框架，用框架来做一些纪律要求，按照要求步骤来完事，才能实现目标；
2、OKR关注目标,目标对了，才能做好事情；
3、找到一个体系的框架，设定你的目标，做好计划实现目标，就是OKR的精华

充实每一天 发表于 2019-2-27 05:16
该主题为【学道会】活动，点击了解详情

【加入充实计划】【了解充实计划】

20190227昨天阅读1小时，累计阅读143小时。

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读38小时。

昨日阅读1小时，累积阅读542小时

继续阅读Management, 了解到Manager 有两种观点 Omnipotent 和 Symbolic
The dominant view in management theory and society in general is that managers are
directly responsible for an organization’s success or failure. We call this perspective
the omnipotent view of management.
即认为管理者无所不能，是企业发展成败的关键

others have argued that muchof an organization’s success or failure is due to external forces outside managers’
control.This perspective is called the symbolic view of management，
认为管理者收到外界的制约，企业成败的因素是外部的印象。

有些意思，继续阅读。

昨日阅读5小时，累计阅读464小时。