20190228【充实计划】第994期

圣光下的欧司朗阴影：西门子弃子、丧失核心业务和被收购的命运

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/EWchKxVmlsJAvh6Tq6Vcag

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读4小时

昨日阅读1小时，累计阅读138小时。阅读《我国生态文明建设的科学基础与路径选择》，继续关注生态环境污染和破坏引发的健康风险，当然主要是癌症村的问题。为了研究这个问题，已经关注了好几年，也买了好几本癌症调查方面的资料。一般认为，癌症的发生是一种宿主与环境之间复杂的、动态的相互作用过程。重要的宿主因素包括遗传构成和健康状况，而主要的环境因素包括食物、环境污染物、职业和生活方式(如饮食习惯和吸烟等) 。有研究表明，在发达国家，30%的癌症是由于饮食或营养，16%烟草，8%感染，5%职业暴露，2%环境污染，39%其他原因。如果把烟草也归于饮食的话，直接间接由引导导致的癌症比率就达到46%，将近一半了。再看看号称世界第一癌症村的宣威市来宾镇的虎头村、高家村、冷家村吧，村民癌症发病率达到6.5％，其中大部分都是肺癌，发病率是世界平均水平的近千倍，近年来患病人数逐年上升，患病年龄下降，有的癌患病人仅只几岁。1970年代开始世界卫生组织、欧美国家（民间）卫生机构以及国家卫生部等各种组织先后多次到宣威进行实地调查，希望能够发现和揭示癌症形成的原因，并最终攻克这一世界难题，造福人类。半个世纪过去了，一切依旧，来宾镇的村民仍然存活在对癌症的恐惧和绝望中，有所变化的只是空气越来越差、山越来越秃、水越来越脏、耕地越来越荒芜、人的寿命越来越短。外国组织和机构对宣威癌症村的调查结论至今国人不得而知。国内官方说法是“村民的饮食习惯不好、室内烧煤、吸烟”等等。这个说法不由让人产生一个疑问：为什么同处于宣威坝子其他方向的村庄，在生活习惯相同的情况下，癌症的发病率却远远低于来宾镇呢？根据已有的调查情况来看宣威“世界第一癌症村”形成的原因并不复杂，罪魁祸首就是——宣威火电厂各种污染物排放。很多人也许会对这个结论嗤之以鼻，那么我就来说一说做出这种判断的理由吧。宣威火电厂1958开建，1960年投入使用，至今已有50多年历史。火电厂投产后历经7次改扩建，现在的总装机容量达到了60万千瓦，是云南省第二大火力发电企业。在1958年以前来宾镇的癌症发病率并没有文字方面的记录，从当地多位幸存的老人那里得知，火电厂建成前来宾镇村民的平均寿命虽然不算太高，但与宣威其他村镇的村民相差不多，印象里面直接死于类似癌症疾病的人非常少，直到上世纪60年代中期当地癌症的发病率才开始节节攀升。宣威坝子呈南北走向，来宾镇位于宣威坝子北端下风口处，而火电厂位于宣威坝子南端上风口处，每年的大多数时间里风都是从南向北吹。火电厂6只大烟囱向天空吐着滚滚浓烟，随风而来的各种污染物沉降到地面正好是下风口人口稠密的来宾镇。与此相反方向的宣威坝子南端河东、朱屯、大屯等村庄由于没受到火电厂排放物的危害，其癌症发病率就远远低于北端的虎头、宗范、左所、所乐、观营、后亏、普昌、龙洞等地。交叉对比宣威坝子南北两端人口肺癌发病率实际已经可以得出科学、正确的结论了。

昨日阅读1小时。 总阅读时间129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 135-143)
Company Executive compensation and performance
阅读到的有价值的内容段落摘录
The debate regarding executive compensation is one without conclusion. At one end of the spectrum you have Warren Buffett, who continues to earn the same $ 100,000 annual salary he has been getting for decades without any bonuses or stock options. On the other end, we have Steve Jobs of Apple computer, who took home over $646 million in 2007, the vast majority of which came in the form of vested stock options. We won’t see shareholders in Apple Computer complaining, however. In 2007, shares in Apple appreciated by over 120 percent, according to the Value Line Investment Survey .For purposes of assessing the quality of management, executive compensation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no magic formula or percentage to aid investors in this task. A business like frame of mind is the most valuable tool in tackling the appropriateness of executive compensation for each company. With the exception of extreme outlier scenarios, the appropriateness of executive compensation for any business will differ from investor to investor. The key for the value-oriented investor is to consider the compensation in the context of the overall value created in the business. In most cases, a company’s board of directors will ensure that an adequately qualified candidate is running the company. Often a simple reading of the annual proxy filing will give you a good idea. If the current CEO was once CEO of another company that did exceptionally well under his or her tenure, all the better. The main reason to investigate here is to catch any red flags that may surface. For instance if a pharmaceutical company has a CEO who used to work in the fashion industry, you might want to dig a little deeper. Most times, any concern arises from recent management changes. If a CEO has been in charge for many years, there’s usually a good reason for that.
It’s not fair to judge newly appointed management unless he has been in charge for at least four years, enough time for the market to react to the true fundamentals of the business. In valuing management, many investors mistakenly focus on the performance of the stock price as the proxy for quality management. In the long run, if the fundamental operating metrics of a company have improved, management usually will pass the stock price performance test. Ben Graham explained this as being due to the fact that markets are voting machines in the short run but weighing machines in the long run. While stock price performance ultimately matters, it’s important for investors to rate management more on the things they can control. For instance, when evaluating oil companies, if the underlying price of a barrel of oil is increasing, most oil companies’ stock prices will rise in response. In such instances, managements across the entire industry will appear to have done an excellent operating job when, in fact, the price of oil, an uncontrollable item, was responsible for the increased value. Management has no control over the price of oil, but it does have control over exploration costs, an excellent barometer of long - term value creation or destruction. In the short run, focusing on stock price performance can hide management’s true operating skill. In evaluating the quality of management, focus on the variables that management can control. Concentrate on the operational efficiency of the business: in other words, how the money is being spent. In trade terms, this commonly is referred to as capital allocation. Discover a great capital allocator and you will have discovered a great manager. Good capital allocation can be judged by two controllable variables within a business: book value per share and return on invested capital.

阅读到的有价值信息的自我思考点评感想
Management has no control over the value of the stock price; it does have complete control over the assets of the business and hence the change in book value each and every year. The Book value is the net worth of a business. It’s equal to a company’s assets minus all its liabilities. Great managers focus on increasing book value each and every year. There’s nothing more obvious than the value created from increasing the per share book value of a business and also the return on investment. If a company’s per share book value is higher than it was the previous year, then value was created. Naturally, long-term annual growth in per share book value is more indicative of superior operating performance. Since Warren Buffett began writing the Berkshire Hathaway letter to shareholders, he begins each one in this way: Our gain in net worth in 2007 was . . . which increased the per share book value of both our Class A and Class B stock by 11%.
Over the last 43 years (that is, since present management took over) book value has grown . . . [at] a rate of 21.1% compounded annually. By starting each annual letter this way, Buffett is defining the ultimate yardstick that should be used to grade management: the performance of book value per share. Book value per share is affected by changes in three categories: a change in assets, a change in liabilities, or a change in the number of shares outstanding. All three factors are at the complete discretion of management. While stock price performance and book value performance might not behave similarly in the short run, a long - term pattern of increasing book value ultimately will be followed by a similar performance from the stock price. Great Managers Focus on Return on Invested Capital Value creation is simple to understand in the context of a business. If the business is investing its capital in projects that generate rates of return that exceed the cost of that capital, value is being created. It’s no good if a company is earning 8 percent on its invested capital if the cost of capital is 10 percent. A common definition for return on invested capital (ROIC) is the net after - tax operating profit divided by invested capital. Operating income, or operating revenue minus operating expense, is the purest form of judging a business’s results. Operating income strips out nonrecurring items and interest costs, which (excluding those of financial service firms) don’t have much to do with the actual business itself. The formula for the return is:
(1 – tax rate)*(earning before interest and taxes)
Invested capital (IC), as you would imagine, measures how much capital a company has invested in its business. Although there are many different ways of measuring IC, a generally sound way of calculating is:
(total assets – cash) – (noninterest-bearing current liabilities)
Basically, this equation says that the capital invested is the sum of all the assets, and subtracts out the assets that haven’t yet been invested (cash and cash equivalents). Noninterest - bearing current liabilities are also subtracted out because they represent “interest-free” loans. For example, if you own a shoe store and a supplier extends you credit to buy and sell its shoes, no capital was dispensed to get the use of the assets (the shoes), so this doesn’t go into the IC equation. What we’re left with is the total invested capital. Many different investors have subtle differences in the way they calculate ROIC, but the general idea of what you are after is the same: the return a business generates relative to the capital deployed to get that return. When the return on capital is greater than the cost of capital — usually measured as the weighted average cost of capital- the company is creating value; when it is less than the cost of capital, value is destroyed. Capital comes in two forms, debt and equity. Calculating the cost of debt is relatively simple, as it is comprised of the rate of interest paid on the debt. The cost of equity is a bit more complicated, as equity typically does not pay a return to its investors. In specific cases-such as real estate investment trusts and energy master limited partnerships — the high dividend yield can represent an accurate cost of equity, but in general, calculating the cost of equity is not as clear cut as calculating the cost of debt. Modern finance theory uses the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) to determine the cost of equity. Under the assumptions of CAPM, inputs such a stock’s beta (or volatility) are used to determine the cost of equity capital. Because value investors often disregard beta as an inappropriate measure of risk, the CAPM model is flawed. The cost of equity should merely reflect the sum of the risk free rate of return and an equity risk premium. Similar to the discount rate, the equity risk premium will vary depending on the company in question. Wal-Mart’s cost of equity, and hence its equity risk premium, will be a lot less than the cost of equity for Ford Motor Company.  When a company has no debt, the return on equity (ROE) can be just as meaningful as ROIC. In the next section, we see how an understanding of this concept helped create one of the world’s most successful companies.

昨日阅读1小时，累积阅读111小时

昨日阅读2小时，累积阅读24小时

文侯谓李克曰：「先生尝有言曰：『家贫思良妻；国乱思良相。』今所置非成则璜，二子何如？」对曰：「卑不谋尊，疏不谋戚。臣在阙门之外，不敢当命。」文侯曰：「先生临事勿让！」克曰：「君弗察故也。居视其所亲，富视其所与，达视其所举，穷视其所不为，贫视其所不取，五者足以定之矣，何待克哉！」文侯曰：「先生就舍，吾之相定矣。」

学习1小时，累计56.5小时

TED 择一城终老，遇一人白首
https://open.163.com/movie/2015/7/O/0/MAU9UMSJE_MAU9V5VO0.html

爱情和婚姻算不算是一个古老的话题？我想不算吧，爱情与婚姻的存在历史久远，但现代人更探讨这个。
演讲者是完成这次photography project 的一对朋友，他们之间没有爱情，却在见证爱情，拍摄爱情。
在众多的爱情故事里，我感触最深的是太阳城里一对第二次婚姻结合在一起的老夫妇，他们结合已经有三十多年了。而在相遇之后，女子了解了男子的很多缺点，酗酒，欠ZF钱，甚至在结婚后的一次醉酒中丈夫扬言要杀掉妻子和她的二个孩子，即便是招来了警察，这位妻子仍然相信丈夫，而后来丈夫为了她去了借酒所，从此后的三十六年再也没有喝过一滴酒。
其实，在众多的故事中，他们没有一个是开始于一个罗曼蒂克的或者说是有趣的开始，但这些老夫妻却彼此相伴一生，并将继续的走下去，现代人们不断的提出各种爱情保鲜法，婚姻保卫法，难道添加了各种技巧和理论的婚姻关系就一定会长久下去么，那又如何总结老一辈那种很多始于无爱的婚姻呢？他们对婚姻的韧性和忍性，是缔造了爱情还是在维系了习惯？在这个问题上每个人都有自己的期许吧。

昨日阅读1小时，累积阅读131小时

昨天阅读1小时，累计阅读631小时。

昨日阅读1小时，2019年累计阅读60小时。3月阅读《现场改善》吧
今天就开始分享
公司里的每个人都必须一起努力，遵循现场改善三个最基本的法则：
·环境维持
·浪费消除
·标准化
环境维持是优秀管理不可或缺的一部分。通过良好的环境维持，员工获得了对自律的理解，并通过反复实践加强理解；而没有自律的员工，则不可能给客户提供高品质的产品或服务。
在日语里，"muda"一词的含义是浪费。任何不能创造附加价值的活动都是浪费。现场的人要么创造附加价值，要么不创造。这一点也适用于任何其他的资源，如机器设备和物料等。假设一家公司的员工每创造一分附加价值的同时，“创造”了九分浪费，那么通过将浪费减少到八分，将创造的附加价值提高到两分，就可以使他们的生产率加倍。浪费消除可谓提高生产率和削减运营成本最为经济有效的办法。改善强调消除现场的浪费，更甚于为了创造附加价值而增加投资。
一个简单的例子能揭示改善在成本方面的益处。假设一名从事家用电器产品装配工作的操作员站立在自己的工位前，将某种零部件装配到主体产品上，被装配的零部件被放置于操作员后面的一个大的容器里，为此，转身拿取零部件的动作会花操作员5秒的时间，而实际的装配时间只不过2秒。
现在让我们假设零部件被放置在操作员面前。操作员只需要简单地向前伸出手臂拿取零件，这个动作只需花1秒。操作员可以用节省下来的时间专注于（创造附加价值的）装配工作。于是，在零件放置地点方面的一个简单改变（消除了向身后伸手的动作浪费）就能取得4秒的收益，并进而可以转变成为3倍的生产率提升。
我理解的内容：
1、现场：所有业务发展的地方都可以是现场。现场的范围很广，小到一个几人的办公室，大到一个厂区都可以去现场
2、改善的含义：不是颠覆性的，是在原有基础上，看有什么东西可以完善，变得更好一些；
3、标准化是基础工作，希望现场改善的前提都必须工作标准化，混乱的秩序，是做不好细节的工作的。