@v587d/capital-generation 2.7.12 → 2.8.1

package/selected-skills/InvestSkill/plugins/us-stock-analysis/skills/competitor-analysis/references/11-porter-s-five-forces.md

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
+# 2. Porter's Five Forces Deep Analysis
+
+Part 2 of 4 for `competitor-analysis` — 2. Porter's Five Forces Deep Analysis; 3. Market Share Analysis; 4. Competitive Benchmarking
+See `SKILL.md` for what to read and when; this part is procedure, not routing.
+
+## 2. Porter's Five Forces Deep Analysis
+
+### Force 1: Competitive Rivalry (Intensity within industry)
+
+How intensely do existing competitors compete for market share?
+
+- Number and size distribution of competitors (fragmented vs. concentrated)
+- Industry growth rate (slow-growth industries intensify rivalry; fast-growing markets reduce it)
+- Product differentiation level (commodity products = intense price competition)
+- Exit barriers (high exit barriers trap capacity in the market, intensifying rivalry)
+- Fixed cost intensity (high fixed costs create pressure to fill capacity at any price)
+
+**Rivalry Intensity**: Low / Moderate / High / Extreme
+
+### Force 2: Threat of New Entrants
+
+How easily can new competitors enter the market?
+
+- Capital requirements for market entry (low capital = easier entry)
+- Economies of scale advantages for incumbents
+- Network effect barriers (winner-take-most dynamics deter entry)
+- Regulatory and licensing barriers (FDA approvals, financial licenses, environmental permits)
+- Brand and customer loyalty barriers (how long would it take to build credibility?)
+- Access to distribution channels
+- Incumbent cost advantages independent of scale (patents, proprietary processes)
+
+**Entry Threat**: Low / Moderate / High
+
+### Force 3: Bargaining Power of Suppliers
+
+How much leverage do input suppliers have over the company?
+
+- Supplier concentration vs. buyer concentration (few suppliers, many buyers = high supplier power)
+- Uniqueness and criticality of the supplied product or service
+- Cost of switching suppliers (sole-source vs. multi-source supply chains)
+- Supplier forward integration threat (can suppliers bypass the company and sell direct?)
+- Importance of the company to the supplier's revenue (are you a large or small customer?)
+
+**Supplier Power**: Low / Moderate / High
+
+### Force 4: Bargaining Power of Buyers (Customers)
+
+How much leverage do customers have to negotiate price or terms?
+
+- Customer concentration (what % of revenue comes from the top 10 customers?)
+- Price sensitivity of customers (is the purchase a major budget item or negligible?)
+- Switching costs for customers (low switching costs = high buyer power)
+- Buyer backward integration threat (can customers build this capability in-house?)
+- Availability of information (informed buyers negotiate better)
+- Volume buying leverage (large customers extract better terms)
+
+**Buyer Power**: Low / Moderate / High
+
+### Force 5: Threat of Substitutes
+
+What alternatives exist outside the direct competitive set?
+
+- Availability of substitute products or services (different product, same customer job-to-be-done)
+- Price-performance improvement rate of substitutes (is the substitute improving faster than the incumbent?)
+- Customer propensity to substitute (how much switching actually happens?)
+- Relative price of substitutes (cheap substitute + acceptable quality = high threat)
+- Example: Streaming vs. cable TV; cloud computing vs. on-premise hardware; electric vehicles vs. internal combustion
+
+**Substitute Threat**: Low / Moderate / High
+
+### Five Forces Summary Score
+
+Score each force 1–5, where 5 = most favorable for the company being analyzed:
+
+```
+Force                      Score (1-5)    Assessment
+─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Competitive Rivalry         [1-5]         [description of key dynamics]
+New Entrant Threat          [1-5]         [key barriers or lack thereof]
+Supplier Power              [1-5]         [key supplier dynamics]
+Buyer Power                 [1-5]         [customer concentration, switching costs]
+Substitute Threat           [1-5]         [main substitutes and their threat level]
+─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Industry Attractiveness Score:    [X.X / 5]
+
+Score Interpretation:
+4.5–5.0  Extremely attractive industry (structural advantages strong)
+3.5–4.4  Attractive industry (mostly favorable dynamics)
+2.5–3.4  Average industry (mixed dynamics)
+1.5–2.4  Unattractive industry (structural headwinds)
+1.0–1.4  Highly unattractive (commodity, intense competition, low returns)
+```
+
+---
+
+## 3. Market Share Analysis
+
+Understand whether the company is gaining, maintaining, or losing ground in its market:
+
+- **Current market share %** and 3-year trend (gaining / stable / losing)
+- **Market share concentration** (Herfindahl-Hirschman Index — HHI — of the industry)
+  - HHI > 2,500: Highly concentrated (oligopoly/monopoly dynamics)
+  - HHI 1,500–2,500: Moderately concentrated
+  - HHI < 1,500: Fragmented (competitive)
+- **Market share growth mechanics**: Organic capture vs. M&A-driven share; price-led vs. volume-led
+- **Geographic market share variations**: May be dominant in home market, subscale internationally, or vice versa
+- **Segment market share**: Company may have commanding share in a high-value niche while being subscale in commodity segments
+- **Share gain velocity**: Rate of change matters as much as absolute level. A company gaining 0.5% share annually in a large market is a powerful signal.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Competitive Benchmarking
+
+Compare the company vs. its top 3–5 direct competitors across key financial and operational metrics:
+
+```
+Metric                [Company]   [Comp 1]   [Comp 2]   [Comp 3]   Industry Avg
+───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Revenue Growth (3yr)  [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Gross Margin          [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Operating Margin      [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Net Margin            [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+ROIC                  [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+ROE                   [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Revenue per Employee  [$k]        [$k]       [$k]       [$k]       [$k]
+Customer Retention    [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+R&D as % Revenue      [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Gross Profit per $R&D [ratio]     [ratio]    [ratio]    [ratio]    [ratio]
+NPS Score             [score]     [score]    [score]    [score]    [score]
+Market Share %        [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        —
+```
+
+**Interpretation**: Highlight where the company leads, lags, or matches the peer set. ROIC > industry average consistently = moat evidence. Gross margin premium = pricing power or cost advantage. Higher revenue per employee = efficiency advantage.
+
+---
+
+

package/selected-skills/InvestSkill/plugins/us-stock-analysis/skills/competitor-analysis/references/12-innovation-disruption-assessment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+# 5. Innovation & Disruption Assessment
+
+Part 3 of 4 for `competitor-analysis` — 5. Innovation & Disruption Assessment; 6. Management Quality in Competitive Context; 7. Pricing Power Analysis; 8. Moat Score Composite; 9. Competitive Intelligence Sources
+See `SKILL.md` for what to read and when; this part is procedure, not routing.
+
+## 5. Innovation & Disruption Assessment
+
+Evaluate whether the company is positioned as a disruptor or a potential target of disruption:
+
+- **R&D investment level and productivity**:
+  - R&D as % of revenue (spending level)
+  - Patents filed per $1M R&D (output efficiency)
+  - Time-to-market for new product launches vs. peers
+- **Product roadmap visibility**: Does management articulate a clear multi-year innovation roadmap with specific milestones?
+- **Technology platform assessment**: Is the core technology platform modern (cloud-native, API-first, modular) or legacy (monolithic, on-premise, technical debt-laden)?
+- **Disruption positioning**: Is this company the disruptor or the disrupted?
+  - Disruptor indicators: Taking share from incumbents, serving underserved segments, improving price-performance faster than industry
+  - Disrupted indicators: Losing share to newer platforms, customers migrating to substitutes, pricing power declining
+- **Adjacent market opportunities**: What is the total addressable market (TAM) expansion potential? Can the moat extend into adjacent categories?
+- **AI/software/platform disruption threat**: Is the industry undergoing a platform shift that could rapidly alter competitive dynamics? (e.g., AI replacing workflow software, direct-to-consumer bypass of distributors)
+
+---
+
+## 6. Management Quality in Competitive Context
+
+Assess whether management is executing effectively in the competitive environment:
+
+- **Capital allocation track record**: Has management invested capital at returns above WACC? What is the M&A track record (value-creative or value-destructive)?
+- **Competitive response speed**: How quickly does management respond to competitive threats? (pricing changes, product updates, strategic pivots)
+- **Innovation culture indicators**: Employee Glassdoor ratings vs. competitors; pace of product launches; engineering talent density (LinkedIn data); Blind/levels.fyi compensation vs. peers
+- **CEO competitive vision**: How does the CEO discuss competition in earnings calls? Dismissive, realistic, or strategically insightful?
+- **Track record vs. stated strategy**: Has management delivered on prior competitive strategy commitments? Or does strategy change frequently without execution?
+
+---
+
+## 7. Pricing Power Analysis
+
+Quantify the company's ability to raise prices without losing customers:
+
+- **Premium vs. discount pricing**: Does the company price above, at, or below competitors? What is the quantified price premium?
+- **Price increase history**: Has the company raised prices in the last 5 years? Did volume decline, remain stable, or grow despite price increases? (volume stability after price increases = strong pricing power)
+- **Customer willingness-to-pay research**: NPS scores, customer satisfaction surveys, retention data, and churn analysis provide indirect evidence of willingness to pay
+- **Gross margin expansion/compression trend**: Expanding gross margins while growing revenue = pricing power. Compressing gross margins under competitive pressure = pricing power erosion.
+- **Price elasticity indicators**: For consumer businesses, track promotional intensity. Excessive discounting = inability to hold price. For B2B, track deal cycle length and discount rates.
+
+---
+
+## 8. Moat Score Composite
+
+```
+Moat Scorecard:
+Component                    Weight    Score (0-10)    Notes
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Moat Source Strength           25%      [0-10]         [which of 5 sources are present]
+Moat Durability (years)        20%      [0-10]         [wide/narrow/none, estimated longevity]
+Competitive Position           20%      [0-10]         [gaining/stable/losing vs. peers]
+Industry Attractiveness        15%      [0-10]         [Five Forces score converted to 0-10]
+Pricing Power                  10%      [0-10]         [premium pricing, margin trend]
+Innovation Positioning         10%      [0-10]         [disruptor/neutral/disrupted]
+──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
+Composite Moat Score:         100%      X.X / 10
+
+Moat Assessment:
+8–10: Wide Moat (significant valuation premium justified; durable excess returns)
+6–8:  Narrow Moat (modest premium warranted; monitor for narrowing)
+4–6:  No Clear Moat (in-line with sector valuation; commodity-like returns)
+0–4:  Moat at Risk (valuation discount warranted; sell consideration)
+```
+
+**Scoring Reference**:
+- Moat Source Strength: 9–10 = 3+ strong, reinforcing moat sources; 7–8 = 2 clear sources; 5–6 = 1 credible source; 3–4 = partial/debatable source; 0–2 = no identifiable moat
+- Moat Durability: 9–10 = 20+ year visibility; 7–8 = 15+ years; 5–6 = 10 years; 3–4 = 5 years; 0–2 = structural disruption underway
+- Industry Attractiveness: Derived from Five Forces score (0–5 scale) × 2 to convert to 0–10
+
+---
+
+## 9. Competitive Intelligence Sources
+
+Use these primary and secondary research sources to build the competitive picture:
+
+**Regulatory and Financial Filings**:
+- SEC 10-K "Business" and "Competition" sections — required disclosure of competitive dynamics
+- SEC 10-K "Risk Factors" — management's own description of competitive threats
+- DEF 14A (proxy statement) — executive compensation tied to competitive metrics
+- Competitor 10-K filings — cross-reference to understand industry dynamics
+
+**Management and Qualitative Sources**:
+- Earnings call transcripts — frequency and language around competitors signals competitive intensity
+- Investor Day presentations — long-term competitive strategy and management conviction
+- Glassdoor and LinkedIn — employee satisfaction vs. competitors, talent flow analysis
+
+**Customer and Market Research**:
+- G2 / Capterra / TrustRadius — B2B software competitive ratings and reviews
+- Yelp / Google Reviews — consumer business competitive positioning
+- JD Power — automotive and consumer product competitive rankings
+- NPS benchmarks by industry (Bain & Company publishes)
+
+**Technology and Innovation Intelligence**:
+- Google Patents / USPTO — patent portfolio analysis and competitive IP positioning
+- Job postings analysis (LinkedIn, Indeed) — what skills a company is hiring for signals its strategic direction
+- GitHub (for software companies) — open-source activity and developer ecosystem strength
+- AlternativeTo / ProductHunt — consumer product competitive landscape mapping
+
+**Industry Research**:
+- Gartner Magic Quadrant and Critical Capabilities reports
+- Forrester Wave reports
+- IDC market share data
+- Trade publications specific to the industry vertical
+
+---
+
+

package/selected-skills/InvestSkill/plugins/us-stock-analysis/skills/competitor-analysis/references/13-input-formats.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# 10. Input Formats
+
+Part 4 of 4 for `competitor-analysis` — 10. Input Formats; 11. Visualization Support; Output; Standard Signal Output; Thesis Invalidation
+See `SKILL.md` for what to read and when; this part is procedure, not routing.
+
+## 10. Input Formats
+
+```
+# Single company analysis
+/competitor-analysis AAPL
+
+# With specific sector context for more targeted analysis
+/competitor-analysis MSFT --sector "cloud computing"
+
+# With specified peer group for benchmarking
+/competitor-analysis NVDA --peers AMD,INTC,QCOM
+
+# Moat analysis only (faster, focused output)
+/competitor-analysis GOOGL --moat-only
+
+# Full analysis with visual output for /report-generator
+/competitor-analysis AMZN --visual
+```
+
+---
+
+## 11. Visualization Support
+
+When `--visual` flag is used, include chart data tables for report generation:
+
+### Porter's Five Forces Radar Chart
+**Chart Type**: Radar/spider chart
+```
+Force                   Score (1-5)
+Competitive Rivalry     [value]
+New Entrant Threat      [value]
+Supplier Power          [value]
+Buyer Power             [value]
+Substitute Threat       [value]
+```
+
+### Competitive Benchmarking Chart
+**Chart Type**: Grouped bar chart
+```
+Metric          [Company]   [Comp 1]   [Comp 2]   [Comp 3]   Industry Avg
+Gross Margin    [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+ROIC            [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+Revenue Growth  [%]         [%]        [%]        [%]        [%]
+```
+
+### Moat Score Components Bar Chart
+**Chart Type**: Horizontal bar chart with weighted scores
+```
+Component               Weighted Score
+Moat Source Strength    [value × 0.25]
+Moat Durability         [value × 0.20]
+Competitive Position    [value × 0.20]
+Industry Attractiveness [value × 0.15]
+Pricing Power           [value × 0.10]
+Innovation Positioning  [value × 0.10]
+─────────────────────────────────────
+Composite Moat Score:   [X.X / 10]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Output
+
+Provide a comprehensive competitive analysis report with:
+- Executive Summary (moat assessment, competitive position, trend — 3 sentences)
+- Moat Identification (sources present, width, trend, durability estimate)
+- Porter's Five Forces Analysis with individual force scores and industry attractiveness score
+- Market Share Analysis and 3-year trend
+- Competitive Benchmarking table vs. top 3–5 peers
+- Innovation & Disruption Assessment
+- Pricing Power Analysis
+- Management Competitive Quality
+- Composite Moat Score Card
+- Investment Implications (how moat assessment affects valuation, key competitive risks, bull/bear case for competitive position)
+
+### Enhanced Output (with --visual flag)
+- All standard sections above
+- Porter's Five Forces radar chart data
+- Competitive benchmarking grouped bar chart data
+- Moat score components horizontal bar chart data
+- Chart specifications for HTML report generation via `/report-generator`
+
+## Standard Signal Output
+
+All analysis concludes with this standardized block:
+
+```
+## Thesis Invalidation
+
+After delivering the analysis signal, specify what would reverse it:
+
+**If signal is BULLISH — thesis breaks if:**
+- well-funded competitor enters core market OR key customer (>15% revenue) lost
+- [One or two more triggers drawn from this analysis's own drivers, each with a threshold]
+
+**If signal is BEARISH — thesis breaks if:**
+- moat-widening acquisition announced OR key competitor files bankruptcy
+- [One or two more triggers drawn from this analysis's own drivers, each with a threshold]
+
+**Re-run this analysis when:**
+- [ ] Next earnings release
+- [ ] Price moves ±15% from current level
+- [ ] 60 days have elapsed
+- [ ] Material news event (acquisition, leadership change, regulatory decision)
+
+╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
+║              INVESTMENT SIGNAL               ║
+╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
+║ Signal:      BULLISH / NEUTRAL / BEARISH     ║
+║ Confidence:  HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW             ║
+║ Horizon:     SHORT / MEDIUM / LONG-TERM      ║
+║ Score:       X.X / 10                        ║
+╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
+║ Action:      BUY / HOLD / SELL               ║
+║ Conviction:  STRONG / MODERATE / WEAK        ║
+╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝
+```
+
+Score Guide: 8.0–10.0 Strongly Bullish | 6.0–7.9 Moderately Bullish | 4.0–5.9 Neutral | 2.0–3.9 Moderately Bearish | 0.0–1.9 Strongly Bearish
+Confidence: HIGH (strong data, clear signals) | MEDIUM (mixed signals) | LOW (limited data, conflicting signals)
+Horizon: SHORT-TERM (1 week–3 months) | MEDIUM-TERM (3 months–1 year) | LONG-TERM (1+ years)
+
+**Disclaimer:** Educational analysis only. Not financial advice.
+
+