Interpretation of Financial Statements - preliminary filters.

1. Looking for sustainable competitive advantage:

When looking for sustainable moat, you wanna see consistency - in earnings, in having low debt, in having growing earnings, low spending in capital expenditures, etc.

The longer the company has existed, and if it sells you the same product for years (like Coca Cola), it reduces production costs and other costs (R&D, Training, marketing) slowly as the company ages.

When costs are reduced, margins and profits increase.
2. What to look for in an income statement:

Let's take a look at Apple:

i) You want to see earnings grow at a steady pace. Take a look at the net income below.
ii) Another thing that's important is a consistent and high gross margin.

As a thumb rule, Warren Buffett wants to see a gross margin of around 40% or above.

Although not quite 40%, it's around that range with respect to Apple.
Compare this to Apple's competitors.

Samsung's gross margins are around similar range, highest being 45.7% in 2018, and Huawei had a gross margin of 38.6%.
Having a high gross margin indicates the scalability of the business. The more the company sells, the greater the profitability becomes. Such a trait is what you want to see in a business you want to own.
iii) You also want to note the net margin.

Gross margin = (revenue - cost of goods sold) / revenue

Net margin = net income / revenue.

You want to see the company having higher net margin compared to their competitors.
Apple's net margin is around 22%. Samsung's net margin is around 18% and Huawei's net margin is around 8.5%.

Typically, net margin above 20% is a very strong one, indicating that we are dealing with a smoothly run business.
3) In the balance sheet:

Look at the figure - "Retained Earnings".

Using retained earnings, you can find out if a company is reinvesting its income or not. A steady growth in this number means the business is profitable, and that it's identifying good investing opportunities.
Apple doesn't fulfill the criteria regarding retained earnings. But that's because in 2013, Apple started a rigorous dividends and share repurchase program.

To measure how efficiently a company is using these retained earnings, Return on Equity (ROE) is used.
To calculate ROE, compare Net income to the Total Equity of the company.

Apple looks quite strong in this aspect. It's partly an effect of distributing a lot of their earnings to shareholders. It also signifies the sustainable competitive moat.
Compare this with Samsung (ROE:18.3%) and Huawei (ROE:25.3%), Apple shows significant strength.

4) Exceptional businesses seldom require a lot of debt to expand (except maybe banks/NBFCs). Instead, they can just use the strong cashflow from the business.
So, look for businesses with little to no long term debt. If a company can pay off with all its long term debt with less than 4 years of earnings, it signifies a good position for the company. Apple fulfills this criterion. Samsung and Huawei do too.
5) In a cashflow statement:

This is where you see the actual in's and out's of money.

Look at "Capital Expenditures" on the cashflow statement.

This is the money being spent on properties, plant, and equipment.
Look at what percentage of net income the capital expenditures are. You want it to be as low as possible, lower than 25% over a period of time is considered very good. Less than 50% is okay-ish.

Exceptions: One time payment to grow the business in some capex activity.
Look at Apple's CAPEX spendings. Compare that with their net income, and you can see that their average capex spending is less than 25% of their net income. Samsung (around 65%) and Huawei (around 45%) aren't even close.
Also, in Apple's cash flow statement, we can see the reasons why the retained earnings from the balance sheet haven't been growing from 2012. Apple has been distributing a lot of cash to its shareholders.
Apple's Augmented Payout Ratio (includes share buybacks and dividends) has been higher than 100% in some years. This basically means Apple's distributing more money than it earns.
5) When to sell?

3 instances when you could consider selling the stock.

i) You need money for a better investments. This is more so applicable in a bear market, for you to switch from something great to something exceptional.
ii) When a company loses its competitive advantage. Times change, and once monopolistic companies are constantly being disrupted. If your investment faces such a risk, cut it loose.
iii) During crazy raging bull market. Even if a company runs a fantastic business, it could be a bad investment if you have to pay insane price. At such times, at such price, you could selling a fantastic business if you already have held onto it for a long time.
At a PE of 40 or higher, you should start considering selling your stocks, even if you believe in the underlying economics of the company.

This may not always apply to all markets, all stocks. But with anything above 40PE, tread carefully and cautiously.
So, key takeaways:

- Competitive advantage and scale
- Consistently high net income, return on equity
- Requires very little debt
- Retained earnings has steady growth
- Capital expenditures should be < 25%
- Sell a company if prices are crazy, or a better opportunity comes up.
The Swedish Investor YT channel has some interesting playlists on financial statements. Check it out. These insights I gathered are from one of his videos.

https://t.co/nbKA5Bzpi6
For learning Valuation, nothing better than Aswath Damodaran's course. Find his courses here:

https://t.co/MbmUKsE968

More from Shravan Venkataraman 🎡

Have you ever had 4-5 profitable trades in a row, and you bet all your profits on your next trade feeling "in the zone" only to lose it all?

That's called as "hot-hand fallacy" bias.

I ran a poll recently to outline two classic biases we have as humans.

Thread below 👇👇


1/ *Hot-Hand Fallacy* first had its origin in the game of basketball.

If a player shoots few baskets in a row, people generally predict that the next shot will also be a basket.

This is ignoring the fact that each shot is independent of the ones that came prior.

2/ In this poll, 41.1% people voted that the batsman who hit 4 sixes in a row, will hit a sixer in the 5th ball also.

This is classic hot-hand fallacy.

Each ball's outcome is independent.

The probability is not 50% FYI (number of outcomes is not 2).

These 148 people who voted that the next ball will also be a sixer, did so because they believe that the batsman is on a hot streak, and that his streak would continue.

This is an emotional bias and is usually attached to human performance related events only.

3/ 45.3% (162) people voted that the 5th ball would be a dot ball, meaning the batsman wouldn't score anything.

These people displayed the classic "negative-recency" bias, which is also called the "Gambler's Fallacy".
In today's round up, I have some amazing threads, resources, and plenty of solid advice for business, finance, career from twitter.

Here's the roundup of 17 of the best and the most useful threads, tweets, and resources I found last week. 🧵

1/ How to find spreadsheets on any topic in the


2/ A thread by @wes_kao on making your customers hungry and excited to buy from


3/ Life brings you a lot of afflictions. But if you look around, there's a lot of beauty around you. Most often, drowning in the afflictions, we can't recognise or appreciate the beauty.

@wdmorrisjr wrote a damn good thread on finding beauty around us.


4/ This one is for all the job goers and job seekers.

@SahilBloom who recently hit 500k followers and has several accomplishments to his belt (career wise) wrote this thread on standing out in a hiring

More from Economy

Latest @SouledOutWorld articles:
(Article Thread)

All in one convenient location to access.


https://t.co/TuyltZTyW0


https://t.co/XJJRvpLRQE


https://t.co/NeeFCfMkP2


https://t.co/yFtbIgqzzm
On Jan 6, 2021, the always stellar Mr @deepakshenoy tweeted, this:

https://t.co/fa3GX9VnW0

Innocuous 1 sentence, but its a full economic theory at play.
Let me break it down for you. (1/n)


On September 30, 2020, I wrote an article for @CFASocietyIndia where I explained that RBI is all set to lose its ability to set interest rates if it continues to fiddle with the exchange rate (2/n)

What do I mean, "fiddle with the exchange rate"?

In essence, if RBI opts and continues to manage exchange rate, then that is "fiddling with the exchange rate"

RBI has done that in the past and has restarted it in 2020 - very explicitly. (3/n)

First in March 2020, it opened a Dollar/INR swap of $2B with far leg to be unwound in September 2020.

Implying INR will be bought from the open markets in order to prevent INR from falling vis a vis USD (4/n)

The Second aspect is now, that dollar inflow is happening, and the forex reserves swelled -> implying the rupee is appreciating, RBI again intervened from September, by selling INR in spot markets. (5/n)
https://t.co/9kpWP7ovyM
Let's discuss how little you actually understand about economics and energy.

The first thing to understand is that energy is not globally fungible. Electricity decays as it leaves its point of origin; it’s expensive to transport. There is a huge excess (hydro) in many areas.


In other words, it can also be variable. It's estimated that in Sichuan there is twice as much electricity produced as is needed during the rainy season. Indeed, there is seasonality to how Bitcoin mining works. You can see here:

Bitcoin EXPORTS energy in this scenario. Fun fact, most industrial nations would steer this excess capacity towards refining aluminum by melting bauxite ore, which is very energy intensive.

You wouldn't argue that we are producing *too much* electricity from renewables, right?

"But what about the carbon footprint! ITS HUGE!"

Many previous estimates have quite faulty methods and don't take into account the actual energy sources. Is it fair to put a GHG equivalent on hydro or solar power? That would seem a bit disingenuous, no?

Well that's exactly what some have done.

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.