Previous review:
Sweeping robot field analysis of the first phase of the sweeping robot what is the way?
Sweeping robot field analysis of the second phase of how it came to the top and achieved transcendence?
Sweeping robot field analysis of the third phase of this business, how to make money in the end?
The technology of the fourth phase of the analysis of the field of sweeping robots, is there a moat in the end?
What is the moat of the fifth phase of the field analysis of sweeping robots?
Sweeping robot field analysis of the sixth phase is afraid of goods?
Sweeping robot field analysis of the seventh phase of asset-light operation, how to do?
How much stone technology has a say in the upstream, may wish to look at it through accounts payable
From 2016 to 218, its accounts payable were 106 million yuan, 278 million yuan and 404 million yuan respectively, accounting for 71.62%, 31.70% and 18.59% of the operating costs, of which the turnover days of accounts payable in 201 and 2018 were 78.76 days and 56.46 days, respectively.
Compared with the same industry, this level of discourse power is not high:
IRobot - from 2016 to 2018, the accounts payable and bills payable were 467 million yuan, 760 million yuan and 938 million yuan respectively, accounting for 19.72%, 25.8% and 25.44% of the operating costs, respectively, and the turnover days of accounts payable were 65.90 days, 74.99 days and 82.90 days, respectively, and the main foundry was the Hong Kong stock jianyi group (kinyat), which was relatively concentrated
Coworth – From 2015 to 2017, accounts payable and notes payable were 826 million yuan, 1.023 billion yuan and 1.086 billion yuan respectively, accounting for 44.88%, 47.23% and 37.63% of the operating costs, respectively, and the number of days of turnover of accounts payable was 123 days, 119 days and 106 days, respectively, accounting for about 15% of the top five suppliers.
Formart - from 2015 to 2017, the accounts payable were 0.18 billion yuan, 0.22 billion yuan and 0.3 billion yuan, accounting for 34.62%, 28.57% and 52.63% of the operating costs, respectively, and the number of accounts payable turnover days were 81 days, 80 days and 165 days, but the increase in 2017 was mainly due to the fact that the new factory was still in the run-in period, resulting in insufficient production capacity, revenue and cost decline, of which the purchase volume of the top five suppliers accounted for about 40%
In contrast, the most occupied upstream funds are Coworth, followed by Fumart, irobot, stone technology and the same industry, the shortest payment cycle.
Judging from the above data, the right of stone technology to speak of upstream (foundry) is still weak, so is it possible to enhance the right to speak in the future?
Comprehensive comparison of several companies in the millet industry chain found that the difference in the right to speak upstream mainly comes from the concentration of suppliers, stone technology is highly dependent on the first largest supplier, and the right to speak is weak, so there are two ways to enhance the right to speak.
1) Decentralized procurement - looking for other possible foundry resources, but the risk of decentralized procurement is larger, will sacrifice economies of scale and supply chain response speed, taking the clothing industry as an example, first-line brands in order to optimize the response speed of the supply chain, are streamlining the supplier portfolio, such as Adidas, Nike, Uniqlo, so some core suppliers are difficult to replace (such as Shenzhou International), the final competition for brand owners, or in their own brand strength.
2) Self-built production capacity - self-built production capacity means large capital investment, high threshold, and the operating model is not easy to be imitated, which is expected to produce scale effects. However, it takes up a lot of money, the opportunity cost is too large, and once the fixed assets are converted, the insufficient utilization of production capacity will lead to losses.
The case of shifting from OEM to self-built capacity + OEM combination is more typical of Feike Electrical Appliances, and the layout in channel adjustment and self-built production capacity will affect short-term performance growth.
In the future, from the perspective of business operation, it is recommended that companies such as Stone Technology that rely on OEM should always pay attention to the problem of double eleven, pre-New Year stocking, and the bottlenecks that may occur in the OEM capacity.
However, it should be noted that from the perspective of its R&D expenditure accounting for 3%, there are doubts about whether all the funds raised are invested in R&D.
Asset-light model, it is easy to imitate and subvert later, because of the lack of monopoly advantages, it is difficult to form a long-term competitive advantage and investment value, in order to continue to operate in an asset-light model, the goal should be to form a strong brand effect and scale effect, typical such as Apple, Nike, Dell, the brand as an advantage to leverage more resources.
So, the next deeper question is: can Stone Technology make up for the risks of asset-light operation in terms of brand moat? Let's look at the next link – sales.
Predict the follow-up and listen to the next decomposition
Does not constitute any investment advice, the stock market is risky, and caution is required when entering the market