← Analysis page  ·  Pieter Slegers hub  ·  Research hub

Actionable insights — 4 Stocks You Should Look Into

Grade the moat instead of asserting it, and read a distributor on turns rather than margin.
2026-MAR-10 · Compounding Quality (Substack) · Pieter Slegers · read ↗ · full analysis · transcript
How to read this page: each insight is a method used in this issue, written so it can be rerun on other names. Written post, so no timestamps.

1. Grade the moat on three levels instead of answering yes or no

The repeatable method
  1. For each holding, write the single sentence explaining why the customer does not leave.
  2. Classify that sentence: Level 1 (convenience) — staying is easy; Level 2 (economic) — leaving costs money; Level 3 (structural) — there is no real alternative.
  3. Require the answer to be Level 2 or 3 before the name is investable: "You should focus on Level 2 and Level 3 Moats."
  4. Re-run the grading when the technology around the customer changes — a moat can be demoted without the business doing anything wrong.
Here: the whole scale is published in four lines, and it is the sharpest tool the March run produces for the AI question — a convenience moat is exactly what a better interface removes, which is why the same month's holdings are argued on switching cost (Level 2) and irreplaceability (Level 3) instead.
Watch for

2. Prefer maintenance demand to purchase demand in a cyclical sector

The repeatable method
  1. Split the sector's revenue into new-unit sales and keeping-the-existing-unit-running.
  2. Ask what a recession does to each. Deferred purchases extend the life of the installed base, which raises maintenance demand.
  3. Prefer the business positioned on the maintenance side; its cyclicality is muted or inverted relative to the headline sector.
  4. Confirm the customer is a professional (a garage, a contractor) rather than the end consumer — professional demand tracks the fleet, not sentiment.
Here: APR.WA — "The company benefits from steady demand, since people need to keep their cars running no matter the economy," selling to garages and repair shops rather than to drivers.
Watch for

3. Read a distributor on return on capital, not on margin

The repeatable method
  1. Do not reject a low net margin in a distribution business; it is structural, since the company is paid for logistics rather than for product.
  2. Go straight to ROIC and reconstruct it: a mid-teens-or-better return on a low-single-digit margin means the capital is turning over quickly.
  3. Check the balance sheet, because the model relies on inventory financed prudently — leverage is where distributors fail, not margin.
  4. Then check whether the valuation is pricing the ROIC or the margin; the market frequently prices the margin.
Here: APR.WA at a 4.8% net income margin but a 17.5% ROIC, Net Debt/EBITDA 1.6x, and a forward P/E of 9.7x against a 23.1% CAGR since the 2016 IPO.
Watch for

4. Use a known analogue to shortcut an unfamiliar market — then check the numbers agree

The repeatable method
  1. Match the unfamiliar company to a business model you have already underwritten in a market you know ("the Polish AutoZone").
  2. List what the analogue implies — scale in purchasing, breadth of catalogue, delivery speed, professional customer base.
  3. Verify each implication in the actual numbers rather than assuming it transfers; the analogue is a hypothesis generator, not evidence.
  4. Note what does not transfer: market maturity, competitive structure, currency and governance are local.
Here: "Auto Partner can be seen as 'the Polish Autozone'," followed immediately by the fundamentals that would have to be true for the comparison to hold — and note the one that does not transfer: AutoZone is a share-cannibalising retailer, Auto Partner a wholesale distributor to trade customers.
Watch for

5. Treat position count as a function of your own competence, not a fixed rule

The repeatable method
  1. Accept the framing that "diversification is a double edged sword": it reduces the damage from being wrong and equally reduces the benefit of being right.
  2. Set the number of positions from how confident you can honestly be about each — "the more experience you have, the less diversification makes sense."
  3. Be explicit that this cuts both ways: little experience is an argument for more names or for an index, not fewer.
  4. Test the chosen count against sleep, not spreadsheets — a weight that keeps you awake is too large regardless of the analysis.
Here: the line is offered as an unqualified Buffett principle, and the archive's own practice is the useful corrective — 18 holdings in the stock portfolio, plus a whole parallel ETF book for readers who should not concentrate at all.
Watch for

Methods distilled from the archived Compounding Quality post for personal study. Not investment advice.