| name | stock-industry-review |
| description | Review a US-listed company's industry position and competitive moat for an equity-research workup. Covers Porter Five Forces scan, market-share trend (absolute and relative to industry growth), TAM size and trajectory, unit economics where disclosed (LTV/CAC, unit gross margin), moat classification (network / brand / scale-cost / switching-cost / patent / regulatory / proprietary-data), substitute threats, new-entrant threats, pricing-power evidence, supplier/channel concentration risk, and regulatory exposure. Trigger when analyzing competitive position at L6 of the seven-layer X-ray framework. Dispatched by stock-analysis-lead; at Lite depth runs in Lite-Industry mode (moat type + share trend only, no full Porter scan). |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch, Bash |
Stock Industry Review
Purpose
Read 10-K "Competition" sections, MD&A market commentary, and external industry-size data with the eye of a strategy analyst. The financial statements tell you what the company did; this skill tells you what the industry will let it keep doing. Surface moat type and durability, market-share trajectory relative to industry, pricing power evidence, and structural threats. Output Findings that the orchestrator uses to model Bull/Base/Bear scenarios — moat strength caps the multiple expansion, and competitive pressure determines margin sustainability.
When To Use
- Orchestrator dispatches industry review (always-on at all depths; Lite runs the lighter moat-type + share-trend pass only — no full Porter scan).
- User asks "what's the moat", "is losing share", "who are the competitors", "what's the TAM".
When NOT To Use
- Business model classification →
stock-business-review
- Margin trends →
stock-earnings-quality-review
- Management quality →
stock-management-review
Mandatory Gates
1) Execution Integrity Gate
Read 10-K Item 1 "Competition" section AND at least one external source (analyst report, industry association, or comparable peer's 10-K) for triangulation. The company's own description of competition is self-serving.
2) Quantification Gate
"Strong competitive position" is not a Finding. Quantify: market share %, share trend, TAM $, growth rate. If you cannot quantify, suppress.
3) Moat-Type Gate
Generic "competitive advantages" is not a moat. Classify into one of seven types: network effects, brand, scale-cost advantage, switching cost, patent/IP, regulatory, proprietary data. If you cannot fit it into a named type, flag "no identifiable moat".
4) Cyclicality Gate
Pricing-power evidence in a bull market is not pricing power. Look for margin stability across a downturn (2020 or 2022 depending on sector).
Workflow
- Read 10-K "Competition" subsection + Risk Factors related to competition.
- Pull at least one peer 10-K for triangulation (peer list from manifest).
- Estimate market-share trend using revenue YoY vs industry growth (from external source).
- Classify moat into named type(s); test moat durability.
- Emit Findings.
Filing-Pattern-Gated Execution Protocol
Execution Order
- Locate the 10-K Competition section, Risk Factors, segment-level revenue, and peer 10-K for context.
- For each checklist item, locate evidence.
- HIT → quantify + classify.
- MISS → mark NOT FOUND.
- Report only Findings with named, quantified evidence.
- Include
Filing pre-scan: X/Y items hit, Z confirmed.
Industry Checklist (10 Items)
| ID | Item | Source | Trigger |
|---|
| IND-01 | Porter Five Forces quick scan | 10-K Competition + Risk Factors | Flag if any one force is "high" without compensating moat |
| IND-02 | Market-share trend (relative growth) | Company revenue YoY vs industry growth | Flag if company growth < industry growth (losing share) |
| IND-03 | TAM size + 5-year growth trajectory | Investor presentation / industry research | Flag if TAM growth < 5% (mature market — multiple compression risk) |
| IND-04 | Unit economics (LTV/CAC, unit GM) | Investor presentations + 10-K segment | Flag if LTV/CAC < 3 in subscription business |
| IND-05 | Moat classification (named type) | Multi-source synthesis | Flag "no clear moat" if no named type applies |
| IND-06 | Substitute threat (named adjacent products) | 10-K Risk Factors + external scan | Flag if substitute growing > 20% annually |
| IND-07 | New-entrant threat (capital + regulatory barriers) | 10-K Risk Factors | Flag if barriers low AND TAM attractive |
| IND-08 | Pricing-power evidence (cross-cycle margin stability) | 5-year gross margin through last downturn | Flag if gross margin compressed > 5pp in last downturn |
| IND-09 | Supplier/channel concentration risk | 10-K Risk Factors | Flag if > 30% of supply from single vendor (e.g., TSMC dependency) |
| IND-10 | Regulatory exposure (sector-specific) | 10-K Item 1 "Regulation" + Risk Factors | Flag if pending regulation could compress margin or restrict TAM |
Severity Rubric
- High: Threatens the long-term thesis. E.g., losing share for 3 consecutive years; no identifiable moat in a competitive market; key regulatory action pending.
- Medium: Caps Bull-scenario probability. E.g., moat is real but narrow (switching cost ~6 months only); supplier concentration material but second-sourcing in progress.
- Low: Context for valuation. E.g., TAM growing 8% (not great, not terrible); regulatory exposure passive.
Evidence Rules
- Market share must cite a number AND the source (whose definition of the market?).
- Moat classification must name the type explicitly; don't write "they have a strong moat".
- TAM citations must include the source (research firm + year) since TAM estimates vary widely.
- Pricing power must reference a specific downturn period.
Output Format
Findings
[High|Medium|Low] Short Title
- ID:
IND-NN
- Citation: 10-K section + peer or external source
- Evidence: quantified data + named moat type
- Implication: what this means for the multiple / margin sustainability
Suppressed Items
Execution Status
Filings reviewed: 10-K (FY2024) Item 1 + Item 1A, peer 10-K (<peer ticker>)
External sources: <industry research firm / analyst report>
Filing pre-scan: 10/10 items hit, 4 confirmed as findings
Venture Priors (option-dominated names only — when the orchestrator's dispatch says Optionality Overlay)
When the company is option-dominated (Tesla, pre-profit narrative names), the orchestrator values the unproven engines with a sum-of-the-parts whose option legs need priors you are best placed to supply. For each value-driving venture (e.g. robotaxi, humanoid robots, an AI/software stream), emit a structured prior — and express every uncertain field as a range with a source tag, never a point (a point would be false precision the orchestrator's SOTP engine rejects):
Venture: <name>
- TAM at maturity: $<low>–$<high>B (<target year>) — source: <research firm + year> [estimate]
- Company addressable share: <low>–<high>% — basis: <vs named competitor / structural argument> [estimate]
- Take-rate / revenue capture: <low>–<high>% [assumption — state the network/pricing logic]
- Plausible steady-state operating margin: <%> — analog: <named comparable business> [assumption]
- Independent of the company's other ventures? <yes/no — shared tech stack?> ← feeds the venture probability tree
Do NOT assign P(success) or a dollar value — that is the orchestrator's synthesis. Your job is the falsifiable, sourced, ranged inputs. If you cannot source even a range for a field, say so; a missing prior is better than a fabricated one.
Summary
One line: N High / M Medium / K Low — most material: <IND-NN short title>.
No-Finding Case
No industry-position findings — moat real and named, gaining share, pricing power demonstrated through last cycle.
Notable positives: Network-effect moat; share grew from 24% to 31% in 5 years.
Load References Selectively
references/moat-typology.md — load when classifying moat type or stress-testing moat durability; contains the 7-type taxonomy with named exemplars (Visa network, Costco scale, SAP switching, etc.), and the cyclicality test for pricing power.
Review Discipline
Industry analysis is where retail investors most often hand-wave ("they have AI, they'll win"). Discipline: name the moat type. Quantify the share trend. Cite the TAM source. If you can't, suppress — orchestrator handles a missing IND finding better than a hand-wavy one.
