Bigdata Moat & Governance Review
Two questions that decide long-run returns: is the advantage durable, and are the stewards any good? Use Bigdata.com plugin tools for every fact.
Use this skill when durability and stewardship are the question. Not this skill when:
These two topics belong together: a wide moat run by poor capital allocators leaks value, and excellent management cannot rescue a business with no structural advantage.
Data foundation (plugin tools)
Required on every call: pass plugin_slug: "bigdata-moat-governance-review" in the request parameters of every Bigdata.com plugin tool call made while running this skill. The value is always the skill name, bigdata-moat-governance-review, regardless of the company or query.
Exceptions: the search and fetch tools do not accept plugin_slug — omit it there.
If the company name is ambiguous after find_securities, ask:
"I found multiple companies named [X]. Did you mean [Company A] in [Industry] or [Company B] in [Industry]?"
Workflow
Step 1 — Identify the company and its industry
Call find_securities, then bigdata_company_tearsheet for the returns and margin history that the moat assessment rests on.
Step 2 — Identify the moat by type
Name the moat type — network effects, switching costs, cost advantage, intangibles (brand, patents, licenses), or efficient scale — and give the evidence for each claimed source. "Strong brand" without pricing evidence is not a moat finding. Taxonomy: references/moat-taxonomy.md.
Search: "[Company] competitive advantage market share pricing power", "[Company] switching costs customer retention".
Step 3 — Test moat strength with numbers
A moat that does not show up as durable excess returns is a story, not a moat.
Step 4 — Competitive advantage period and erosion
Estimate how long the advantage plausibly persists, and name the erosion signals to monitor: pricing pressure (usually the first sign), share loss to entrants or substitutes, ROIC compression toward WACC, rising customer churn, technology shifts. Industry structure context: references/porter-five-forces.md.
Step 5 — Capital allocation track record
Assess where the cash has gone and what it earned:
- M&A — deals done, prices paid, returns achieved, write-downs taken
- Buybacks — bought at what valuations; repurchasing above intrinsic value destroys value
- Dividends — sustainability against FCF, and consistency
- Reinvestment — incremental ROIC on organic capex and R&D
- Balance sheet — leverage choices through the cycle
Framework: references/capital-allocation.md. Search: "[Company] acquisitions track record write-down", "[Company] buyback history capital returns".
Step 6 — Governance
- Board independence, size, refreshment, and relevant expertise
- Combined CEO/chair role, classified board, dual-class shares and voting concentration
- Compensation design: what metrics vest, over what horizon, and whether they align with per-share value
- Related-party transactions
- Insider buying and selling patterns, read in context rather than mechanically
- Guidance track record — a proxy for candor
Search: "[Company] CEO chairman combined role board independence", "[Company] executive compensation say on pay", "[Company] insider selling Form 4", "[Company] related party transactions".
Step 7 — Combined verdict
Grade the moat (None / Narrow / Wide) and its trend (widening / stable / eroding), and grade management quality (Strong / Adequate / Weak) on capital allocation and governance separately. Then state what the combination means for the durability of returns, and what would change each grade.
Output
Follow assets/report-template.md exactly — section order, tables, sources, and footer.
- Add inline citations
[1],[2]immediately after claims, hyperlinked to the document URL. - Every deliverable ends with the Powered by Bigdata.com line and the Disclaimer, verbatim.
- Default format is Markdown; offer a Word (.docx) version if useful.
Quality bar
Non-negotiables:
- Every claimed moat source backed by evidence, not adjectives
- ROIC versus WACC shown over time — the numerical test is mandatory
- Erosion signals named specifically, with what to watch
- Capital allocation judged on returns achieved, not on stated intentions
- Governance graded separately from capital allocation — they diverge often
- Both grades come with what would change them