TIP851：HEICO与TransDigm之争：哪家航空垄断企业更胜一筹？嘉宾Kyle Grieve与Shawn O'Malley

但在五年时间里，他们实际上把那项业务的EBITDA利润率翻了一倍。

But over a five year period, they actually doubled their EBITDA margins in that one business.

天哪，那真是一次了不起的收购，尤其是考虑到这笔交易的规模达到了40亿美元。

Gosh, that's an incredible acquisition, especially when you consider that the size of it was done at $4,000,000,000

那确实是一次非常漂亮的收购。

It was a very nice acquisitions.

而且，你知道，如果不考虑债务的话，我觉得我更喜欢TransDigm的并购框架。

And, you know, if you remove debt from it, I think I prefer TransDigm's M and A framework.

我喜欢他们通过利用价值驱动因素，随着时间推移真正提高利润率的能力。

I like their ability to really increase margins over time by leveraging their value drivers.

请记住，我可能有点偏见，因为我是Perimeter Solutions的股东，这家公司也是Nicholas Howley用非常相似的策略帮助创建的，只不过是在其他行业。

Keep in mind, I may be a little biased here as I am an owner of Perimeter Solutions, another business that Nicholas Howley helped create using a very, very similar playbook, but just in other industries.

所以当我更仔细地研究TransDigm时，我能看到Perimeter Solutions的基因遍布其中。

So when I was looking closer at TransDigm, I could see Perimeter Solutions DNA just all over it.

你知道，他们根据非常具体的标准和这些价值驱动因素来优化新收购，同时也会利用一点杠杆。

You know, the way they optimize new acquisitions based on very specific criteria and these value drivers, but they also utilize a little bit of leverage.

但我还是觉得，把债务这部分排除在外不太公平，因为债务显然存在，而且是实实在在的。

But I still don't think it's fair to take the debt part out of the equation because obviously it exists and it's real.

当然，也有可能HEICO有自己优化利润率的方法，只是他们选择不跟股东或竞争对手讨论而已。

And there is also the chance of course, that HEICO also has their own way of optimizing their own margins and maybe they just choose not to discuss it with shareholders or competitors.

所以我想再深入聊聊债务这个问题，因为了解TransDigm目前背负的债务规模很重要。

So I do want to add onto the whole debt thing because it's important to understand the magnitude of debt that TransDigm is currently carrying.

我记得一年前Daniel提出这个数字的时候，我就觉得挺吓人的，也挺引人注目的。

I thought the number was pretty scary and notable when Daniel pitched it way back a year ago.

但考虑到这家公司的质量，我觉得总体来说我还能接受，这也是为什么我们最终把TransDigm加入了投资组合，至少是内在价值投资组合里，虽然时间不长。

But given the quality of the business, I think generally it's safe to say I was pretty okay with it, which was why we did end up adding TransDigm to the portfolio for at least a brief period of time, the intrinsic value portfolio.

TransDigm最让人瞠目结舌的数字就是他们的净债务，大约310亿美元，这样算下来，他们的净杠杆率大概在5.8倍左右。

So the really eye popping numbers from TransDigm is just their net deposition of about $31,000,000,000 So this puts their net leverage ratio somewhere in the 5.8 times range.

对比一下HEICO，虽然它比TransDigm小很多，但净债务只有23亿美元，净杠杆率大概在1.6倍。

Just to contrast that with HEICO, is admittedly a much smaller company than TransDigm, they only have $2,300,000,000 in net debt and a net leverage ratio, you know, around 1.6 times.

所以，TransDigm的EBITDA对利息的覆盖率只有3倍，而HEICO是11倍。

So EBITDA to interest is just three times for TransDigm versus 11 times for HEICO.

我觉得你大概只需要知道这些就够了。

I think that's really all you you probably need to know.

说到债务问题，很明显，从某些角度来看，HEICO要安全得多。

When it comes to the the debt situation, again, it's just clear that HEICO is in a much safer position from some perspectives.

就像我之前提到的，由于TransDigm的很多零部件常常是独家供应，这给了他们一些余地，在认为还能找到类似竞争优势的交易时，可以适当加杠杆。

Like I mentioned earlier, given the fact that TransDigm is often the sole source for many of its components, it does give them some permission to lever up a bit on these deals if it thinks it can continue finding more of them out there with similar sort of competitive advantages.

这点没有异议。

No arguments there.

你刚才提到了竞争优势这一点，

So you actually just brought up a point there about competitive advantages,

我觉得这两家公司都有好几个优势，我们现在应该讨论一下。

and I think that both of these businesses have several that we should now discuss.

确实应该。

We should.

Daniel在介绍TransDigm时，跟我提了一个很好的观点，就是他们的垄断地位，我的结论是，存在两种不同的垄断。

So Daniel made a really good point to me in his pitch on TransDigm about their monopolistic positioning, and my conclusion was that there are two separate kinds of monopolies.

你知道，有一种是政府授予的垄断，还有一种就是自然垄断。

You know, there's the the government granted monopolies, and then there's natural monopolies.

政府授予的垄断就是政府明确给某家公司垄断权。

And so a government granted monopoly is one where the government evidently grants a company a monopoly.

比如电信行业，它们享受一些监管特权，但自然垄断才是最好的那种。

So think about telecom businesses where they enjoy some regulatory privileges, but a natural monopoly is really the best possible kind.

因为在政府垄断下，政府可以给你，也可以拿走。

Because under a government monopoly, the government can giveth and and it can taketh.

所以如果监管机构或政府决定不再容忍你的商业模式，这种垄断地位很快就会被剥夺。

So that monopoly like status can be stripped very quickly if regulators or the government decided they no longer want to tolerate your business model.

但在自然垄断下，政府其实做不了什么。

But under a natural monopoly, the government can't really do anything.

自然垄断的形成是因为你比竞争对手强太多。

A natural monopoly forms because you're so superior at what you do compared to your competition.

比如谷歌和谷歌搜索。

So think about Google and Google search.

当时，丹尼尔甚至放了一段视频，是众议院监督委员会试图弄明白为什么像TransDigm这样的公司没有竞争对手。

So at the time, Daniel even showed a clip where the House Oversight Committee tried to understand why companies like TransDigm don't have competition.

当政府无法介入一个拥有垄断地位的企业时，他们真的没有太多办法来阻止这家公司利用其定价权。

And when the government can't step into a business that has a monopoly, there just really isn't as much they can do to stop a business from utilizing its pricing power.

所以，TransDigm现在就是处于这样的位置。

And so that is really the position that TransDigm is in.

这确实是一个非常有利的位置，虽然我知道查理·芒格会不同意。

And it's a really beautiful position to be in, although I know Charlie Munger would disagree.

所以当被问到是否熟悉TransDigm时，他说，

So when asked if he was familiar with TransDigm, he said,

我不喜欢那种赚钱的方式。

I don't like that way of making money.

那太残酷了。

It's just too brutal.

他们找到一些因为国防部规定而有点垄断的东西，然后把价格提高十倍，他们因此而出名。

They figure out something that has a little monopoly due to the defense department regulations and they raise the price 10 times and they're famous for it.

我觉得那是不道德的。

I regard that as immoral.

所以这是一个很有意思的观点，我觉得关于道德层面的问题，投资者基本上得自己拿主意。

So it's a pretty interesting point, and I think the whole morality aspect is something that I think investors largely have to just decide for themselves.

如果你找的是像好市多那样双赢的企业，那好吧，我能看出区别。

If you're looking for a business that has kind of a win win aspect to it like Costco, well, okay, I can see the difference.

但对我来说，定价权就是资本主义的自然组成部分，我尊重那些有意把自己置于这种位置的企业。

But to me, pricing power is just a natural part of capitalism, and I respect businesses for putting themselves into those places on purpose.

而且，你知道吗，如果你真要挑刺的话，好市多也强迫很多供应商承担关税调整，而不是自己消化。

And, know, if you really want to nitpick, Costco also forced many of their suppliers to do things like absorb the tariff adjustments rather than just absorb it themselves.

他们能做到这一点，唯一的原因就是他们对供应商有议价能力。

And the only reason they can do this was due to the bargaining power over their own suppliers.

我大概基本同意。

I would probably mostly agree.

我觉得投资者当然没有责任去管企业收多少钱。

I don't think it's an investor's job certainly to to be policing what a business charges.

如果TransDigm的客户愿意继续付钱，那确实说明这些零件对他们来说值这个价。

And if TransDigm's customers are willing to keep paying, that does tell you what the parts are worth to them.

我可能稍微有点不同意见的地方是，芒格的观点我觉得不完全关乎道德，对吧？

And where I'd probably push back a little bit is that Munger's point, I don't think is entirely about morality, right?

当你的客户群很大一部分是国防部，最终账单落在纳税人头上时，那种激进的定价策略确实会变成一种政治风险，因为它会引来政治关注。

When a big chunk of your customer base is the Department of Defense and the bill ultimately lands on taxpayers, that aggressive pricing strategy does become something of a political risk because it invites political attention.

我们最近在FICO身上就看到了这种情况。

And we've seen that with FICO recently.

值得记住的是，芒格在Costco董事会待了几十年。

It's worth remembering, Munger sat on Costco's board for decades.

所以他显然非常偏好那种客户也能受益的企业。

So he clearly had a strong preference for businesses where the customer wins as well.

这实际上是尽可能把价值回馈给客户，而不是尽可能榨取定价权。

It's really about returning as much value to the customer as possible rather than extracting as much pricing power as possible.

所以对我来说，问题不在于道德，而在于定价权的持久性，以及如果客户有机会真正反击的话，这种定价权还能持续多久。

So for me, the question is less about morality and more about how durable the pricing power is and how durable the pricing power is if the customer ever gets a chance to meaningfully push back.

那如果我们用垄断的视角来看TransDigm和HEICO，我很好奇你觉得这两家哪家的市场地位更强？

So if we looked at TransDigm and HEICO though through this lens of of being a monopoly, I'm curious how you think which which of the two has the stronger positioning?

我觉得我可能会选TransDigm。

I think I'd probably have to go with TransDigm.

你知道，他们很多零件都是独家供应商，这意味着根本没有替代品。

You know, just the fact that they are the sole provider for a large number of their parts means that just there's no alternative that exists.

HEICO显然因为FAA的规定而处于非常有利的位置，你知道，作为某些零件的少数制造商之一，但他们也会承认，对于他们开发的许多零件，OEM往往是唯一来源。

HEICO is obviously incredibly well positioned due to the FAA regulations as, you know, one of the few manufacturers of certain parts, but they'll admit that the OEM is often the sole source for many of the parts that they develop.

所以从技术上讲，他们总是至少有一个来自OEM的竞争对手，即使他们有以非常非常低的折扣销售这些组件的优势。

So technically, they'll always have at least one competitor there from the OEMs, even if they have that advantage of selling those components at a very, very steep discount.

所以，你知道，我觉得对于这两家公司来说，真的就像是在巅峰期的勒布朗·詹姆斯和巅峰期的迈克尔·乔丹之间挑一个你更想要谁。

So, you know, I think when it comes to both of these businesses, it's really like nitpicking about who you'd rather have between peak LeBron James or peak Michael Jordan.

他们都好得离谱，选哪个都不会错。

They're both ridiculously good, you can't really go wrong with either choice.

我觉得在这个对比中，TransDigm可能就是乔丹。

I think TransDigm is is probably the Jordan in that matchup.

冷酷无情，而且不太在意对方是否喜欢。

Ruthless, relentless, and not really especially concerned whether the other side likes it.

然后我猜HEICO更像勒布朗，对于正在听我们聊天的篮球迷来说，因为他们通过让身边的人变得更好来获胜。

And then I guess HEICO is is more like LeBron for our basketball fans out there that are following along with the conversation because they they win by making people around them better.

在这种情况下，就是通过帮客户省钱。

In this case, that's by saving customers money.

而且它也是为长久而生的，对吧？

And it's also built for longevity, right?

勒布朗至今还在打球。

LeBron is still playing to this day.

职业生涯非常长。

It's incredibly long career.

所以投资者面临的问题是，你是想要乔丹那种杀手本能，还是勒布朗那种持久力。

So the question for investors is whether you want that killer instinct of Jordan or the staying power of maybe LeBron.

我个人可能会选择勒布朗那种经营方式，作为投资者我觉得更有吸引力。

And I would probably take personally the LeBron approach for business as being more attractive to me as an investor.

但说真的，别误会，我还是觉得乔丹是史上最伟大的篮球运动员。

But I mean, come on, don't get me wrong, I still see Jordan as being the greatest basketball player of all time.

所以这个比喻不是完美的，但我确实觉得它挺有参考价值的。

So it's not a perfect metaphor, but I do like it as a bit of a framework.

咱们继续往下聊吧，因为我知道篮球这个话题我们可以聊很久。

Just to keep us moving along here, because I know we could definitely talk basketball for longer.

如果我们要给这两家公司的竞争优势贴标签，你会怎么选？

If we had to choose how to label some of the competitive advantages for both companies, what would you go with?

这些公司有哪些优势，让它们与众不同？

What what are the advantages that these companies have and that make them unique?

我觉得如果让我简单概括的话，

I think if I had to simplify it,

我觉得HEICO和TransDigm都有很高的转换成本。

I think both HEICO and TransDigm offer high switching costs.

所以，你知道的，大多数情况下，转换要么不可能，要么在经济上不可行。

So, you know, for the most part, switching is either impossible or economically unfeasible.

当然，原始设备制造商可能会对客户使用非他们自己的售后零件表示不满。

Sure, the OEMs can make a stink about a customer maybe using these aftermarket parts that aren't their own.

但你知道，如果他们将来还想继续做这个客户的生意，基本上就只能接受客户会使用其他公司的售后零件，因为客户能以更低的价格获得几乎相同的性能。

But you know, if they want the customer's business again in the future, they basically have to just accept that the customer is going to use aftermarket parts from a different company because they can get them simply at a much better price while delivering essentially the exact same performance.

现在，有几个主要因素帮助这两家公司提高了转换成本。

Now, there are a few major drivers that help switching costs for both of these business.

所以，如果我使用“隐藏垄断”框架，有几个属性是……

So if I use a hidden monopoly framework, there's a few attributes on which

我认为这两家公司在这些属性上得分都非常非常高。

I think both businesses score very, very highly on.

对于不熟悉“隐藏垄断”框架的人来说，这基本上是一个评估企业与客户关系的框架，对吧？

And just for anyone unfamiliar with this idea of a hidden monopoly framework, it's basically a framework for evaluating the relationship between a business and its customers, right?

这样理解差不多对吧？

Is that pretty much the correct way to frame it?

完全正确。

That's exactly it.

所以，不同企业的客户忠诚度水平各不相同，这个框架确实有助于弄清楚为什么客户会留下来，而不是转向其他企业。

So all businesses have different levels of customer loyalty and the framework really helps kind of nail down why customers will stick around versus switching to another business.

首先，让我印象最深的一个方面是“满意启发式”。

So the first aspect that really stood out to me was in the satisfice heuristic.

如果某个部件工作正常，而且表现非常好，那么只要航空公司知道这个部件非常可靠，他们就没有太多理由去尝试其他产品。

So if the component works and it works really well, there just really isn't that much of a reason for an airline to go and experiment with others as long as they know the component is very, very trustworthy.

丹尼尔在讨论TransDigm时提到的另一个很好的观点是，这家企业即使在财务状况变化的情况下，也能让客户持续回头。

Another really good point that Daniel made when discussing TransDigm was that this business keeps customers coming back despite changing financial circumstances.

当然。

Sure.

如果发生像新冠疫情这样的事件，嗯，是的，你知道，飞机可能会停飞，但它们仍然在老化。

If something like COVID happens, well, yeah, you know, planes are going to be grounded, but they're still aging.

所以你可能需要等待，但最终那些飞机部件还是需要维修的。

So you may have to wait, but at some point those aircraft components do need to be serviced.

而且，在更换这些部件时，真的没有其他选择可以随便省钱。

And there really is no option to just cheap out on replacing these parts.

你不能随便去劳氏买一颗用在飞机上的螺丝。

You can't just go to Lowe's to pick up a screw that's going to be used on an airplane.

信任在这里也非常重要。

Trust also matters a ton here.

老话说得好，没坏就别修，我觉得就是这个道理，对吧？

The old saying if it ain't broke, don't fix it, I think applies, right?

因为零件出问题，是所有监管机构都极力避免的。

Because having parts that don't work is is something all regulatory bodies want to avoid at at all costs.

没错。

Precisely.

而且我

And I

觉得这就引出了我们下一个话题，也就是转换成本，即失败的高代价。

think this leads to our next part on switching costs, which is the high cost of failure.

比如，2019年，美国联邦航空管理局要求所有波音737在十天内更换大约148个零件。

So for instance, in 2019, the FAA forced all Boeing 737s to replace about 148 parts within the next ten days.

所以，非常非常快。

So very, very quickly.

这次跟之前那两起坠机事故无关，但FAA基本上认定，受影响的部件可能因为制造工艺不当，容易出现早期失效或裂纹。

Now this was unrelated to the two crashes that they had, but the FAA basically concluded that the affected parts may susceptible to premature failure or cracks resulting from improper manufacturing process.

虽然前缘缝翼滑轨完全失效不会导致飞机失事，但仍有风险，失效的部件可能在飞行中造成飞机损坏。

Although a complete failure of a leading edge slat track could not result in the loss of the aircraft, a risk remains that failed parts could lead to aircraft damage in flight.

我们完全不知道这些部件来自哪里，只知道是波音的一个次级供应商。

Now we have no idea of knowing where these parts came from other than that it was a sub tier supplier for Boeing.

所以，任何有这种声誉的企业，将来在供应链中的地位可能会低很多，不像HEICO那样，以整个寿命期内从未有过部件失效为傲。

So any business that has a reputation like this probably is going to be a lot lower in the pecking order in the future versus a business such as HEICO, which prides itself on never having any parts failed during their entire lifespan.

我喜欢的是这些动态能自我强化。

What I like is how self reinforcing these dynamics can be.

一旦部件正常工作，客户就没什么理由去另寻新品。

Once a part works, customers have little reason to go shopping for something new.

即使预算紧张，比如疫情期间，维护可以推迟，但最终不能跳过。

And even when budgets get squeezed, like during COVID, the maintenance can be delayed, but it can never be skipped ultimately.

因为失败的代价太惨重了，当然没人愿意冒险去用一个没验证过的供应商。

Because the cost of failure is so catastrophic, nobody wants to be the one, of course, who gambles on an unproven supplier.

所以把这些都加起来，作为现有供应商就变得极其有价值。

And so if you put all that together, being the incumbent becomes enormously valuable.

这真的是一个非常大的现状优势。

It's a really significant status quo advantage.

不过我觉得这对每家公司来说，情况还是有点不一样的。

So I think this does play out a little bit differently for each company though.

对TransDigm来说，这三样都只是巩固了现状，因为客户常常只能买到市面上唯一被批准的零件。

For TransDigm, all three simply lock in the status quo since customers are often buying the only approved part in existence.

而对HEICO来说，高失败成本其实是它首先要跨过的一道坎。

Whereas for HEICO, the high cost of failure was actually the hurdle it had to clear first.

所以它必须一点一点赢得信任，一次一次拿到FAA的批准，才能成为原厂之外的可信替代选择。

And so it had to earn trust as a credible alternative to the original equipment manufacturer, one FAA approval at a time.

但一旦做到了，这些障碍就开始反过来帮它了，因为任何想跟HEICO竞争的人，现在也得撞上同样的怀疑和审查这堵墙。

But once it did, those same barriers started working in its favor because anyone trying to undercut HEICO, well, now they have to run into that same wall of skepticism and review.

所以TransDigm是默认就享受这些壁垒带来的好处，而HEICO则是靠自己一步步争取到入场资格的。

So TransDigm benefits from these barriers by default, while HEICO earned its way inside of them.

在我看来，这让这家公司的地位更加稳固。

And to me, that makes the business's position more durable.

我知道咱们之前私下聊过这家公司，你对这两家作为航空零部件制造商所具备的客户转换成本优势感到非常兴奋。

And I know we were discussing this business a little bit off air and you were really giddy about thinking about the switching costs benefits that both of these companies offer as aerospace component manufacturers.

不过我觉得还有一些其他优势，我们可能也得聊聊。

But I think there are some other advantages that we should probably talk about.

我从来没想过有一天会听到有人用‘兴奋’来形容一家航空航天零部件制造商，但今天还真就这么发生了。

I never thought I'd hear the words giddy and aerospace components manufacturer used in the same sentence, but here we are.

好，回到你刚才提到的那个观点，在我继续往下讲之前。

So got it back to your point there just before I move on here.

就像你刚说的，HEICO能一步步挤进这个领域，这点真的很关键。

It's really important, like you just said, that HEICO essentially worked their way into that.

他们达成这一目标的方式之一，就是跟汉莎航空建立了合作关系。

And one of the ways they did that was basically by partnering with Lufthansa.

所以，从那时起，他们也和多家其他航空公司合作过。

So, and then, and since that, that time they've done that with multiple other airlines as well.

所以我觉得他们从零开始建立自己的忠诚度做得非常非常好，这真的很值得称赞。

So I think they've done a really, really good job of building their own loyalty kind of from scratch, which is I think very, very commendable.

另一个让客户不断回来的好处就是沉没成本。

So another one of the benefits that keeps customers coming back are sunk costs.

所以，如果原始设备制造商不再需要某个零件，或者不喜欢某个供应商，他们不太可能把飞机上所有使用那个零件的线路上的供应商组件全部替换掉。

So if an OEM no longer wants a part or maybe doesn't like a supplier, it's pretty unlikely that they're going to replace every one of the suppliers components on every single line of one of its planes that are using that exact component.

你知道，这里涉及的就是沉没成本。

You know, are sunk costs involved here.

飞机不能因为原始设备制造商决定和某家供应商断绝关系就长时间停飞。

The planes cannot be grounded for extended periods of times just because the OEM decides to sever business with someone.

飞机停在地面上，既不能为航空公司赚钱，如果是军用飞机，也不能执行实际的防御任务。

A plane on the ground just isn't making the airlines any money nor is it doing any actual defending if it's part of the military.

另外，对很多原始设备制造商来说，零件通常不止一个供应商。

Then you have the fact that for many OEMs, the parts do have more than one supplier.

所以你基本上就只能用现有的，不管你对他们的定价满不满意。

So you're basically stuck with what you got, whether you like how they price the product or not.

而且因为这些零件都是按照非常具体的规格高度定制的，就算你想换，显然也不是随便就能找到别人来给你做的。

And because these parts are highly engineered to very specific specifications, it's obviously not easy to just go out and find someone else to make them for you, even if you wanted to.

最后我要提的一点，跟我之前说的高失败成本有关。

And the last one I'll mention relates to the point that I made on the high cost of failure.

那就是个人信誉成本。

These are personal credibility costs.

肖恩，你刚才其实已经提到了这一点，但如果你从一家新的、更便宜的供应商那里买到了有问题的零件，后来发现这个零件不能正常工作，那你很可能就会丢掉工作。

Shawn, you kind of already just alluded to it here, but if you make an error buying a faulty component from a new, say cheaper supplier, and then later it's found out that that part doesn't function as it should, well, the chances are very good that you'll probably just lose your job.

这就像对冲基金经理只是复制市场一样。

It's like a hedge fund manager who just copies the market.

他们知道，买一些无聊的蓝筹股是不会被解雇的。

They know they're not going to get fired for buying some boring blue chip.

但如果他们决定大胆尝试，买一些别人都没投资的东西，结果失败了，那他们很可能就会被解雇，因为没有人犯过同样的错误。

But if they decide to try to be bold and buy something nobody else has invested in and it fails, well, chances are they're going to get fired because nobody else made that exact same mistake.

这也让他们不敢去尝试任何不一样的做法。

And this keeps them from trying to do anything different.

不过我觉得，这对航空航天零部件企业来说反而是个优势。

This is a benefit though, I think for aerospace components businesses.

这让我想到我们在创新领域经常遇到的一个常见问题。

Well, it reminds me of a pretty common problem that we see around innovation.

比如亚马逊这家公司，它是我们内在价值投资组合里的一只持仓股。

And so a company like Amazon, which we own in our Intrinsic Value Portfolio is a holding.

要是他们把每个尝试创新的人都炒了，公司也不可能发展到今天的规模。

It would never be where it is today if they fired everyone who tried to innovate.

亚马逊最初只是个网上卖书的，现在已经是全球最大的零售商、流媒体平台之一，也是云计算巨头。

Amazon started as an online bookseller and is now one of the largest retailers, streaming companies, and also cloud computing companies in the world.

你说这算不算持续创新的成果？

So, how's that for innovation over time?

而且时间跨度其实也没那么长。

And not really that much time either.

他们在大概二十年的时间里，甚至可能快三十年了，做了很多这样的创新。

They've done a lot of that in in like a two decade time frame, maybe almost three decades.

但区别在于，亚马逊在创新时不会害死人，至少我希望不会。

And so the difference though is that Amazon is not going to kill anybody when they try to innovate, or at least I hope not.

而在航空航天零部件行业，错误的创新后果可就不一样了。

Where the same really can't be said of at least the consequences of mistaken innovations in the aerospace components industry.

所以这确实值得考虑，为什么这个行业在结构上更倾向于规避风险。

So that is definitely something to consider why kind of structurally there's more of a risk averseness in that space.

所以我想问你的问题是，你觉得这两家公司有没有其他竞争优势，能进一步巩固它们的护城河？

So my question for you is, do you think either of these businesses have any other competitive advantages that would distinctly further strengthen their moat?

是的，我觉得有。

Yeah, I do.

我知道这个环节会继续下去，因为这些公司确实有很多竞争优势。

And I know this segment's going along because these businesses really do have a lot of competitive advantages.

但我觉得另一个优势就是定价权。

But I think another one is simply just the pricing power.

我们今天已经聊了不少这个，但我觉得很明显，TransDigm在这方面有优势。

We've kind of, you know, this a lot today, but I would say obviously TransDigm has the advantage there.

你知道，当你是某个关键零件的唯一供应商时，那你就可以提价，客户真的没什么办法，只能去跟监管机构抱怨。

You know, when you're the only supplier of one key part, well, then you can increase your prices and there just isn't anything really that your customers can do about it other than maybe complain to regulators.

不过我得说，我当然希望他们别太使劲去惹恼监管机构。

But I would say I'd obviously prefer if they didn't try too hard to piss the regulators off though.

然后，如果你看HEICO，不管你想叫它流程优势还是低成本供应商，他们就是能以比原始设备制造商更低的价格制造这些零件。

Then, you know, if you're looking at HEICO, whether you want to call it process power or a low cost provider, they are just manufacturing these parts at lower prices than the OEMs.

我觉得这非常厉害。

And I think this is super powerful.

因为他们有长期无重大事故的历史，客户知道并信任来自HEICO子公司的零件。

Since they had this long history with no major accidents, their customers know and trust parts that come from a HEICO subsidiary.

而且能以很大的折扣拿到这些零件，这很不错，尤其是因为那些OEM零件非常非常贵。

And getting it at a steep discount is nice, especially since these OEM parts are very, very pricey.

我们快速休息一下，听听今天赞助商的发言。

Let's take a quick break and hear from today's sponsors.

对网上交易感兴趣，但还没迈出第一步？

Curious about online trading, but haven't taken the first step yet?

你不是一个人。

You're not alone.

而Plus500期货是一个很好的起点。

And Plus500 futures is a great place to start.

期货市场瞬息万变，通过Plus500，你可以探索热门资产，比如石油、黄金、标普500、比特币等等。

The futures markets are moving fast and with Plus500, you can explore popular assets like oil, gold, S and P 500, Bitcoin, and more.

从加密货币到大宗商品，总有新鲜事发生。

From crypto to commodities, there's always something happening.

这个平台操作非常简单，你可以直接在手机上随时交易。

The platform is super easy use, so you can trade on the go right from your phone.

只需100美元就能开始，马上加入行动。

You can get started with just $100 and jump into the action.

看到感兴趣的了？

See something interesting?

账户开通后，只需点击几下就能开始交易。

Once your account is open, you can trade it in just a couple of clicks.

如果你还没准备好，可以用免费模拟账户练习一下。

And if you're not quite ready yet, you can practice with a free demo account.

没有风险，也没有压力。

No risk, no pressure.

凭借二十年的经验，Plus500让交易变得比以往任何时候都更容易。

With twenty years of experience, Plus500 makes trading more accessible than ever.

去plus500.com看看吧。

Check it out at plus500.com.

期货交易存在亏损风险，并非适合所有人，并非所有申请者都能通过审核。

Trading in futures involves risks of loss and is not suitable for everyone, not all applicants will qualify.

Plus500，让交易更上一层楼。

Plus500, it's trading with a plus.

每周我们都会在节目中分析一些公司，并问同样的问题：管理层是否真的在高效地运营这家企业？

Every week we analyze companies on this show and ask the same question, is management actually running this business efficiently?

这是目前大多数公司面临的诚实答案。

Here's the honest answer for most companies right now.

那些领先的公司，正是那些把人工智能应用到日常事务中的公司。

The ones pulling ahead are the ones putting AI to work on the everyday stuff.

这正是 NetSuite Next 的初衷。

That's exactly what NetSuite Next was built for.

NetSuite Next 在你最需要的时候提供洞察。

NetSuite Next surfaces insights exactly when you need them.

它让智能代理处理日常任务和问题，并允许你用简单的语言提出复杂的问题，就像和一位知识渊博的同事交谈一样。

It puts agents to work on routine tasks and problems, and it lets you ask complex questions in plain language like talking to a knowledgeable colleague.

但技术只是故事的一部分。

But technology is only part of the story.

人工智能也在重塑人们和团队的合作方式，而这种转变已经在进行中。

AI is also reshaping how people and teams work together, and that shift is already underway.

专家编写的商业指南，今天就掌握在你手中。

Expert created business guide in your hands today.

这份指南叫《对齐：AI如何改变日常工作》，现在你可以免费获取。

It's called Aligning for the How AI is Changing Everyday Work, and right now it's yours absolutely free.

里面会告诉你，AI将如何重塑整个组织的工作方式，以及你的企业该如何布局，从中获益。

Inside, you'll discover how AI could reshape work across your entire organization, and how to position your business to prosper from it.

我自己就在用，你也应该试试。

I use this and you should too.

如果你的年收入至少达到七位数，就来NetSuite官网的tip页面领取我们免费的商业指南《对齐：代理时代——AI如何改变日常工作》。

If your revenues are at least in the 7 figures, get our free business guide aligning for the agentic era, how AI is changing everyday work at netsuite.com/tip.

这份指南在 netsuite.com/tip 可以免费获取。

The guide is free to you at netsuite.com/tip.

网址是 netsuite.com/tip。

Netsuite.com/tip.

今年九月，我

This September, I

去了纽约参加内在价值大会。

was in New York for the Intrinsic Value Conference.

演讲都很精彩，但我一直在想的是演讲之外的那些事。

The talks were great, but what I kept thinking about is what happened around them.

周五晚上，我们大约二十个人挤在时代广场附近一家家庭式意大利餐厅的长桌旁。

On Friday night, about 20 of us crowded around a long table at a family style Italian spot near Times Square.

周六，我们又聚了一次。

Saturday, we did it again.

周日早上，我们一群人还在早餐时争论苏格拉底，然后大家各自回家。

And Sunday morning, a group of us were still debating Socrates over breakfast before everyone headed home.

那些坐在桌旁的人，很多之前只在我们的智囊团社区的线上通话中认识彼此。

Many of the people at those tables had only known each other from our calls in the mastermind community.

那是我和Kyle Grieve、Daniel Mahncke一起主持的社区。

That is the community I host with Kyle Grieve and Daniel Mahncke.

每周我们都会通过直播通话聚在一起，深入探讨市场和各个企业。

Each week, we get together on live calls to dig into markets and individual businesses.

我们会邀请基金经理、运营者和作家作为嘉宾。

We bring in fund managers, operators, and authors as guest speakers.

而且每年有那么几次，比如今年秋天在纽约，每年春天在奥马哈，我们会线下见面。

And a few times a year, like New York this fall and Omaha every spring, we meet in person.

如果你想和那些同样以十年为单位思考的人一起交流，可以免费申请加入，网址是 theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermind。

If you want to think in decades alongside people who do the same, apply for free at theinvestorspodcast.com/mastermind.

如果你的申请很突出，我会亲自联系你。

If your application stands out, I'll be the one to reach out to you personally.

好的。

Alright.

回到节目中来。

Back to the show.

这两家公司在竞争优势方面确实不相上下。

It's a pretty tight line between both of these businesses when it comes to competitive advantages.

它们都非常强大，想从它们任何一家手里抢生意显然都非常困难，甚至几乎不可能。

They're both very formidable, and stealing business away from either of them is clearly going to be very difficult, if not impossible.

所以如果非要我选一个更有优势的，可能我的偏见又出来了，但我大概会选HEICO。

So if I had to give an edge, maybe, my biases are showing again, but I would probably go with HEICO.

那是因为我倾向于喜欢那些能够比竞争对手更好地定价，而且竞争压力不大的企业。

And that's because I tend to like businesses that, again, just can price their product better than competitors while not really having a ton of competition.

而TransDigm的定价能力虽然惊人，但我们已经讨论过了。

Whereas TransDigm's pricing power is incredible, but we've talked about it.

它依赖于客户确实没有其他选择。

It depends on customers really having no other option.

最终，在我看来，这可能会引起那些买单的人，也就是五角大楼的注意。

That eventually, in my sort of speculative opinion, tends to draw attention from the people who are writing the checks, namely the Pentagon.

所以HEICO的优势正好相反。

And so HEICO's advantage works the other way.

每次它赢得一笔销售，客户相比原始设备制造商能节省30%到50%的成本。

Every time it wins a sale, the customer saves 30% to 50% versus the OEM.

所以航空公司实际上希望HEICO成功，并不断添加新的零部件。

So airlines actually want HEICO to succeed and keep adding new parts.

汉莎航空甚至持有HEICO售后零部件业务的一部分股份，以表明他们的立场一致。

Lufthansa even owns a stake in part of HEICO's aftermarket parts business to show their alignment there.

这让我更加确信，HEICO的护城河能持续拓宽，而不会引来监管机构的真正干预。

That just makes me more confident HEICO's moat can keep widening over time without inviting regulators to really intervene.

所以，虽然TransDigm可能从每个零件上榨取更多利润，但我认为HEICO的优势更持久。

So while TransDigm might squeeze more profit out of each part, I think HEICO's advantage is more durable of the two.

对于像我这样，只想做几个好的投资决策，让它们尽可能长时间地复利增长，然后再做下一个决策的人来说，我真的很喜欢那种“坐着不动”的投资理念。

For someone like me who's trying to make just a few good investment decisions that compound for as long as possible before I have to make another decision, I really like the the metaphor of just sitting on your hands investing.

这确实很有吸引力。

There's something pretty attractive about that.

而且我们第一次做Sierra Acquires直播的时候，我也选了HEICO。

And when we first did our livestream on Sierra Acquires, I also picked HEICO as well.

但现在，你知道，我就不太确定了。

But now, you know, I'm just not so sure.

所以，尽管政府确实对TransDigm的利润率提出了异议，但这并没有真正影响它的定价能力。

So even though the government did make a stink about TransDigm and their margins, it hasn't really made that much of a difference on its pricing power.

所以，如果你看看他们向五角大楼退还大约1900万美元超额利润之后的毛利率，他们的毛利率已经上升了大约6%。

So if you look at their gross profit margins from the time they paid the Pentagon back about $19,000,000 in excess profits, their gross profit margins have risen by about 6%.

所以，你知道，我不确定这个官司真的对削弱TransDigm提价能力有多大影响。

So, you know, I'm not sure that this court case really did make that much of a difference to actually lessen TransDigm's ability to increase its prices.

所以，虽然我仍然同意你的看法，我喜欢HEICO似乎主要避开了监管机构的关注这一点，但我仍然认为这说明了TransDigm的实力，他们可以支付罚款，然后继续前行，继续向客户提价。

So while I still agree with you that I think I like the fact that HEICO seems to have mainly stayed out of the crosshairs of regulators, I still think it speaks to TransDigm strength that they can pay a fine and then just go on their way, continuing to raise prices for their customers.

但总的来说，你知道，我完全同意你的看法，肖恩。

But overall, you know, I think I completely agree with you, Shawn.

你知道，我更喜欢监管机构尽可能少干预。

You know, I prefer as little meddling as possible with regulators.

所以我认为在竞争优势方面我会给HEICO加分，但我确实认为这个优势非常小。

So I think I would give HEICO the edge here and competitive advantages, but I do think it's a very small edge.

这几乎就像问我更喜欢橙色的日落还是粉色的日落。

It's almost like asking me if I prefer, you know, an orange sunset or a pink sunset.

两者都非常非常好。

They're both very, very good.

这只是个人偏好的问题。

It's just up to personal preference.

好的。

All right.

嗯，说得有道理。

Well, fair enough.

既然我们已经讨论了TransDigm的违规行为，双关语，我想我们应该更深入地聊聊管理层。

Now that we've discussed TransDigm's transgression there, mind the pun, I think we should jump in some more depth into management.

这两家公司几十年来都以非常高的速度复合增长，显然它们的管理非常出色。

With both of these businesses compounding at very good rates for multiple decades, it is a given that they're very well managed.

上次我们聊TransDigm时，简单提过CEO换人的事，Michael Lisman接任了CEO。

And so the last time that we talked about TransDigm, we briefly discussed the CEO change with Michael Lisman taking over as CEO.

但那正好发生在节目发布之前，所以我们真的没来得及

But it happened just before the episode was released, so it really didn't offer us a

好好评估Lisman的过往业绩。

lot of time to really evaluate Lisman's track record.

而且，即使过了一年，可能时间还是不够长，但至少我们有了更多数据可以参考，至少能确认他有没有把公司带好。

And, you know, even a year later, it's still probably not long enough, but we at least have a little bit more data to draw from to at least make sure he's leading the company well.

所以自从他当上CEO以来，收入年复合增长率大约13%，而每股收益的年复合增长率达到了21%。

So since becoming the CEO, revenues have compounded at about 13% while EPS has grown at a CAGR of 21%.

所以，你知道，到目前为止表现还不错。

So, you know, so far that's pretty good.

但市场不这么看，因为同期公司股价实际上下跌了大约16%。

But the market thinks otherwise because the business's stock price has actually declined by about 16% over that same time period.

不过我觉得他做得

But I think he's done a

挺好的。

pretty good job.

所以在过去

So over the

十二个月里，TransDigm在新业务收购上花了大约33亿美元，这是自2019年以来第二大的收购金额。

last twelve months, TransDigm has spent about $3,300,000,000 on new business acquisitions, the second largest amount since 2019.

我们得看看这些投资最终会怎么样，但你知道，既然他是按照TransDigm的体系来收购的，这些投资很可能会

We'll have to see how these investments eventually play out, but you know, given that he's buying them by following the TransDigm system, chances are pretty good that they are going to

会带来价值增长。

be value accretive.

我觉得这是个相当不错的开端。

It's a pretty good start if you ask me.

我知道他在任期间也有一笔交易被阻止了，我们稍后会详细讨论一下。

I do know they had a deal blocked while he was in charge as well, and we'll cover that a little more shortly, think.

但我们确实需要讨论一下TransDigm在其他方面的对齐和激励机制。

But we do need to discuss some of TransDigm's other points of alignment and incentives.

在最初介绍TransDigm时，我发现激励机制与创造股东价值非常一致。

During the initial pitch on TransDigm, I found the incentives to be just very well aligned with creating shareholder value.

但这确实更像是一种私募股权的方式，而不是我们节目中涵盖的许多其他企业，我们会讨论这意味着什么。

But it's definitely more of a private equity approach than a lot of the other businesses we cover on this show and we'll kind of talk about what that means.

但看看他们的激励结构设置，基本工资相当合理。

But looking at the way they have their incentive structure set up, base salaries are pretty reasonable.

它们占总薪酬的比例不到10%，还包括与EBITDA利润率挂钩的年度现金激励，而大部分奖金来自长期股权奖励，这些与增长和内在价值挂钩。

They make up less than 10% of total compensation, which also includes an annual cash incentive tied to EBITDA margins and then the bulk of the bonuses are generated from long term equity awards and those are tied to growth and intrinsic value.

所以要想完全拿到这些奖励，复合年增长率得达到17.5%。

So full vesting of those awards requires a 17.5% CAGR.

我觉得这要求挺高的，但他们确实做得很好，拿到了这些奖金和股权激励，而且没有稀释股东利益。

And so I think that's pretty aggressive, but they've done a great job at earning those bonuses and earning that stock based compensation in a way that is not dilutive to shareholders.

确实没有稀释股东利益，至少没像大家担心的那样严重。

It hasn't been dilutive to shareholders, at least not what you think that it would be.

所以我觉得有必要仔细看看，他们说的‘增长’和‘内在价值’具体指的是什么。

So I think it's actually worth looking at what exactly they mean by this growth and intrinsic value.

所以他们用一种叫年度运营绩效，也就是AOP的东西来衡量内在价值的增长。

So they use something called the annual operating performance or AOP to measure the growth in intrinsic value.

他们先拿调整后的EBITDA乘以市场倍数，然后减去净债务，最后除以稀释后的总股本。

So they take the pro form a EBITDA, they multiply that by a market multiple, and then they subtract net debt, and they divide all that by the diluted shares outstanding.

这个指标挺有意思的。

It's a very interesting metric.

我觉得我以前还真没见过这种算法。

I think it's one that I've never actually seen before.

所以我确实认为这是一个很好的内在价值增长指标，而且令人惊讶的是，尽管他们发放了这么多股权激励，股票数量实际上只以大约1%的年复合增长率增长，考虑到这家公司表现这么好以及薪酬结构，这个增长率算是相当低了。

So I do actually think that it's a pretty good proxy for intrinsic value growth and surprisingly given how much share based compensation they've given out, the share count has only actually CAGARED at about 1%, which is a pretty low growth rate when you consider how well this company has done and how the comp is structured.

所以根据最新的股东委托书，内部人士包括他们的期权在内，持有大约3.2%的股份。

So insiders, as of the latest proxy statement, own about 3.2% of the shares including their options.

所以这显然不是最高的比例，考虑到创始人Howley仍然作为公司董事长参与其中。

So it's obviously not the highest amount considering the founder, Howley, is still involved as a chairman of the business.

但这里有一句话我想分享，我觉得这能稍微揭示一下这个问题。

But there's one quote here that I wanted to share that I think kind of sheds a little bit of light on this matter.

他基本上说，对于TransDigm，他实际上是为了钱。

So he basically said that when it comes to TransDigm, he's actually in it for the money.

所以你得自己判断，钱是不是一个足够好的激励因素。

So you have to make up your own mind about whether money is a good enough motivator.

在Howley与TransDigm和Premier Solutions的商业历史中，我认为到目前为止，钱一直是一个非常非常好的激励因素。

In Howley's business history with TransDigm and Premier Solutions, I think it's been a very, very good motivator so far.

钱通常是个好的激励因素。

Money is usually a good motivator.

不过值得一提的是，Howley现在已经73岁了，身家超过十亿美元，但你提到的那句话其实也就是几年前说的。

It's it's worth noting though that Howley is now 73 years old and worth over a billion dollars, but that quote you mentioned was only from just a couple of years ago.

我觉得Howley仍然有继续为自己和家人积累财富的野心。

I think Howley still has ambitions to keep compounding wealth for himself and his family.

不过，我们不如仔细看看HEICO的管理团队吧？

But how about we take a closer look at HEICO's management team?

我觉得你说得对。

I think you're right.

而且

And the

Nicholas Howley在Perimeter Solutions建立了非常以股权为基础的体系，这说明他还在追求更多的财富增长。

fact that Nicholas Howley has set up a very equity based system at perimeter solutions suggests he's still looking for even more compounding.

所以我还是觉得他很有干劲，不过我们还是来看看HEICO的管理层吧。

So I still think that he's hungry, but let's get to HEICO's management here.

非常相似的是，我觉得HEICO的管理层和股东利益非常一致。

Very similarly, I think HEICO's management is very well aligned.

我觉得他们的激励机制真的非常出色，在我看来很难被超越。

I think they have a really, really good incentive system that's pretty hard to beat in my view.

那么首先，我们来看看管理层。

So first, let's get to management here.

HEICO过去是，现在也仍然主要是一家家族企业。

HEICO was and still is primarily a family run business.

洛伦兹，也就是拉里·门德尔森，去年去世了，但在他去世前，他一直担任公司的执行董事长，享年大约87岁。

So Lorenz or Larry Mendelson passed away last year, but he was still the company's executive chairman until he passed away at the age of about 87.

不过，他的遗产由他的两个儿子埃里克和维克多·门德尔森继承。

His legacy, however, lives on in his two sons, Eric and Victor Mendelson.

这对兄弟从1990年起就加入了HEICO，两人在晋升过程中担任过多种不同职务，如今他们共同担任联席CEO，并分别负责飞行支持集团和电子技术集团。

So the brothers have been part of HEICO since 1990, and both have worked in a number of different roles as they moved up the corporate ladder, where they are now co CEOs and the heads of the flight support group and the electronics technologies group.

而且我们知道，家族企业往往比非家族企业能带来更高的回报。

And so what we know is that family run businesses do tend to offer higher returns than non family run firms.

这一点我见过很多研究，也有大量数据支持这个观点。

And it's something I've seen a lot of studies on and there's a lot of data backing up that point.

我觉得这背后有好几个原因。

And I think there are multiple reasons for this.

首先，他们自己投入得更多，这有助于他们做更长期的投资决策。

Basically they have more skin in the game for one, and that helps them make longer term investment decisions.

而且这也可能让他们更谨慎，不太愿意去碰投机性的债务，整体上风险意识更强，这样他们的业务就能更平稳地增长，少受干扰。

And that also probably makes them more hesitant to take on speculative debt and just generally increases their risk aversion that leads to them to be able to have their businesses compound with less interruption.

这一点在HEICO和TransDigm的对比中就能直接看出来。

And so you can see this directly in the HEICO and in TransDigm comparison.

HEICO的内部人员持有公司近19%的股份，这让他们和其他股东的利益高度一致，因为内部人员也是公司最大的股东。

HEICO insiders own nearly 19% of the company's stock, and that provides a lot of alignment with shareholders, all the other shareholders, since insiders are also the largest shareholders of the company.

而门德尔森家族自己就占了其中最大的一部分。

And the Mendelson family alone owns the lion's share of that stake.

所以我真的很喜欢看到这种内部持股的结构。

So I just love really seeing that kind of insider ownership dynamic.

对，我也是这么觉得。

Yeah, me too.

而这其实只是开始，

And that's really just the start of what's to

在我看来，HEICO的激励计划还有很多值得喜欢的地方。

love in my view of HEICO's incentive program.

HEICO把所有员工都视为团队成员。

So HEICO considers all employees to be team members.

因此，他们从一开始就尽量在公司内部创造尽可能多的利益一致性。

And as such, they've tried to create as much alignment inside the company as possible right from the beginning.

我觉得他们知道团队成员对整个业务成功有多重要，所以他们帮助资助员工的401(k)计划，以在管理层和董事之外进一步提升这种一致性。

I think they knew how important their team members are to the success of the entire business, and therefore they've helped fund the team members four zero one ks's to improve alignment even more outside of just the executive and directors.

但我觉得HEICO真正出彩的地方在于其激励结构。

But where I think HEICO really, really shines is in the incentive structure.

尽管我们喜欢吐槽EBITDA，但它仍然是他们用来评估业绩的三个指标之一。

So even though we like to dunk on EBITDA, is part of the three metrics that they do use to judge performance.

你可能会想，这有点遗憾，但他们也关注HEICO的净收入和经营现金流等指标。

So you may think, well, that's unfortunate, but they also focus on things like net income to HEICO as well as cash flow from operations.

所以2025年的目标奖金要求这三个财务指标每个都要增长10%，才能拿到奖金。

So for 2025, the target bonus required about 10 growth in each of these three financial metrics to unlock the bonus.

能看到一家企业关注这些指标，而不是像营收增长这种常见的虚荣指标，这真的很不错。

Now it's really nice to see a business focus on these metrics over just, you know, vanity metrics that you see very often in something like revenue growth.

我觉得这能带来很好的利益一致。如果这三个指标至少增长10%，股价上涨的可能性非常大，尤其是多年复利累积的话，而他们在运营历史上在这方面做得非常出色。

And I think it creates really good alignment because if these three metrics are increasing by at least 10%, chances are very, very good that the share price will be up, especially if you compound that number over multiple years, which they've done exceptionally well over their operating history.

我觉得他们的利益一致性做得非常好。

I think it is very well aligned.

而且我最喜欢的一点是，这三项指标必须同步增长。

And and what I like most is that all three metrics have to grow together.

单独看EBITDA的话，这个数字很容易被粉饰和操纵，这也是它备受批评的原因。

EBITDA on its own is a number that that can be dressed up and and manipulated, and that's why it deserves some criticism.

但想同时伪造净利润和经营性现金流的真实增长可就难多了。

But it's a lot harder to fake growth in net income and operating cash flow at the same time.

所以管理层不能光靠借债来堆砌增长以拿到奖金。事实上，这三项指标在过去近二十年里每年复合增长率都在15%到18%左右，这真的非常惊人。

So management can't hit its bonus just by piling on debt to buy growth and all three metrics have compounded at roughly 15% to 18% a year for almost two decades, which really is incredible.

所以10%的增长率门槛是个现实的目标，但随着公司规模扩大，这个目标会越来越难达成。

And so a 10% hurdle rate is a realistic bar, but one that gets harder to clear as the company grows.

这就是大数定律的现实。

That's just the reality of the law of large numbers.

而且我也喜欢这种激励机制不仅仅停留在高管层面。

And so I also like that the alignment doesn't stop at the executive suite either.

帮助员工缴纳401(k)退休金，让那些每天制造和维修这些零件的人有真正的理由像老板一样思考。

Helping fund team members, four zero one ks's gives the people building and repairing these parts every day a real reason to to think like owners.

再加上门德尔森家族持有公司这么大比例的股份，你就有了一个管理层主要和股东一起赚钱的机制。

And you pair that with the Mendelson family owning such a big chunk of the company and you have a setup where management mostly gets paid when shareholders do too.

但我们也得提一下，HEICO在资本配置上跟TransDigm有点不一样，尤其是在股息方面。

But we should mention that HEICO does approach capital allocation a bit differently from TransDigm, especially on the dividend front.

确实如此，不过——

They do, but

我评估这个的时候其实挺惊讶的。

I actually had a pretty big surprise when assessing this.

如果你看HEICO的披露文件，上面明确写着他们确实支付半年一次的现金股息。

So if you look at HEICO's disclosures, they state right there that they do pay a semi annual cash dividend.

而且他们这么做已经很久了，实际上在Metalson家族接管公司之前就开始了。

And they've been doing this for a long time since actually before the Metalsons even took over the company.

但这个股息非常非常小，只有0.1%。

But the dividend is very, very small at only 0.1%.

所以，作为连续收购者的仰慕者，我确实希望这个数字尽可能接近零。

So me being an admirer of serial acquirers, I do prefer having this number as close to zero as possible.

这仅仅是因为连续收购者的固有商业模式实际上就是把资本分配到新的收购中，而不是仅仅支付股息。

And that's simply because the inherent business model of serial acquirers is really to just allocate capital into new acquisitions and rather that capital be put to work rather than just, you know, paying a dividend.

但当你读TransDigm的披露文件时，他们会告诉你他们不支付常规股息，但多年来他们支付了一些非常丰厚的特别股息。

But when you read TransDigm disclosures, they tell you that they do not pay a regular dividend, but they had made some very hefty special dividend payments over the years.

所以在2025年，他们支付了每股90美元的特别股息，而一年前他们支付了每股75美元的股息。

So in 2025, they paid a special dividend of $90 per share, and a year earlier they paid $75 per share in dividends.

所以，虽然他们是一家不支付股息的企业，但他们在过去五年里累计支付了129亿美元的特别股息，而HEICO在同一时期只支付了1.36亿美元的股息。

So while they are a business that doesn't pay dividends, they also have cumulatively paid out $12,900,000,000 in special dividends over the last five years versus only $136,000,000 in dividends by HEICO over the same time period.

这其实是不言而喻的，但我还是想说，这两家公司的管理团队都是一流的。

Well, it really goes without saying, but I'm going say it anyways, both of these companies have top notch management teams.

如果非要选一个更胜一筹的，我可能还是会选HEICO。

And if I had to give the edge to one, probably again would would give it to HEICO.

我觉得那种既能最小化股权稀释，又能很好地与创造股东价值挂钩的奖金制度，作为价值投资者，我非常喜欢。

I think having bonuses that cause minimal dilution and are also well aligned with creating shareholder value is is very much music to my ears as a value investor.

我认为HEICO计划让这三个指标同步上升，应该能确保业务在未来很多年继续保持中十几的复合增长率。

I think HEICO's plan to get those three metrics to rise and lockstep should ensure the business continues to compound at a mid teens rate for many years to come.

对我来说，另一个关键点是每个团队如何看待时间。

And the other piece of this for me is how each team thinks about time.

在HEICO，正如我们提到的，内部人士持有公司近19%的股份，而门德尔松家族管理这家公司已经超过三十年了。

And so at HEICO, as we've mentioned, insiders own close to 19% of the company and the Mendelson family has been running the business for more than three decades.

所以他们实际上是在为下一代管理自己的财富。

So they're effectively managing their own wealth for the next generation.

这是一个非常强大的激励因素。

This is a pretty powerful motivating factor.

TransDigm的架构更犀利，更像私募股权那套。

TransDigm setup is just sharper and sort of more private equity like.

它的内在价值指标挺聪明，但还是建立在EBITDA和倍数上。

Its intrinsic value metric is pretty clever, but it's still built on EBITDA and a multiple attached to it.

所以它奖励的是那种重度依赖债务和大额特别股息的操作，过去五年派发了129亿美元的特别股息。

So it rewards a playbook that leans heavily on debt and big special dividends with 12,900,000,000 paid out in special dividends over the last five years.

那套做法显然效果惊人，但我觉得更像是在走钢丝。

So that approach has clearly worked incredibly well, but it's more of what I would call a high wire act.

而且如果出了什么问题，内部人持股的比例要小得多。

And insiders own a much smaller slice of the company if something goes wrong.

话虽如此，TransDigm的成绩单已经说明了一切。

And so with all that said, TransDigm's results speak for themselves.

他们不需要我的认可或肯定，但这就是我的看法。

They don't need my approval or validation, but that's just kind of how I think about it.

我很好奇你在哪些地方会不同意这个观点。

I'm curious whether there's anywhere you push back on that.

不，我觉得我基本同意你的看法，但为了故意唱反调，我就从TransDigm的角度来当一回魔鬼代言人。

No, I think I pretty much agree with you, but just, for the sake of being difficult, I will play devil's advocate here and take a look at things from TransDigm's perspective.

所以TransDigm的激励机制很有意思，很少看到一家公司把提升内在价值作为目标，尤其是每年17.5%的增长。

So the TransDigm incentive structure is interesting and it's really rare to see a business have a goal of increasing its intrinsic value like this, especially by 17.5% per year.

我的意思是，这对任何企业来说都是一个很高的目标，更不用说一家价值几十亿美元的公司了。

I mean, that's just a lofty goal for any business, let alone one that's worth several billion dollars.

通常，我翻阅一家公司的代理声明，看到这个，我会点点头，觉得挺厉害，然后认为他们可能达不到，因为那个门槛太高了。

Normally, I'm perusing a business's proxy and I see this, I'll just nod my head, think it's impressive, then assume they just aren't accomplishing that much because that hurdle rate is just so tough.

但在过去十年里，股价的年复合增长率接近18%。

But over the past ten years, the share price has compounded at just under 18%.

注意，这还不包括我之前提到的特别股息，那显然会让内部收益率更高。

Now keep in mind, this doesn't include the special dividends I mentioned earlier, which obviously bump up the IRR even more.

所以我觉得TransDigm确实有成功的经营历史。

So I think with TransDigm, do have a history of success in the business.

而且他们的激励计划，我觉得在努力提升我们节目里一直强调的那个东西——内在价值——方面做得相当不错。

Then you do have the incentive program that I think does a pretty good job of trying to increase the one thing that we consistently harp on on the show, which is intrinsic value.

我觉得另外那些跟 EBITDA 和利润率挂钩的激励措施，也是为了帮公司把注意力集中在创造现金流上。

And I think the other incentives on EBITDA and EBITDA margins is also to just kind of help focus the company on generating cash.

不过你得留意一下，自由现金流占 EBITDA 的比例大概在 40% 左右，但它仍然是衡量自由现金流增长的一个不错的参考指标。

Now you do have to keep in mind free cash flow as a percent of EBITDA is in the kind of 40% range, but it's still a decent proxy for the growth of free cash flow.

最后总结一下，跟你一样，我还是觉得 HEICO 稍微占上风，但这个优势比我一开始想的要小得多，大概也就一张纸那么厚。

Now just to wrap things up here, I think similar to you, I'll give the edge here once again, HEICO, but the edge here is a lot smaller than I initially thought, maybe about the size of a, piece of paper.

既然我们之前确实把 TransDigm 加入过内在价值投资组合一段时间，我对这个结论挺满意的。

Well, seeing as we did add TransDigm to the Intrinsic Value Portfolio for a period of time, I'm pretty good with that conclusion.

你刚才提到 TransDigm 最近有一笔没谈成的交易。

And you mentioned something on TransDigm regarding a deal they recently made that didn't go through.

这种风险我觉得是那些做到行业顶尖、带有垄断倾向的企业所固有的，因为监管机构更有可能去阻止它们的并购活动。

And this is one of those risks that I think is inherent with businesses that get to the pinnacle of success while having monopolistic tendencies because regulators then become more likely to try and block their M and A efforts.

毕竟收购对 TransDigm 的商业模式来说至关重要，所以这笔交易黄了确实挺让人头疼的。

I mean, it's really not something you want to see given that acquisitions are obviously integral to TransDigm's business model.

事情大概是这样的：今年六月，TransDigm 宣布计划以九亿六千万美元收购 Stellant Systems，注意别把它和 Stellantis（斯特兰蒂斯）搞混了。

So basically what happened was in June of this year, TransDigm announced plans to acquire Stellant Systems for $960,000,000 not to be confused with Stellantis.

所以Stellant Systems就是TransDigm典型的收购目标。

So Stellant Systems is your prototypical TransDigm acquisition target.

你知道，他们销售多种工业产品，以及用于美国海军宙斯盾作战系统和美国空军F-16战斗机雷达系统的维修和供应部件，还有其他一些东西。

You know, they sell a number of industrial products as well as repair and supply components used in radar systems for the US Navy's Aegis combat systems, well as the US air forces f 16 fighter jets among other things.

这笔交易基本上被司法部完全阻止了。

Now the deal was essentially just completely blocked by the justice department.

他们阻止的原因很简单，就是觉得这会让TransDigm在这些设备上拥有过大的垄断权力，他们想为某些特定部件保留一些竞争。

And they blocked it simply because they felt it would give TransDigm too much monopoly power on these devices and they wanted to preserve some level of competition for some of the specific components.

自那消息公布以来，TransDigm的股价实际上已经下跌了11%。

And since that announcement, TransDigm share price has actually fallen by 11%.

所以很明显，市场已经意识到了那里的情况。

So clearly the market is aware of what's going on there.

这就是TransDigm让我有点担心的地方。

And this is where TransDigm scares me a little bit.

他们之前就已经和监管机构有过问题，当时发现他们的一些部件加价超过1000%，美国政府对此很不满。

They already had issues with regulators previously when it was determined some of their components had 1000% or higher markups, which the US government did not appreciate.

而且那个Celant的裁决让我担心，因为TransDigm的整个模式都依赖于收购独家供应商的业务。

And the Celant decision worries me because TransDigm's whole model depends on buying sole source businesses.

所以目标公司越符合他们的标准，监管机构就越可能认为这笔交易会减少竞争，尤其是在国防项目上。

So the better a target fits their criteria, the more likely regulators are to see the deal as reducing competition, especially on defense programs.

如果这成为常态，TransDigm能收购的合适企业可能会变少，或者它可能不得不接受那些不太符合其策略的交易。

If that becomes the norm, TransDigm's pool of viable businesses could shrink, or it may have to settle for deals that don't fit its playbook as well.

是的，完全同意。

Yes, absolutely.

我觉得你说得完全对。

I think you're completely right on there.

这确实挺吓人的。

It is pretty scary.

我得承认，你肯定不希望看到监管机构阻止一笔完全符合你商业模式的交易，因为很明显，他们将来可能还会做同样的事。

Will admit, you know, that you don't, you never want to see regulators blocking a deal that perfectly fits your business model because chances are obviously they might do the exact same thing

将来也一样。

in the future as well.

所以我想说的是，当

So I will say when

你回顾HEICO过去的情况时，我确实没找到任何被监管机构叫停的交易。

you look at HEICO's past, you know, I personally couldn't find any deals that were blocked by regulators.

所以我认为这对TransDigm来说，风险肯定比

So I would say this is definitely a larger risk for TransDigm than it

对HEICO更大。

is for HEICO.

而且我觉得，

And I think the fact

HEICO没有采取激进的定价策略，你知道的，它作为零部件供应商，定价低于原厂（OEM），这实际上有助于推动一定的市场竞争，肯定能让HEICO避开监管机构的重点关注。

that HEICO doesn't have aggressive pricing, you know, it prices as components below the OEMs actively helps force some sort of competition, which definitely helps keep HEICO outside of the regulators crosshairs.

另外，还有一个风险，我想听众们大概也能猜到，我们肯定会反复强调的，

Now, another risk that I think that listeners can probably already guess that we'd harp on

就是债务问题。

is debt.

所以如果有

So if there was

一个像新冠疫情那样的经济放缓事件再次发生，比如商用飞机停飞或者使用率下降，那显然会对这两家公司都产生影响。

a slowdown event such as, you know, something like COVID, which happened again, where commercial planes were grounded or their utilization rates go down, that would clearly affect both of these businesses.

没错，确实是这样。

Absolutely, for sure.

不过他们也有军事客户，这确实能在一定程度上提供一些保障。

Since they also do have military customers that definitely helps provide some sort of floor.

但如果我们看看TransDigm，他们显然比HEICO更容易受到债务的负面影响，因为TransDigm的净债务与EBITDA的比率非常高，我们之前也讨论过。

But if we look at TransDigm, they're clearly much more exposed to the negative effects of debt than HEICO as TransDigm carries that very, very large net debt to EBITDA ratio that we've discussed.

值得注意的是，他们的杠杆有助于提高他们在交易中的内部收益率。

Now, it's worth noting that their leverage helps them improve their IRR on deals.

所以他们有两个风险，都源于这个债务风险。

So they have two risks that kind of stem from this debt risk.

第一个是，如果他们无法偿还债务，显然会对他们的资产和现金流造成各种问题。

The first is that if they can't repay the debt, it can obviously cause all sorts of problems with their assets and cash flows.

第二，如果杠杆率下降，那他们就不能为交易借那么多钱了，这意味着内部收益率会下降，因为他们得在交易中投入更多自己的钱，而不是像以前那样能利用同样的杠杆率。

And second, if the leverage ratio drops, well then they won't be able to borrow as much for their deals, meaning the IRR would technically drop because they'd have to put proportionally more of their own money into the deals than if they can't use the same leverage ratio.

TransDigm 之所以能在交易中实现 30% 以上的内部收益率，部分原因就是它能把债务作为交易结构的一部分。

Part of the reason TransDigm can achieve 30% plus IRRs on its deals is that it can use debt as part of the deal structure.

还有一件事让我很惊讶，就是这些业务在疫情期间表现出的韧性，说实话，那段时间对任何跟飞机相关的公司来说都非常艰难。

And another thing that really surprised me was how much resilience these businesses showed during COVID, which admittedly was a really hard time for any aircraft related companies.

所以这两家公司在封锁期间股价都受到了不小的打击。

So both businesses took quite a hit to their stock prices during the lockdown.

但考虑到这些业务的长期性，如果你愿意在疫情低点附近买入，只要拿着股票什么都不做，就能获得非常非常可观的回报。

But given the long term nature of these businesses, if you were willing to buy somewhere around those lows of COVID, you would be looking at a very, very nice return by just holding onto your shares and really doing nothing.

它们的韧性也让我印象深刻。

And I was also impressed with their resiliency as well.

但我觉得，考虑到现实情况，你知道，我们就是需要飞机。

But I think given the fact that the world, you know, we just, we need airplanes.

这是事实。

That's just the fact.

不管是商用还是军用，都是这样。

And that's whether that's for a commercial or military application.

我真的不觉得这会有什么变化。

I just really don't see that ever going anywhere.

所以，除非你能预测到某种会让飞机长时间停飞的事件，否则我认为这些企业长期无法销售和维护零部件的风险是很低的，尤其是它们还维护军用飞机，即使在疫情期间，这些飞机也仍然需要维护。

So, you know, unless you can forecast some kind of event that would ground planes for a very long and extended period of time, I think it's a pretty low risk that these businesses wouldn't be able to sell and service components for a very long period of time, especially given the fact that they also service military aircraft, which are even during COVID, they're still going to be maintained.

所以我要说，这里确实存在某种尾部风险，但很难把它看得太重，因为如果需求受到暂时冲击，之后很可能会反弹。

So I will say there's definitely some sort of tail risk here, but it's pretty hard to weigh it that heavily because if demand experiences a temporary shock, it's likely to rebound later.

所以TransDigm和HEICO在2020年和2021年的收入都有所下降，但两家公司都恢复得非常好。

So both TransDigm and HEICO had reductions in revenue for 2020 and 2021, but in both cases they have rebounded incredibly well.

如果你从长远来看，那真的只是稳步上升中的一个小插曲。

And if you take a long term view, it was really just a minor blip in a steady rise upwards.

所以如果我看这两家企业并评估风险，再想想，我可能会更看好HEICO，因为杠杆问题对他们来说似乎不是什么大问题。

So if I'm looking at both these businesses and assessing risk, think once again, I'd probably give the edge to HEICO as the leverage issue just doesn't seem to be much of a concern for them.

而且，对于HEICO来说，交易被阻止的风险也要低得多。

And then also having the risk of having deals blocked is also much lower, think when it comes to HEICO.

但我要说的是，我觉得这两家公司风险都挺低的。

But I will say, I think both these businesses carry pretty low risk.

我在这儿真的只是吹毛求疵。

I'm really just nitpicking here.

对，我同意。

Yeah, I agree.

我觉得我越来越倾向于HEICO的商业模式，因为它风险更小。

I think I'm finding myself to favor HEICO's business model and seeing it's coming with less risk.

但我想补充一点，对于HEICO来说，更大的风险在于你买入时的股价，因为市场已经知道它有多好了，我们稍后会详细讨论这一点。

But the one caveat I'd add is that with HEICO, the bigger risk is the price you pay in the stock market since the market already knows how good it is, and and we'll get to more of that shortly.

而对于TransDigm，情况几乎相反。

And and with TransDigm, it's almost the reverse.

它的股价更便宜，但更多的风险在于公司本身，这很合理。

The stock is cheaper, but more of the risk sits inside of the business itself, and and that makes sense.

所以这两家公司的增长都令人难以置信地印象深刻。

And so the growth of both businesses has just been insanely impressive.

其实归根结底就两件事：有机增长，或者说继续提升他们已有子公司收入的能力。

And it really comes down to two things, organic growth or or the ability to continue growing revenues of their subsidiaries that they already own.

然后是无机增长，也就是通过合并新收购公司的财务报表带来的收入。

And then inorganic growth or the revenue associated with consolidating their income statements with newly acquired businesses.

所以，这两家公司几十年来增长这么迅猛，大家心里最大的疑问就是——

So with both of these businesses growing so much over multiple decades, the looming question really is,

它们还能继续这样下去吗？

can they continue doing so?

如果能，还能持续多久？

And if so, for how much longer?

另外，有机增长和无机增长各占多少比例？

And then what is the composition of organic and inorganic growth?

咱们想象一下这个场景。

So picture this for a second.

一架机龄30年的飞机，正停在离你最近的国际机场的停机坪上。

A 30 year old aircraft is sitting on a tarmac at your nearest international airport.

这架飞机还在飞，也在为机主创造收入，但飞机上的每一颗螺栓、阀门、安全带和传感器最终都会磨损，在飞机退役前需要多次更换。

The plane is still flying and generating revenue for the owner, but every bolt, valve seatbelt, and sensor on that plane will eventually wear out and need to be replaced multiple times before that aircraft is retired.

这架飞机并没有被重新设计。

That plane isn't being redesigned.

他们只是尽可能长时间地让它运行，以榨取它的最大价值。

They're just running it for as long as they possibly can to get as much out of it as possible.

我觉得这恰恰就是增长故事的缩影。

And that I think is really the growth story in a nutshell.

像这样的飞机越来越多地停在那儿，随着时间推移，它们对零部件的需求也持续增加。

More planes like this sitting around longer, constantly in need of more components over time.

所以我在评估那些频繁进行收购的公司时，总会问自己这个问题。

So when I'm assessing a serial acquirer, I always have to ask this question.

如果一家企业是真正的垄断者，并且已经占据了目标市场的大部分份额，那么增长就会变得更加困难。

If a business is a true monopoly and already owns a large percentage of its target market, then growth becomes that much harder to come by.

没错，你可以利用垄断地位提高价格，但正如我们之前看到的，这种做法是有极限的，否则很快就会引起监管机构的注意。

Yes, you can use your monopoly power to increase your prices, but as we've already seen, you can only really take that so far before you start raising red flags with regulators.

所以我觉得丹尼尔在解释TransDigm的非有机增长空间方面做得非常好。

So Daniel, I think did a really good job of explaining the inorganic growth runway for TransDigm.

简单来说，全球航空公司每年的维护费用大约在1350亿美元左右。

Now the gist of that was that annual global airline maintenance expenses are somewhere in the $135,000,000,000 range.

由于TransDigm活跃于这个市场的大约一半，这给他们留下了一个大约600亿美元的市场。目前TransDigm的售后市场收入大约在50亿美元，但这包括了军用部件。

Since TransDigm is active in about half of that market, it leaves them a market valued at around $60,000,000,000 Now aftermarket revenue for TransDigm is currently around $5,000,000,000 but this includes military components.

所以这个50亿美元的数字会缩小，这意味着他们在整个航空业中大约只有中个位数的市场份额。

So this $5,000,000,000 number shrinks, meaning they have kind of mid single digit market share for the entire airline industry.

所以这意味着他们在那里还有相当大的增长空间，我觉得。

So this means that they have quite a bit of space, I think, to grow there.

然后我们还有有机增长。

Then we have organic growth.

我们不能忘记，TransDigm非常擅长优化他们的收购，一旦这些公司成为TransDigm的一部分，就能实现有机增长。

We can't forget that TransDigm is really good at optimizing their acquisitions to grow organically once they are part of TransDigm.

TransDigm的平均有机增长率大约是6%。

TransDigm has an average organic growth rate of about 6%.

而且别忘了，这还包括了疫情刚结束那两年表现特别差的年份，所以这个数字其实是被压低了。

And keep in mind, this includes the two negative outlier years immediately after COVID, which artificially suppresses that number.

疫情确实给评估企业带来了很大的麻烦，

COVID really threw a wrench into

因为你得考虑到底要不要把那个时期的数据算进去。

assessing businesses because you have to try and figure out whether to include metrics from that time or not.

而且，在我们有生之年，还会不会再发生一次类似疫情的事件呢？

And will another COVID type event happen again in our lifetimes?

有可能，也有可能不会，但具体什么时候发生、影响有多大，基本上是无法预估的。

Maybe, maybe not, but when and how big the impact will be is pretty much impossible to underwrite.

既然HEICO和TransDigm处于类似的行业，你觉得Daniel用的那个TAM数字对HEICO也适用吗？

Given that HEICO is in a similar industry to TransDigm, would you say the TAM number that Daniel used also applies to HEICO?

我觉得这个假设挺合理的。

I think that's a pretty fair assumption.

而且HEICO的收入大约是TransDigm的一半，所以他们的市场份额甚至更低。

And HEICO's revenue is about half that of TransDigm, meaning their market share is even lower.

所以我觉得HEICO在并购方面还有很长的路要走。

So I think HEICO still has a very long runway to go on the M and A side of thing.

在有机增长方面，HEICO也在其已有的两万个零部件清单上不断增加新的部件。

Then on the organic side, HEICO also adds parts to its list of its already 20,000 components.

他们表示，计划每年新增大约300到550个新部件。

So they've stated that they intend to add somewhere around 300 to five fifty new parts annually.

其中一部分增长来自并购，但很多也来自于内部对现有部件的重新设计。

Some of this growth will come from M and A, but much of it also comes from just re engineering existing parts in house.

但要获得HEICO的有机增长数据有点难。

But it's kind of hard to get organic growth numbers for HEICO.

另一个问题是，疫情后的反弹数据肯定夸大了有机增长，而且这些数据不太可能一直保持在低两位数的高位，我猜这种情况不会永远持续。

The other issue is that post COVID rebound numbers have definitely inflated the organic growth and they're unlikely to remain elevated in the kind of the low double digits that they seem to be if I had to guess forever.

巴克莱银行设定了一个数字，克莱提到的大约是7%到10%的有机增长率，我觉得这个方向是对的。

So Barclays set a number that Clay pointed out at around 7% to 10% organic growth for HEICO, and that seems directionally correct to me.

不过，这里我必须提一点，这两家公司的实际TAM可能比我说的要大得多，因为它们都服务于军事应用、航天器等领域。

Now, there's one thing that I have to mention here, which is that the actual TAM for both of these businesses is likely actually a lot larger than I painted, and that's because they both serve military applications, spacecraft, as well

以及其他行业。

as other industries.

这是个好观点，这可能是未来更多增长的来源，一旦他们觉得在商业航空行业里并购机会变少了。

It's a good point and that could be where more future growth comes from once they feel that they have less M and A opportunities specifically in in the commercial airlines industry.

总的来说，我觉得这两家公司比较起来，其实是平分秋色。

And overall, I I think it's a pretty even split here when we compare these two companies.

我不确定我真的能偏向哪一家，因为它们的总体市场规模差不多。

I'm not sure I can really give an edge to to either with the TAMs being pretty similar overall.

也许HEICO稍微占点优势，只是因为它们的收入更少。

Maybe HEICO gets a slight edge just because they have less revenue.

所以它们可以进行一些较小的收购，这些收购仍然能对它们产生显著影响。

So they have, smaller acquisitions that they can do that moves the needle for them still.

而且可能有很多这样的小公司，它们能找到并收购，而TransDigm可能根本不会去考虑，但这真的只是纯粹的猜测。

And there may be more of these small companies that they can find to acquire than TransDigm would bother looking at, but that is really just purely speculation.

不，我是说，这确实是个很好的观点。

No, I mean, that's a really good point though.

小规模收购方在扩大规模之前确实有这个优势。

Small sale acquirers do have that advantage until they scale up.

但是，你知道，考虑到HEICO过去一年的平均收购规模已经达到1.75亿美元。

But, know, given the average acquisition size for HEICO is already $175,000,000 over the last year.

我觉得他们做的根本不算小收购。

I think they aren't really doing small acquisitions by any means.

所以我不确定这是不是一个很大的优势，但我同意，当两家公司似乎都各自满足自己的小细分市场，并且能随着时间增长这个细分市场时，真的很难说哪一家更有优势。

So I'm not sure it's a huge edge, but I think I agree it's really hard to give one company an edge when it seems like they both fulfill their own kind of small niche and can grow that own niche over time?

好吧，我觉得现在是这期节目讨论内在价值的时候了。

Well, I think it's that time of the episode where we speak about intrinsic value.

大约一年前，Daniel给出了他对TransDigm的内在价值估计。

And so Daniel gave us his intrinsic value estimate for TransDigm about a year ago.

我的问题是，是的，我们需要大幅调整他的数字吗？

And my question for you is, yeah, do we need to change his numbers much?

这段时间里情况发生了哪些变化？

And and how have things changed over that time?