11H·

ETF-DIY Share #2: Alphabet (Google) | Valuation & analysis in a 17-point check

As part of my ETF DIY project, I analyzed $GOOGL (+1.77%) (Alphabet) using my self-developed valuation system:

Moat: 5/5 - dominance in search & video (Google, YouTube), network effects (Android, Chrome, Ads), strong brand & high switching costs for users

Growth: 4/5 - Above-average growth through cloud & AI, YouTube Premium & Gemini models

Risk: 4/5 - Regulatory pressure (DMA, US antitrust proceedings), but strong balance sheet (USD 96 bn cash vs. USD 11 bn debt)

Dividend quality: 1/1 - Dividend since 2024, raised directly in 2025 - long-term outlook open, but positive start

Belief: 1/1 - Personal conviction through everyday presence and leadership role

Overall: 15 out of 17 points

I will therefore continue to save with factor 6.

If you don't know my system and the ETF-DIY project yet - just have a look at my profile.

The complete analysis and my thoughts on it can also be found on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIhp60vmh_U

14 Comments

GeldGenie@GeldGenie

11H

I have a question.

Do you have a basis for the point ratings? Or is it based on feeling?

Academically, in a utility value analysis (scoring) there is the requirement that each point was/is described with specific and measurable variables. This ensures traceability and transparency.

i.e.
MOAT

Brand strength - cf. values, price of the brand, cf. minimum share of dominance,...
Cost advantages - sourcing XY%, logistics XY %, pricing power (strength...),...
Network effects - total network (users), cf. potential users, development (growth in % of market - potential users (not simply world population...))
Switching costs - competitors, switching costs in currency, scale, costs over X years)
Legal protection / patents -# Patents, time to expiry, new applications,...

And for each sub-criterion a scaling would have to take place...

No offense meant, but it is difficult to do this by feel, as there is no consistency and any bias comes into play...

•

ETF-DIY@ETF-DIY

11H

@GeldGenie hey, I can fully understand your question!
I consciously do it more by feel. I look at everything on a topic and then rate it on a scale of 1-5.
I do this because there are already millions of people who build scores and analyze stocks using lots of great key figures.
It always bothers me that a lot of things are not considered because they can't be categorized into a key figure or a fixed spectrum.
For example, whether I believe that a business model is fundamentally sustainable, whether I believe, for example, that the electric car from Xiaomi or BYD is better suited to European customers, etc.

It has always bothered me that everyone focuses more on the figures and the share than on the company.
I want to change that with my approach.

I know what you mean about it not being statistically correct. But I (and the project) don't have that claim either.
Nobody will arrive at the same valuation for all shares as I did. That's what it's all about for me.

If you have any questions or further constructive criticism, I'd be happy to hear it :)

••

GeldGenie@GeldGenie

10H

@ETF-DIY Thank you for your comments.

Couldn't your feeling also be scaled per point?

Otherwise, as a reader, I can't really understand 3/5 and 4/5.

Thank you 😊👍 And good luck 👍

•

ETF-DIY@ETF-DIY

10H

@GeldGenie I wanted to at first, but unfortunately it didn't work out.
The problem is that I want to weight the 3 points (Moat, Growth and Risk) equally. This means that there must be the same number of possible points for them.
However, not every company has the same number of aspects to consider in the different areas.

So unfortunately I had to do it this way, because otherwise uniformity is not really possible.

But it's ok for me if you can't understand it 100%.
After all, if I beat the market (or the opposite :D), it would also be a personal achievement.

•

Epi@Epi

@ETF-DIY I would agree with @GeldGenie. Also, if you go by feeling, something happens methodically. Basically, your feeling synthesizes and weights all the information you have taken in.
The quality of the feeling can therefore fluctuate. If a Buffett has a good feeling about a share, I would give it more weight than my grandma.
Ergo: If you value according to feeling, you need a qualified feeling. Otherwise it's of little use. Except that you take all the behavioral finance biases with you. 😅

••

ETF-DIY@ETF-DIY

@Epi You're right, of course. But as I wrote, that's exactly my point.
To have something subjective, personal and not based on numbers.

If you were to act purely according to fixed standards, key figures etc., everyone would have exactly the same portfolio. Analyzing based on this is also not an art. Anyone can do it and with AI you no longer have to do it yourself these days.

Of course, nobody should blindly replicate my portfolio or copy the "strategy".

If you don't want to blindly follow the flow, you have to take your own feelings into account.

••

Epi@Epi

@ETF-DIY Rule-based trading is somewhat different from what you seem to imagine. 😏

And unfortunately, I have to tell you that in behavioral finance research, acting on emotion is described as exactly that: "blindly going with the flow". 😁

•

ETF-DIY@ETF-DIY

@Epi Exactly, that's exactly what I said.
I just don't want to blindly go with the flow. Most investors invest based on the same figures, etc.

I want to do it differently. I communicated this clearly right from the start.

••

Epi@Epi

@ETF-DIY I honestly don't believe that most investors trade on the same numbers. What makes you think that?

•

ETF-DIY@ETF-DIY

@Epi Since the vast majority of analyses (whether on YouTube or from "experts", magazines and co.) always refer to the same figures. The figures from annual reports such as FTE, sales, profits, EBIT and co, share price developments, buyback programs and whatnot are always used.

Hardly any analysis I see really looks at the business model independently of pure figures.

I'm not saying that this has to be the case or that it would be better.
I just want to do it that way for myself.

••

Epi@Epi

@ETF-DIY I can understand your intention. But how do you want to make analyses objectively comparable if not by translating them into numbers?
In the end, your system seems to me to be a kind of private/emotion-based synthesis of publicly available data.
That's your right, but whether you're better off than an S&P500 buy and hold investor is up for debate.

••

View all 3 further answers