A place to drink at night, similar to a courtyard, with many restaurants and bars.
This place is interesting; there are many restaurants, some serve grilled meat, some serve Western food, some serve diet meals, various types of restaurants, but when it comes to buying drinks, there is only one.
What does this indicate?
This indicates that the bar operated by the property owner's relatives, or even by the property owner themselves.
Whether you eat grilled oysters or burgers, you have to order drinks from the same bar.
Obviously, bars are the most profitable; other restaurants can't earn money.
This ecological phenomenon is common across different industries.
The secret to investment lies in investing in the 'monopoly segments' of that industry.
For this courtyard, if considered an industry, the nightlife industry, you see there are many segments, restaurants, bars, and even parking lots that charge fees; digging deeper, there's land rent, which is about renting shops; going even deeper, there are suppliers, like everyone needs to purchase ingredients and drinks.
In this complex business community, which investment is the most profitable?
As I said earlier, bars are the most profitable because there is no competition in bars here, while others have competition.
But if I go back to say, if the entire real estate property belongs to the same person, then the bar wouldn't make money; only commercial properties can profit.
In 2011, there was a very popular bar called 'Sicily' in the shopping park of Futian District, Shenzhen. It drove the nightlife of the entire shopping park. Every time I went, I had to wait an hour to get a spot, so I had to settle for sitting in the neighboring bar.
This bar, which is phenomenally popular, had its rental contract expire, and the landlord took back the property. After taking back the shop, the landlord opened a bar of their own, leveraging the previous popularity, and the business is thriving.
You see, this is the phenomenon of 'cutting in'; such phenomena are common in business.
The cryptocurrency industry also has many ecological niches, there are Bitcoin mining machine manufacturers, Bitcoin exchanges (which are long gone now), comprehensive exchanges, stablecoin issuers, over-the-counter traders, market makers, VC funding, and so on, countless industrial segments.
In these segments, any segment can make a profit as long as it is monopolized.
Even this segment can be the smallest and still the most profitable.
If you can train this kind of thinking, you can find which companies to invest in no matter which industry you enter.
The investment targets are not about size; investing in a large company doesn't necessarily mean more profit, nor does investing in a small company.
The money you have is limited, maybe 10,000, maybe 1 million; if you really have several hundred million, then we can talk.
Since you don't have much money, investing in several targets won't earn you more money; it can only spread the risk.
So, most of the time, you don't need to invest in more targets.
You only need to invest in one or two targets, provided they are confirmed to be profitable.
If I invest 100 yuan in one company, or split it into two investments in two companies, the money earned is the same if both companies earn 30% each year.
The companies for investment are not about size; it depends on whether they are monopolized in their own industrial chain segment.
A very large company can be invested in if it is monopolized; a very small company that monopolizes its own small territory can also be invested in.
Let me give an example.
For example, the film industry.
The film industry has many industrial chain segments.
For example, scripts, like those from the Yuewen Group, they hold a bunch of film and television copyrights for online literature IPs;
For example, investors;
For example, directors;
For example, actors, big stars;
For example, distribution channels, like the Maoyan app;
Another example is the cinema chain, which includes all the cinemas in your city, big and small, like Wanda Cinemas;
There are countless industrial chain segments, almost endless.
Among so many segments, which ones can be invested in?
I estimate that most people don't think about what I'm saying; they are just like friends in a group. Today, someone throws in a code, and they buy it; tomorrow, someone throws in another code, and they switch their investment.
Such people's lives are not thoughtfully considered; they are indiscriminate, 'going with the flow', and following the trends.
Movies like 'Forrest Gump' encourage this kind of life attitude.
I don't know if this way of living is good.
But some people don't live like that. They think deeply, actively seek out, and make choices. Which university to attend, which city to go to, who to marry.
Most young people, when they reach middle school and meet their deskmate, start dating them. It's all about going with the flow, whoever they meet becomes their partner.
Let's go back to investments in the film industry; what specifically to invest in?
Invest in segments that can be monopolized, no matter how small.
Remember what I said earlier: profits do not depend on size but on whether they can be monopolized.
You should ponder this statement hundreds of times.
Assuming scripts can be monopolized, scripts can eat up all the industry's profits.
What does this mean?
If you want to make a movie, you must come here to buy scripts and copyrights.
You shoot (The Big Shot) here, you shoot (A Mortal's Journey to Immortality) here as well.
Can I write my own script and film it? Sure. But no one will watch it.
(Of course, currently it's not at that stage; your own scripts can still attract viewers; it's not necessary to buy already popular online literature IPs.)
The previous statements were hypothetical. Assuming the script segment is monopolized, everyone must come to me for scripts to make movies, but the actual situation is not like that. Script sources are not singular; they are too diverse, meaning this industrial chain segment is not monopolized. That means there are no profits. Abandon it; don't invest.
Assuming the distribution channels are monopolized.
That means everyone has to book tickets through my Maoyan app; you should hurry and invest in it; it will take all the profits.
Or say, actors are indeed monopolized, which means that the market must have my star acting in a film for it to attract viewers; if others act, no one will watch.
Then it would be amazing; you could invest in this star.
Don't think what I'm saying is far-fetched; the market often behaves this way. When Hong Kong films were at their peak, basically only Stephen Chow's films got attention, or those featuring Chow Yun-fat.
There's nothing strange about that.
The market can evolve in various ways, each with specific premises and stages that need to be analyzed in detail.
Every industry is different; it may have different monopolized segments. You must enter the industry to investigate and understand before making a judgment.
