Wuling Motors Holdings Limited (0305.HK)

Both firms have declining sales. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry slump or new disruptive entrants.

Both firms have negative gross profit growth. Martin Whitman would question the sector’s viability or cyclical slump.

Both companies show negative EBIT growth. Martin Whitman would consider macro or sector-specific headwinds.

Both companies face negative operating income growth. Martin Whitman would suspect broader market or cost hurdles.

Both companies face declining net income. Martin Whitman would suspect external pressures or flawed business models in the space.

Both companies exhibit negative EPS growth. Martin Whitman would consider sector-wide issues or an unsustainable business environment.

Both face negative diluted EPS growth. Martin Whitman would suspect an industry or cyclical slump with heightened share issuance across the board.

Dividend reduction while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s cash flow stability or capital allocation decisions.

OCF growth under 50% of 0376.HK's 78.53%. Michael Burry might suspect questionable revenue recognition or rising costs.

FCF growth under 50% of 0376.HK's 106.55%. Michael Burry would suspect weaker operating efficiencies or heavier capex burdens.

Negative 10Y revenue/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 1035.12%. Joel Greenblatt would question if the company is failing to keep pace with industry changes.

Negative 5Y CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 2984.21%. Joel Greenblatt would push for a turnaround plan or reevaluation of the company’s product line.

3Y revenue/share CAGR under 50% of 0376.HK's 3723.98%. Michael Burry might see a serious short-term decline in relevance vs. the competitor.

Negative 10Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 390.90%. Joel Greenblatt would scrutinize managerial effectiveness and product competitiveness.

Negative 5Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK is at 703.80%. Joel Greenblatt would question the firm’s operational model or cost structure.

Negative 3Y OCF/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 892.05%. Joel Greenblatt would demand an urgent turnaround in the firm’s cost or revenue drivers.

Negative 10Y net income/share CAGR while 0376.HK is at 389.55%. Joel Greenblatt sees a major red flag in long-term profit erosion.

Negative 5Y net income/share CAGR while 0376.HK is 229.59%. Joel Greenblatt would see fundamental missteps limiting profitability vs. the competitor.

Negative 3Y CAGR while 0376.HK is 249.10%. Joel Greenblatt might call for a short-term turnaround strategy or cost realignment.

Below 50% of 0376.HK's 487.62%. Michael Burry would suspect poor capital allocation or persistent net losses eroding long-term equity build-up.

Negative 5Y equity/share growth while 0376.HK is at 89.45%. Joel Greenblatt sees the competitor building net worth while this firm loses ground.

Below 50% of 0376.HK's 111.49%. Michael Burry suspects a serious short-term disadvantage in building book value.

Cut dividends over 10 years while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt suspects a weaker ability to return capital vs. the competitor.

Negative 5Y dividend/share CAGR while 0376.HK stands at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker commitment to dividends vs. a competitor that might be growing them.

Negative near-term dividend growth while 0376.HK invests at 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees a weaker short-term distribution policy unless justified by strategic spending.

Firm’s AR is declining while 0376.HK shows 0.00%. Joel Greenblatt sees stronger working capital efficiency if sales hold up.

Inventory growth of 6.44% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz wonders if we anticipate a new wave of demand or risk being stuck with extra product.

Negative asset growth while 0376.HK invests at 6.61%. Joel Greenblatt checks if the competitor might capture more market share unless our returns remain higher.

R&D growth of 15.24% while 0376.HK is zero. Bruce Berkowitz checks if the moderate investment leads to meaningful product differentiation.