Simplicity Wins - Prompt d'Analyse IA
Use this Joel Greenblatt rule prompt to apply “Simplicity Wins” to a specific company. It turns a vague opinion into a repeatable checklist: what facts you must verify, which assumptions matter most, what would invalidate the thesis, and the common misreads that create false certainty. Expect a written output you can save: a thesis summary, key risks, and next-step questions for filings and earnings calls. If a claim matters, require primary-source citations before you act. Educational only — not investment advice.
Prompt Complet
Vous êtes un analyste d'investissement formé au principe de Joel Greenblatt : « Simplicity Wins ». Votre tâche est d'analyser {Nom de l'Entreprise} à travers cette perspective spécifique.
## Contexte
Joel Greenblatt enseigne : « Complex strategies rarely beat simple ones. The best investment approach is one you can understand and stick to. »
## Cadre d'Analyse
### 1. Évaluation de l'Application du Principe
- Comment ce principe s'applique-t-il spécifiquement à {Nom de l'Entreprise} ?
- Quels aspects de l'entreprise sont les plus pertinents pour « Simplicity Wins » ?
- Évaluez l'alignement : Fort / Modéré / Faible
- Sur quoi Joel Greenblatt se concentrerait-il en premier ?
### 2. Preuves Quantitatives
- Identifiez 3-5 métriques financières clés pertinentes
- Analysez ces métriques sur les 5-10 dernières années
- Comparez avec les pairs et les benchmarks historiques
- Les chiffres s'améliorent-ils, sont-ils stables ou se détériorent-ils ?
### 3. Analyse Qualitative
- Évaluez les facteurs non quantifiables que Joel Greenblatt examinerait
- Qualité de la gestion et alignement avec ce principe
- Dynamique de l'industrie et position concurrentielle
- Durabilité du modèle d'affaires selon cette perspective
### 4. Évaluation des Risques
- Quels risques ce principe met-il en évidence pour {Nom de l'Entreprise} ?
- Quels signaux d'alarme Joel Greenblatt identifierait-il ?
- Test de résistance : comment l'entreprise performerait-elle en conditions adverses ?
- Quel est le pire scénario selon cette perspective ?
### 5. Identification des Opportunités
- Quelles opportunités cette analyse révèle-t-elle ?
- Y a-t-il des forces cachées sous-évaluées par le marché ?
- Quels catalyseurs pourraient libérer de la valeur ?
### 6. Greenblatt Verdict
- {Nom de l'Entreprise} passe-t-elle le test de « Simplicity Wins » ?
- Note : 1-10
- Recommandation claire : Acheter / Conserver / Éviter
- Résumé en un paragraphe
## Format de Sortie
Présentez des données spécifiques dans chaque section. Terminez par un verdict décisif.Related reading (close the loop)
Pick one path below to turn the output into a checkable, repeatable decision policy.
- Read the matching principleDefinition, boundaries, pitfalls, and a minimal checklist.
- Master profileMethodology summary + common misreads for this framework.
- Practice in scenariosTranslate conclusions into “what I do under stress”.
- More prompts from this masterTriangulate with multiple rules instead of anchoring on one prompt.
Educational only. Verify facts with primary sources and apply your own constraints.
Ce contenu n'est disponible qu'en chinois et en anglais pour le moment.
Basic Questions
Why do simple investment strategies often outperform complex ones?
Core idea: simple investment strategies often outperform complex ones
✅ Using this AI prompt, you can systematically analyze any company or investment opportunity from this principle's perspective.
The prompt guides you to:
1. Assess whether the investment target meets this principle's core requirements
2. Identify key risks and blind spots
3. Provide a 1-10 comprehensive rating
Start by analyzing companies you know well for practice, then apply the framework to new investment decisions.
✅ Using this AI prompt, you can systematically analyze any company or investment opportunity from this principle's perspective.
The prompt guides you to:
1. Assess whether the investment target meets this principle's core requirements
2. Identify key risks and blind spots
3. Provide a 1-10 comprehensive rating
Start by analyzing companies you know well for practice, then apply the framework to new investment decisions.
Usage Tips
How reliable are analysis ratings for simplicity-based investment strategies?
The reliability of simplicity-based strategy analysis comes precisely from its simplicity—the fewer variables used, the lower the risk of model overfitting, and out-of-sample performance is typically more robust. Greenblatt's research and extensive academic literature demonstrate that simple value factors (such as earnings yield and book-to-market ratio) consistently outperform complex multi-factor models over the long term. Analytical ratings are reliable in highlighting the systematic advantages of simple strategies, but investors should note that simplicity does not mean universal applicability—during momentum-driven markets or bubble periods, value strategies may fail for extended periods. The most valuable application of ratings is helping investors resist the temptation of complexity and maintain investment discipline.
Getting started
Does this prompt give investment advice or buy/sell calls?
No. It is a research helper that turns your thinking into checkable inputs and constraints: what evidence you must verify, what would prove the thesis wrong, and what common misreads to avoid. Treat the output as a draft, not a signal. Validate every material number against primary sources (filings, earnings releases, investor presentations, transcripts), and do not act unless you can write down (1) position-size limits and (2) explicit invalidation triggers.
What inputs should I provide for a reliable result?
At minimum: a 1-sentence business model summary, your current thesis (why it wins/loses), time horizon, and risk constraints; a valuation/price range; and the latest financial statements (profit quality, cash flow, debt/liquidity). Add context that reduces hallucinations: the exact filing period, known one-offs, key competitors, and what you do NOT know yet. If an input is missing, label it as missing evidence instead of letting the model guess.
Validation and boundaries
How do I validate the output?
Validate falsifiable claims one by one. Rewrite each key statement into something you can check: the metric, the period, and the source. Numbers must match filings; management claims must be traceable to transcripts/guidance; and “moat” claims need observable evidence (pricing power, retention, switching costs, cost structure). Anything you cannot verify becomes a follow-up task, not a decision trigger. If the model cites dates, confirm they are not beyond its knowledge cutoff.
When should I NOT act on the output?
If you cannot write down invalidation triggers, a position-size cap, or primary-source evidence for the key claims behind “Simplicity Wins”, do not act. The safer move is usually to reduce size, slow down, and schedule the next review.
Plus de Prompts de Règles
Explorez d'autres principes d'investissement de ce maître.
The Magic Formula
Buy good companies at bargain prices. Rank by earnings yield and return on capital, then buy the top ranked.
→Systematic Approach
Use a systematic, rules-based approach to remove emotion from investing. Stick to the system.
→Special Situations
Spinoffs, mergers, and restructurings create opportunities where value is mispriced.
→Focus on Earnings Yield
Earnings yield (EBIT/Enterprise Value) is a better measure of cheapness than P/E ratio.
→