mpav wrote:My logic for CNR or TRP is that to compete with them you have to build an infrastructure that is virtually impossible.
There are lots of industries that had an infrastructure advantage but died away. You can build a better/cheaper infrastructure via technology. Or even eliminate the need for it completely (e.g. Newspaper vs Internet. Fax vs snail-mail. Coal vs electricity to heat homes.)
With either CNR and TRP I can say no to them, it would just cost me more. I really can't see a cost advantage being a moat without Wal-mart/Costco having one.
Tim Horton and Coke have a huge mindshare, the former in Canada and the later worldwide. Standout side a Tim Horton and think about what you expect inside. Now rename it with a "GB's Coffee-N-Donuts" and now what do you expect inside? Now that's as strong a moat you are going to get for a large corporation outside of a sports team.
mpav wrote:So in the above examples, we would have to have a complete shift to replace them (stop using natural gas, new paradigm in how things are shipped).
Complete shifts do occur, you can't discount it from happening when you are talking about something that is suppose to be unassailable like a "moat". Its more like a "competitive advantage".
mpav wrote:But my point around moat is how much competition you have, not how well you perform against it.
I think you are thinking about a monopoly. A moat is to protect your business, its not suppose to go out and eliminate your competition.