Note: Coming soon in the next issue: The 5th Stock of the Month Analysis! Here’s a hint: this company is a true monopoly with absolutely no competition. Stay tuned!
Dear investor,
When people analyze what makes a company successful, they talk about financial metrics, market position, and growth strategies. But there's one factor that gets overlooked: the people at the top should deeply understand the business they're in.
It sounds obvious, but you'd be surprised how often this doesn't happen. Chemical companies get run by MBA consultants who've never worked in a lab. Software companies end up with CEOs who can't read code. Engineering firms get managed by people who wouldn't know a gear from a bearing.
This matters more than you might think.
Here's the thing about most industries: if you get the product right, the money follows. It's not the other way around. You can't financial-engineer your way to building better airplanes or developing life-saving drugs.
Boeing is the perfect example of what happens when you flip this equation. When financial consultants took over from engineers, they did what consultants do best - they cut costs. Sounds smart on paper. Except they cut costs in all the wrong places. They compromised on safety, quality, and prioritized quarterly earnings over good engineering.
The result? Billions in losses, and a damaged reputation that will take decades to rebuild. If engineers had been making those decisions, they would have known exactly where to trim fat without touching the muscle. They understand which components you can make cheaper and which ones need to be bulletproof.
When industry experts run technical companies, several things happen that you don't get with outsider leadership.
First, they build stronger competitive moats. A CEO who understands the technology can spot trends early and invest in the right areas before competitors catch on.
Second, they're better at managing risk. Non-experts often underestimate low-probability, high-impact events because they don't grasp the underlying science. An aerospace engineer knows that a 1% failure rate on a critical component isn't "good enough" - it's catastrophic when multiplied across thousands of aircraft. A financial executive might see that same statistic and think it's acceptable.
Third, industry veterans understand the long game. They've seen how reputation and safety issues can destroy companies overnight in technical fields. They know that cutting corners on R&D or quality control might boost next quarter's numbers, but it can also lead to product recalls, lawsuits, or regulatory shutdowns that wipe out years of progress.
When pharmaceutical executives skimp on clinical trials or manufacturing standards, they're gambling with people's lives and the company's future. When software leaders rush products to market without proper security testing, they're setting up for massive breaches that can kill user trust permanently.
There's also a psychological element that gets overlooked. When engineers and scientists see that their leadership actually understands their work, everything changes. Morale improves. Retention goes up. Communication flows better.
Technical employees are more likely to speak up about safety concerns or suggest improvements when they know leadership will understand what they're talking about. They're not trying to translate complex technical concepts into business-speak for executives who nod politely but miss the point.
This creates a feedback loop where the best technical talent wants to work for companies with technical leadership, which in turn drives better innovation and execution.
Now, industry expertise isn't a magic bullet. There are some legitimate downsides to consider.
Technical leaders can sometimes be too conservative. They might resist disruptive innovations from outside their field or stick too closely to established ways of doing things.
They can also struggle with broader business skills. Being brilliant at chemistry doesn't automatically make you great at marketing, finance, or corporate strategy.
The most successful technical companies don't just throw engineers into the CEO chair and hope for the best. They look for leaders who combine solid industry knowledge with solid business instincts.
This is especially critical in specialized, high-stakes industries like aerospace, pharmaceuticals, software or advanced manufacturing. In these fields, the cost of getting the technical stuff wrong is so high that you simply can't afford leadership that doesn't understand the fundamentals.
When you're building nuclear reactors, developing medical devices, or designing aircraft, ignoring technical expertise in leadership is a recipe for disaster. The short-term efficiency gains from cost-cutting generalists rarely outweigh the long-term risks of compromised quality and safety.
Final thoughts
The best companies find leaders who can speak both languages - the technical language of their industry and the business language of the market. They understand that in technical fields, sustainable competitive advantage comes from superior products and services.
When you're analyzing potential investments, pay attention to who's running the show. Do they understand the actual work being done? Have they earned their credibility within the industry, or do they just have generic management experience?
And if you believe leadership matters as much as I do, here’s where it gets interesting:
There’s a small-cap food producer that checks every box we just talked about. Its leadership team isn’t made up of generic managers - they’re industry veterans who’ve already scaled multiple food brands to national success. Now, they’re doing it again.
The company just hit an all-time high and is up 30% since I first shared the analysis last November, but the story is far from over. Their U.S. expansion is only getting started, and their products haven’t even reached every state yet. That means the biggest growth phase could still be ahead.
I’ve put together a detailed stock report covering everything you need to know - what makes this company special, why their leadership is a competitive moat, and why I believe the runway for growth is still wide open.
👉 Read the full report here 👈
Until the next issue.
If you enjoy The Onveston Letter, let me and the algorithm know by clicking the “Like” button ❤️.
And if you aren’t a subscriber yet, then sign up below to not miss out on future articles.
For new readers: Check out all my previous posts here
Disclaimer: This analysis is not advice to buy or sell this or any stock; it is just pointing out an objective observation of unique patterns that developed from my research. Nothing herein should be construed as an offer to buy or sell securities or to give individual investment advice.
I would agree but with a small nuance. I’ve covered sectors where management’s technical knowledge had been obsolete for a while: think semiconductors equipment, or chip design. But that didn’t matter because their experience as technician shape their understanding of product cycles, supply chain, commoditization, operating leverage. and - crucially! - the best among them had been through a major sector crisis. To understand an industry it helps to see how it can fail.
In management meetings I always ask about past cycles, and what we can learn from them. It’s always a great question.
Really like how this highlights the difference leadership background makes. In technical industries, expertise at the top isn’t just a nice-to-have; it can be the deciding factor between long-term resilience and costly missteps.
Keep up the good work!