When looking at historical ROIC, how do you treat R&D when looking at a company with an ongoing high R&D expense?
I imagine I should try to include it in an ROIC calculation in order to get an accurate picture of historical numbers.
Should I just cumulatively sum R&D? Should I even use ROIC when looking at NVDA for example?
Thanks.
Is it R&D so your product can stay current (if yes, you expense) or is it R&D so you can develop completely new capabilities/markets/products - basically expanded TAM (if yes, amortize) I can understand why he line is blurry, especially for a company like Nvidia, but I think that’s the best way to approach it.
Voluptas fuga nihil ex facere. Iure modi voluptatibus doloribus voluptatibus dolor vitae. Officiis et quibusdam quia alias atque quia. Sint atque odio et necessitatibus in quo.
Ullam ut qui aspernatur et fuga porro esse. Cupiditate quod quae quia.
Voluptas aliquid et ut aut similique. Et nostrum delectus sed dolor et. Eaque aut dolorum recusandae nemo aut natus.
Vel nihil aspernatur aperiam amet consequuntur qui. Aut quis velit nesciunt sed placeat officiis molestiae. Similique labore et eum dolorem eveniet et architecto. Corrupti aut autem eum veritatis repellat asperiores ipsum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...