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.
| +39 | HF Start-up salary expectation | 15 | 1d |
| +23 | Undergrad Hedge Fund Programs | 13 | 2h |
| +23 | Navigating pod politics | 7 | 2d |
| +20 | Recruiting from Low-Quality Fund | 2 | 1d |
| +15 | How hard is it to go from a large L/O to a Hedge Fund (Either L/O or L/S) | 4 | 10h |
| +13 | HC or M&A IB Group for HF | 7 | 3d |
| +12 | The 8 MNPI control gaps SEC examiners keep flagging | 0 | 4d |
| +9 | Treasury basis trade | 1 | 19h |
| +9 | Analyst / PM Divide & Trade Book | 2 | 1d |
| +9 | LSE EME vs MIT MFin | 3 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
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.
Corporis sed recusandae ut occaecati. Dolor ab eligendi alias corporis voluptatibus autem est. Et recusandae omnis autem non illum quo et. Rerum nemo laudantium facilis temporibus libero ab temporibus. Aut unde optio temporibus voluptate dolorem. Est cupiditate praesentium reiciendis iure.
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...