Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Rudd who wrote (16225)	1/21/2003 12:29:49 PM
From: jeffbas	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78594

Bob, you make a fair point that gross margins ought to be compared after subtracting R&D. Since the tech company bears the business risk of the consequences of unproductive R&D, the net of the two better be higher than a cyclical non-tech company not requiring much R&D. (I think SG&A is an unrelated issue.) I tested this using one leading cyclical industrial company, to be fair on comparing cyclical apples to apples. Caterpillar had gross margins of 21.5% last quarter and R&D of 3.5%, for a net of 18% (consistent with the prior year, by the way). Linear Technology had gross margins of 74.2% last quarter and R&D of 16.2%, for a net of 58.0%. Intel had gross margins of 48.8% last quarter and R&D of 15.5%, for a net of 33.3%. On the other hand, Atmel had gross (commodity) margins of 13.8% and R&D of 22.1%, for a net of minus 8.3%. (Merck had gross margins of 37.3% last quarter and R&D of 5.3%, for a net of 32.0%.) Note that Merck and Intel had similar net results, significantly better than Caterpillar. Linear Tech and Atmel show the spread you can have in technology. The conclusion I draw from this exercise is that there is nothing "wrong" with investing in technology, provided you stick with companies with proprietary product margins, and of decent size, such that their market position is unlikely to change materially.