Ann: Appendix 4D and Half Year Accounts, page-27

I agree regarding the R&D but I think I think a better measure is dividend yield and growth of dividend (assuming dividend grows as same rate as earnings on average - a fair enough assumption in my opinion). This way, all the R&D spend, capital spending etc etc are already taken care of. Some of the PE ratios of stocks compared to their growth rate were not making sense e.g. equally quality companies with lower growth rate having a higher PE compared to the company with a higher growth rate (for example PE of FPH is higher than RMD even though FPH has a lower growth rate). However, when I compared dividend yield and growth rate together, I found that most valuations make a lot more sense.

Currently for FY19, the dividend yield is going to be 1.4% approximately at current prices. This is for growth of around 12 percent per annum expected in the mid term. Looking at other healthcare companies a 1.4% yield is not a bargain buy for dividend growth of 12 percent mid term but it isn't a very low yield either. However if we account for the possibility of CSL112 being successful, the growth rate mid term jumps significantly. It is a risk but if CSL112 is successful, prices right now are a bargain e.g. SP could more than double in 5 years if CSL112 is successfully commercialised. 

I added to my position recently because of FOMO. Not because its a bargain, but because its 'not very overvalued' at the moment and downside in SP should be limited. I also dont know when an announcement regarding CSL112 will be made and I didnt want to miss that ship. 

Your thoughts?