"Like I've just written on another thread, CSL expensed US$1.1B...

"Like I've just written on another thread, CSL expensed US$1.1B in research and development which was an increase of 10% from the previous years R&D spend.
If they cut that spend by a half and put the US$550M in the NPAT column to ensure that they easily beat consensus, then the SP would be closer to $350 rather than $250."

For starters, US$550m would not drop down to NPAT, because it would need to be tax affected.

Second, the R&D spend is what drives the growth.

And it is the market's expectation of a certain level of growth that informs the valuation multiple.

Ergo:
1.) Less expenditure that drives growth implies lower rate of growth.
2.) Lower rate of growth implies lower valuation multiple.

When it comes to valuation theory, there's no such thing as a free lunch, I'm afraid.