MRVL, Marvell Technology, Inc
Marvell Technology, Inc., together with its consolidated subsidiaries is a leading supplier of data infrastructure semiconductor solutions, spanning the data center core to network edge.
Read top to bottom, the owner's questions in the order an owner asks them: what the business is, whether the record holds, whether it survives and is any good, and what you would be paying. New to the questions? Start with the Method.
The business in brief
read the 10-K →What this business is and what moves its needle, read from the numbers in its filings. The quantitative detail is in the sections below; the verdict is left to you.
- What it is
- Revenue is Data center (74%) and Communications and other (26%).
- What moves the needle
- Engagement and pricing power, not factories. What decides it: whether the gross margin holds as the business scales, how much of the profit is paid out to employees as stock, and whether revenue keeps compounding.
- Is it a good business?
- Return on capital has rarely cleared the cost of capital (median −2%, above 15% in 0 of 7 years). The steadier read is owner earnings: roughly 18% of revenue reaches owners as cash, consistently. This is price-taker territory, where the balance sheet and the cycle matter more than any multiple; the 10-K is where you look.
Every line here is arithmetic from the company's own filings, not a model's opinion, and each figure appears in full in the sections below.
Where the money comes from
read the 10-K →Data center is 74% of revenue, so this is largely a single-line business.
- Data center74%$6.1B
- Communications and other26%$2.1B
From the segment footnote of the company's own 10-K. Shares are of total revenue; the profit bar shows each segment's share of segment operating profit, before unallocated corporate costs.
The record, 2020–2026
realized figures from each filing, no estimates| 2020’20 | 2021’21 | 2022’22 | 2023’23 | 2024’24 | 2025’25 | 2026’26 | TTMTTMMay 2026 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueRevenue | $2.7B | $3.0B | $4.5B | $5.9B | $5.5B | $5.8B | $8.2B | $8.7B |
| Gross marginGross mgn | 50% | 50% | 46% | 50% | 42% | 41% | 51% | 51% |
| Operating marginOp. mgn | −9.0% | −8.7% | −7.8% | 4.0% | −10.3% | −12.5% | 16.1% | 16.0% |
| Net incomeNet inc. | $1.6B | ($277M) | ($421M) | ($164M) | ($933M) | ($885M) | $2.7B | $2.5B |
| EPS (diluted)EPS | $2.34 | $-0.41 | $-0.53 | $-0.19 | $-1.08 | $-1.02 | $3.07 | $2.83 |
| Owner earningsOwner earn. | $278M | $711M | $650M | $1.1B | $1.0B | $1.4B | $1.4B | $1.7B |
| Owner earnings marginOE mgn | 10.3% | 23.9% | 14.6% | 18.3% | 18.8% | 24.2% | 17.0% | 19.1% |
| ROICROIC | -3% | -2% | -1% | 1% | -3% | -3% | 7% | 6% |
| Cash & investmentsCash+inv | — | $748M | $614M | $911M | $951M | $948M | $2.6B | $3.8B |
| Net debt / (cash)Net debt | — | $444M | $3.9B | $3.6B | $3.1B | $3.0B | $1.3B | $1.1B |
| Book value / shareBVPS | $12.84 | $12.61 | $19.70 | $18.37 | $17.22 | $15.51 | $16.45 | $20.39 |
Owner’s Scorecard
Will it survive?
- ComfortableOperating income $1.3B ÷ interest expense $203M
Operating profit covers interest with the kind of margin Graham wanted for a defensive holding. Necessary, not sufficient, it says solvent, not cheap.
- ModerateTotal debt $4.6B ÷ operating income $1.3B
Years of operating profit it would take to repay all debt. A first read, not a credit rating: it's gross debt (not netted against cash) over EBIT (not EBITDA), and a cyclical year distorts it.
- Debt, net of cash $1.9BModest net debtCash $2.6B − debt $4.6B
Netting $2.6B of cash and short-term investments against $4.6B of debt leaves $1.9B owed, about 1.4× a year's operating profit, versus the gross figure above. Net debt is the leverage figure that matters; the gross ratio above ignores the cash already set against it. Strategic or illiquid investments aren't counted here.
- Capital-hungryDSO 97 + DIO 126 − DPO 98 days
Days cash is tied up between paying suppliers and collecting from customers. Lower is better; a long cycle means growth itself eats cash.
Is it a good business?
- Below averageNOPAT $1.2B ÷ invested capital $16.2B (debt + equity − cash)
The rate the business earns on the money tied up in it, Buffett's north star, because over time a stock tracks the ROIC beneath it. Above ~15% sustained hints at a moat; below ~8% the company may destroy value as it grows. Asset-light businesses (R&D expensed, little capital) read artificially high, pair this with Owner Earnings.
- Cash machineOwner Earnings $1.4B = operating cash $1.8B − capex $354M
What an owner could take out without starving the business. That's 17% of revenue. Treating stock comp as the real expense it is (less $591M of SBC) leaves $806M. Honest caveat: capex here blends maintenance and growth, so steady-state Owner Earnings may run higher (see capex vs. depreciation).
- Mostly cash-backedCash from ops $1.8B ÷ net income $2.7B
How much of reported profit showed up as operating cash. Above 1× is reassuring; well below suggests earnings lean on accruals. One year is noisy, growth and working-capital swings distort it, and this is operating cash, not free cash. Watch the multi-year trend.
How is the cash used?
- Returns most of itDividends + buybacks $2.2B ÷ Owner Earnings $1.4B
Of $1.4B Owner Earnings, $2.2B (161%) went back to shareholders, $205M dividends, $2.0B buybacks. Net of $591M stock comp, the real buyback was about $1.4B. Returning most of it signals a mature cash machine; reinvesting most could mean a long runway, or empire-building. The split doesn't say which; the return earned on it (see ROIC) does.
- Investing or harvesting? 1.16×MaintainingCapex $354M ÷ depreciation $305M
Descriptive, not a grade. Above ~1× means investing faster than assets wear out (growth, or, sustained for years, today's earnings carrying less depreciation than tomorrow's will). Below means spending less than it's wearing out (efficiency, or a melting asset base). The ratio won't tell you which; the filings will.
Durability & moat, 2020–2026
A moat is a high return that doesn’t fade, reinvested at high returns. Here is what the record says, judgments, not another chart of the numbers.
- Profitable years 2 of 7
Lost money in 5 year(s), look at what happened there before trusting the average.
- Return on capital ≥ 15% 0 of 6 yrs
A moat shows up as a high return on invested capital that holds year after year, not one good vintage.
- Operating margin −9% (FY2020) → 16% (FY2026)
Margins widened over the record, pricing power intact or improving.
- Reinvestment, incremental ROIC returns capital
The capital base barely grew: this business returns cash through dividends and buybacks rather than reinvesting. Judge it on the cash returned, not on compounding.
- Owner earnings growth +19%/yr
Free cash to owners grew about 19% a year over the record.
- Worst year 2025 · −12.5% op. margin
Operations went underwater in 2025, understand why before trusting the good years.
- Share count +4.3%/yr
The share count is rising, dilution works against you on a per-share basis.
- Dividend record rising
Paid and raised the dividend across the record, the continuity Graham prized.
Solvent is not the same as cheap; growing is not the same as good. These are vital signs, not a verdict, the judgment is yours, and the filing is one click away.
How the cash was used, 2020–2026
Over the record, the business generated $8.1B of operating cash, and how management split it is, as Buffett insists, the job that matters most. Here it reads as a balanced allocator, splitting cash between the business, owners, and the balance sheet.
- Reinvested$1.5B · 19%
- Dividends$1.3B · 17%
- Buybacks$3.4B · 42%
- Retained (debt / cash)$1.8B · 22%
It reinvested $1.5B (19%) back into the business and returned $4.8B (59%) to owners, $1.3B in dividends, $3.4B in buybacks.
Buybacks are gross of stock issued to employees; net of that, the real return to owners is lower (see Management & pay). And the mix alone doesn't grade management, what matters is the return earned on the dollars reinvested (see incremental ROIC in the durability report).
Management & pay
read the proxy →Two questions Buffett actually asks about pay: is stock compensation, a real expense, whatever the income statement pretends, quietly large, and is the top wildly out of line with the floor. He's no populist about it; he just wants pay that's rational and earned, and comp committees that aren't lapdogs.
- CEO pay ratio158:1
What the chief earns for every dollar the median employee makes, per the 2026 proxy. A high ratio isn't proof of anything, some businesses are genuinely top-heavy in scarce skill, but a runaway figure is where Buffett starts asking whether the board is doing its job or just keeping the chair company.
- Stock-based compensation$591M
The slice of the business handed to employees in shares this year, 7% of revenue, equal to 45% of operating profit. Buffett's oldest accounting fight: this is compensation, compensation is an expense, real whether or not the headline earnings admit it. And note the trap, the cash-flow statement adds SBC back, so the operating cash, and the owner earnings drawn from it, are flattered by exactly this amount; counted as the cost it is, what an owner keeps is lower.
Graham’s defensive-investor test
3 of 6 metGraham gave the defensive investor seven numerical criteria in The Intelligent Investor. Here they are, run mechanically on the filings, his framework, not our verdict. Meeting them is a floor of safety, not a reason to buy; missing one is no veto, since many fine modern businesses fail his strictest liquidity tests by design. The worth is in seeing exactly where a company stands against the canon, every number sourced.
- Adequate size PassRevenue ≥ $2B · $8.2B
Big enough to weather a storm. Graham's 1972 floor was ~$100M of sales (≈ $700M today); we use a $2B revenue line as a conservative modern stand-in.
- Strong liquidity PassCurrent ratio ≥ 2× · 2.01×
Current assets at least twice current liabilities, near-term bills covered without touching the business. Strict by design: many cash-rich modern firms run leaner and miss it, holding their cushion in longer-dated securities.
- Conservative debt NearDebt ≤ working capital · $4.6B vs $3.2B WC
Graham's rule that borrowings not exceed net current assets. Capital-heavy and buyback-heavy firms routinely fail it, read it next to interest coverage, not alone.
- Earnings stability MissA profit every year (7-yr record) · 5 loss years
Graham wanted earnings in each of the past ten years, the stability a defensive owner leans on.
- Dividend record PassUninterrupted dividends · paid every year (7)
An unbroken dividend was Graham's mark of durability. He wanted twenty years; the filings show about ten, and a single suspension breaks the streak. Non-payers, many fine modern compounders, fall outside his defensive net by design.
- Earnings growth MissEarnings +33% over the record · −4%
At least a third more earnings than a decade ago, averaging three years at each end. Net income (not per-share), so stock splits don't distort it, buybacks and dilution show up in the share-count line instead.
- Moderate price —P/E ≤ 15 and P/E × P/B ≤ 22.5 · decided by the price
Graham's valuation gate, the wall he kept between a sound business and a sound investment. Earnings are $3.07/share and book value $16.45/share. Enter a price in “What the price implies” just below for the P/E, P/B, and whether it clears. But this is the rule Buffett outgrew: there's no hard P/E law, and a wonderful business can deserve a far richer multiple if the thesis holds, treat it as the bargain-hunter's floor, not a verdict on the price.
Graham would be the first to say a checklist is a starting point, not an answer. These are his defensive, bargain-hunter's tests, the cigar-butt lens. Buffett and Munger grew past it, paying fair prices for wonderful businesses; that lens lives in the moat and owner-earnings work above, and both still matter. Clearing Graham’s tests earns a closer look; failing them earns harder questions, not a dismissal.
What the price implies
reverse-DCFA price is the one input we don't pull, you bring it. Type today's close (read it off any broker or quote site) and see the owner-earnings growth you'd have to believe to justify it, set beside what Marvell Technology, Inc has actually delivered. Nothing is stored; the number stays in your browser.
Enter a price above to run it.
Graham capped the multiple at 15×; Buffett and Munger let that rule go, a wonderful business can deserve 50× if the thesis holds. Read it as the bargain-hunter's floor, not a ceiling on good sense.
The discount rate is your interest rate, what a dollar years from now is worth today, anchored to the long-term Treasury yield (~4–5% today, plus whatever premium you want for risk). Drag it toward the risk-free rate and watch how much growth the price suddenly “needs”: interest rates are gravity on valuations.
Owner earnings $1.7B on 893M diluted shares; net debt $1.1B. This is a lens, not a price target, it says what you'd have to believe, not what the company is worth, and it runs on one year of (noisy) owner earnings at assumptions you can see and change.
What the filing emphasizes, FY2026
read the 10-K →Each year a 10-K must name what could go wrong, in the company's own words. Here are the ones Graham and Buffett would stop on, each set against the figure from the same filings that bears on it, anchored to a period you can find in the record above. We point; the judgment is yours.
- Customer concentrationMD&A
Who the revenue leans on. When one buyer is a large slice of sales, that buyer holds the pricing power, and its troubles become the company's.
“Sales shipped to customers with operations in Asia represented approximately 77% of our net revenue in fiscal 2026, 75% of our net revenue in fiscal 2025 and 70% of our net revenue in fiscal 2024.”
From the recordRevenue exposed (TTM)$8.7B - Pricing power & competitionBusiness
Whether the company sets its price or takes it. Durable pricing power is the surest mark of a moat; price competition is the surest mark there isn't one.
“The markets for our products are intensely competitive, and are characterized by rapid technological change, evolving industry standards, frequent new product introductions and pricing pressures.”
From the recordOperating margin16.0% (TTM), near a 7-yr high - Supplier & input dependenceRisk Factors
A choke point upstream. A sole or limited supplier can dictate terms, and a single shortage can stop the line.
“In addition, our assembly, testing and packaging partners may be single sourced and it may be difficult for us to transition to other manufacturing partners for these services.”
From the recordGross-margin cushion (TTM)51% - Concentrated dependenceBusiness
What the whole business leans on, a product, a platform, a partner. Concentration cuts both ways, and the filing is where management has to admit it.
“The expiration of our patents ranges from 2026 to 2046, and none of the patents expiring in the near future are expected to be material to our IP portfolio as we are not substantially dependent on any single patent or group of related patents.”
From the recordOwner-earnings margin at stake (TTM)19% - Debt terms & refinancingRisk Factors
The fine print behind the debt. Covenants and near-term maturities decide who is really in control when a year goes badly.
“The 2025 Credit Agreement and the Notes Indentures each contains a number of covenants imposing restrictions on our business.”
From the recordBalance sheet (TTM)$1.9B modest net debt · interest covered 6.5× - Litigation & contingenciesBusiness
Claims an owner inherits. Most disclosure is boilerplate; this fires only on an actual matter, a named suit, a settlement, a contingency, a number.
“Recent Developments On August 14, 2025, we completed the sale of our automotive ethernet business to Infineon Technologies AG for $2.5 billion in cash.”
A judgment, not a number, weigh it against the filing yourself. - DilutionBusiness
Whether your slice quietly shrinks. New shares fund the company at the existing owner's expense.
“Contingent on the achievement of specified revenue milestones, we may be required to pay additional cash and issue additional shares of our common stock through fiscal 2029.”
From the recordDiluted share count+4.8%/yr (FY2020→TTM)
What changed, FY2026 vs FY2025
read the 10-K →Most of a 10-K is boilerplate carried over verbatim; the signal is in what's new. These lines appear this year and weren't there last, figure updates filtered out, so only the language shift remains.
- “Sales from the communications and other end market also increased by 31%, which has continued to recover due to normalizing customer inventory levels and strong adoption of our products, partially offset by a decrease in sales from our automotive ethernet product portfolio due to the divestiture of …”
- “We cannot guarantee that we will achieve the agreed upon investment levels over the incentive period and any failure to meet these investment levels or any change in the current law or government regulations may result in a clawback of some or all of the incentives and a corresponding reversal of an…”
- “In future periods, it is possible that significant positive or negative evidence could arise that results in a change in our judgment with respect to the need for a valuation allowance, which could result in a tax benefit, or adversely affect our income tax provision, in the period of such change in…”
- “The increase in our income tax expense for fiscal 2026 as compared to our income tax benefit for fiscal 2025 was driven by an increase in earnings, which includes the gain on the sale of our automotive ethernet business in fiscal 2026, against losses in fiscal 2025.”
- “See also, "Adverse changes in the political, regulatory and economic policies of governments in connection with trade with China and Chinese customers have reduced the demand for our products and damaged our business" and " Changes to U.S. or foreign tax, trade policy, government incentives, tariff …”
Classic text analysis over the filing itself, no model wrote a word of this, and every quote is the company's own.
Peers, Semiconductors
The same industry, side by side on owner economics, compare, don't rank by a single number.● marks best in the group.
| Company | Revenue | Gross margin | Op. margin | ROIC | Owner earn. margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TXNTexas Instruments Incorporated | $17.7B | 57% | 34.1% | 19% | 15% |
| NXPINXP Semiconductors N.v. | $12.3B | 55% | 24.8% | 13% | 20% |
| ADIAnalog Devices Inc | $11.0B | 61% | 26.6% | 6% | 39% |
| MRVLMarvell Technology, Inc | $8.2B | 51% | 16.1% | 7% | 17% |
| ONON Semiconductor Corporation | $6.0B | 33% | 1.4% | 1% | 24% |
| MCHPMicrochip Technology Incorporated | $4.7B | 58% | 10.4% | 4% | 18% |
| SWKSSkyworks Solutions, Inc. | $4.1B | 41% | 12.2% | 8% | 27% |
| MPWRMonolithic Power Systems Inc | $2.8B | 55% | 26.1% | 24% | 24% |