Subject: LAVA/CDNS make money from acquisitions, while SNPS/MENT overpay

A fellow engineering reader forwarded this link to a finance-intensive
analysis of the EDA Big Four.  It had something to do with acquisitions
and "goodwill" and fancypants accounting I don't understand.  But what I
did catch was:

   Intangible Assets Ratio

   This ratio shows us the percentage of total assets made up by
   goodwill and other intangibles.  Heiserman says he views anything
   over 20% as worrisome, "because management might be overpaying
   for the acquisitions that gave rise to the goodwill."

   Tangible Book Value

   Tangible book value is simply what remains after subtracting
   goodwill and other intangibles from shareholders' equity (also
   known as book value).  If this is not a positive value, Heiserman
   advises you to run away.

     Company      Intangible Assets Ratio       Tangible Book Value

      SNPS              43%  BAD                    $660 M  GOOD
      MENT              39%  BAD                    $267 M  GOOD
      CDNS              19%  GOOD                   -$21 M  BAD
      LAVA              12%  GOOD                    $17 M  GOOD

So from my simple engineer's mind, it looks like this column is saying that
SNPS and MENT aren't getting the value they should out of the acquisitions
they're making (i.e. they're paying too much for what they get back in
revenues) while CDNS and especially LAVA know how to make good purchases.

Mind you this is crazyass financial mumbo-jumbo; and I are engineer, so I
could be reading this waaaaaay wrong -- but I doubt it.