When it comes to getting a good return on investment, businesses should be equally focused on mitigating risks as they are on earning a profit. Getty Images

Consider for a moment the race to build the next super computer. Google, Alibaba and other U.S. and China companies are racing to build a machine — called quantum computing — far more powerful than anything the world has ever seen. In this race, China reportedly has the lead.

Given that this kind of technology can protect trillions of dollars in corporate and even national secrets, why do American companies lag behind? If such research and development represents an unknown and is a potential business risk, should U.S. companies be interested in assuming such a task? Rice Business professors Vikas Mittal, Yan Anthea Zhang and a Rice Business Ph.D. student Kyuhong Han, may have answers.

They researched the various ways companies create strategic advantages for themselves. What is the relationship between these strategies and the risks involved? Companies create value through innovation-based activities such as research and development or else via branding and advertisement. As there's no set formula for success, each company has its own approach — which could affect the risk associated with the company's stock price (called idiosyncratic risk).

Typically, the two strategic pillars are examined separately, rather than jointly. But when they compared the two approaches, they found that one presented far more risk than the other.

To reach their conclusions, the Rice team looked at a data set of 13,880 firm-year observations that included 2,403 firms operating in 59 industries over 15 years (2000–2014). The data sets were from the firms' annual operational and financial information from Standard & Poor's Compustat, the University of Chicago's Center for Research in Security Prices and from the Kenneth French Data Library. What the data revealed was the stock price of companies that placed a higher strategic emphasis on marketing and branding (called value appropriation) than companies that focused research and development (called value creation).

If it is less risky for a firm to emphasize branding and marketing over research and development it stands to reason that firms would want to exercise caution in big new research and development efforts. What's the payoff for making a quantum computer or even Space X, after all, if the research and development risks associated with the endeavor are extraordinarily high? In some instances, it may be much safer to rebrand and market. Closer to home, many companies in the oil and gas industry bet big on innovative ventures — costly product features, digitization initiatives and so on that may only increase the risk to their stock price than meet customer needs.

The researchers found that firms that plunge big efforts into research and development have more to worry about than whether their innovations will work. They have to weather the fluctuations of industry demand. When industry demand is volatile, the downside of excessive research and development, at the cost of customer-relevant strategies is even worse.

For the Rice Business researchers, the lessons for managers are clear. The return on investment is intimately linked not only with optimizing potential profits but also minimizing potential risks. Research and development heavy endeavors like Space X and quantum computers may be flashy, but in the event of an unexpected drop in demand, they're also more likely to plummet to earth, creating stock-price volatility.

Managers need to think about the elements that create risk — like demand instability. The more companies create a stable and predictable client base, the less risk that they have to face in the stock market. There is still a tendency among many firms to see advertising and research and development as preceding and guiding customer perceptions, preferences and behaviors. But perhaps the relationship is just the opposite.

------

This article originally appeared on Rice Business Wisdom. Vikas Mittal is the J. Hugh Liedtke Professor of Marketing at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. Yan Anthea Zhang is a Fayez Sarofim Vanguard Professor of Management at the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University. Kyuhong Han is a marketing Ph.D. student at the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

2 leading Texas universities rank among world’s best for entrepreneurs

honor roll

The Lone Star State’s two biggest universities—the University of Texas at Austin and Texas A&M University—rank among the world’s best schools for entrepreneurs.

PitchBook’s annual list of the world’s top 100 universities for entrepreneurs takes into account both undergraduate and graduate programs. PitchBook analyzed more than 222,000 startup founders whose startups are VC-backed.

UT’s “unique” advantage

UT Austin landed at No. 10 on the list, down from No. 8 last year. PitchBook identified 1,002 UT-alumni founders at 948 startups. Collectively, those startups have raised $34.7 billion, according to PitchBook.

Among the 948 UT Austin-affiliated startups, these five have raised the most capital:

  • No. 1 Tucson, Arizona-based World View, $2.8 billion
  • No. 2 Austin-based Apptronik, $966 million
  • No. 3 Mountain View, California-based Lightmatter, $821 million
  • No. 4 Austin-based Function Health, $807 million
  • No. 5. San Francisco-based Niantic, $779 million

“The unique UT Austin advantage is the alignment between the university and the city,” Foundra.ai says. “Unlike schools where the campus ecosystem and the local startup scene are disconnected, Austin’s startup community actively recruits UT students and alumni, and UT programs actively send students into the local ecosystem.”

Texas A&M’s “living laboratory”

UT Austin’s biggest in-state rival, Texas A&M, appeared at No. 79 on the list, down from No. 76 last year. PitchBook tallied 317 A&M-alumni founders at 295 startups. Collectively, those startups have raised $9.8 billion, according to PitchBook.

Among the 317 A&M-affiliated startups, these five have raised the most capital:

  • No. 1 Austin-based RigUp, $817 million
  • No. 2 Austin-based ICON, $543 million
  • No. 3 Scottsdale, Arizona-based HomeLight, $413 million
  • No. 4 Everett, Washington-based Zap Energy, $326 million
  • No. 5 San Diego-based Splice Therapeutics, $320 million

A cornerstone of Texas A&M’s entrepreneurship offerings is the Center for Applied Entrepreneurship and Innovation at the Mays School of Business. The business school says the center “helps students explore, test, build, buy, and transform businesses in real markets.”

“Grounded in Texas as a living laboratory and guided by the Aggie core values, the center advances applied learning through industry engagement, AI-enabled experimentation, and collaboration across Mays and Texas A&M,” the business school says.

The most “exceptional” schools on PitchBook’s list

In announcing its rankings, PitchBook said: “Great entrepreneurs can come from anywhere, but some universities have a truly exceptional track record of attracting and producing future founders.”

The most exceptional universities, based on PitchBook’s criteria, are:

  • No. 1 University of California, Berkeley
  • No. 2 Stanford University
  • No. 3 Harvard University
  • No. 4 Cornell University
  • No. 5 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Planned KBR spinoff scores $1B NOAA deal for extreme weather forecasting

weather watch

Amid a major spinoff, Houston-based KBR's Mission Technology Solutions business has been awarded a five-year contract for up to $1.1 billion from NOAA’s National Weather Service to help predict and combat extreme weather conditions.

Under the follow-on Commercial Data Program National Mesonet Program (CDP NMP) contract, KBR will provide weather and observational data from commercial stations, university and research campuses, and other non-federal providers nationwide. The information collected will assist in predicting severe temperatures and high-impact weather conditions like extreme storms.

"This award underscores KBR's proven track record of delivering vital data that strengthens national forecasting capabilities," Todd May, KBR’s senior vice president of Mission Technology Solutions, said in a news release.

According to a separate release from NOAA, the contract expands upon KBR's existing relationship with the agency. KBR will work with about 70 private industry partners on services such as data recording, collection, aggregation and processing, and will lead the CDP NMP's "network of networks."

“NOAA gathers environmental information from a wide variety of sources, and a growing list of private industry partners have joined our agency to collect this vital data,” Ken Graham, director of NOAA’s National Weather Service, said in the release. “This agreement streamlines the process that turns raw data into the gold-standard forecasts that Americans depend on.”

KBR will utilize its Speed to Mission ImpactSM technology for the project to supply data from across regions, measurement types, and system configurations. Both KBR and NOAA say the expanded data collection contract will help the agency create more accurate and timely forecasts, particularly for severe weather and extreme events, while also creating a path for new weather-observation technologies.

KBR has supported the CDP NMP for more than 9 years. The program will be managed in Greenbelt, Maryland.

"We're driving expanded integration of commercial sensor and data sources into this platform and are honored to know our work helps forecasters give their communities earlier warnings and more time to prepare for dangerous weather,” May added in a release.

KBR’s Mission Technology Solutions business will be rebranded as Trinzic after its planned spin-off, the company announced last month. The spin-off is expected to close in January 2027.

Trinzic will work as an independent, publicly traded company focused on technology and engineering services for the space and national security sector. KBR will remain a separate publicly traded company that will focus on sustainable technology and services to support the energy transition.

This is the salary required to live comfortably in Texas in 2026

Money Matters

A new national report looking at the income it takes to live comfortably in each of the 50 states has revealed Texans need to earn slightly less now than a year ago.

SmartAsset analyzed what a single individual, as well as family of four, must earn to cover minimum basic needs adjusted using the 50/30/20 budgeting rule. The resulting estimate represents the annual, pre-tax income needed to live comfortably in every U.S. state.

A single, full-time worker needs to make $90,563 to live comfortably in the Lone Star State, the report found, which is down a meager 0.2 percent from last year ($90,771).

Under the 50/30/20 budgeting strategy, that means a single Texas earner would have $45,282 to spend on necessities like housing and utilities, $27,169 for discretionary spending, and $18,113 for emergencies or retirement savings.

Texas ranked 34th nationally in SmartAsset's list of states with the highest income needed for a single adult to live "in sustainable comfort" in 2026. Only five other states — Tennessee, Maryland, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Mississippi — saw a decline in the income needed to live comfortably this year.

For a family of four to live comfortably in Texas, income requirements change significantly, according to the findings. To support a two-child household, a family needs $203,424 in combined total household income to be considered financially stable. This is down slightly from 2025, when SmartAsset reported a family of four in needed $204,922 to live comfortably in Texas.

This is a comfortable lifestyle for a family of four in Texas, according to the report:

  • $101,712 dedicated to necessities and living expenses
  • $61,027 dedicated to discretionary spending
  • $40,685 dedicated to emergencies, savings, or debt repaymen

According to the report, a family of four now needs to make at least $200,000 to live comfortably in 40 U.S. states, a figure that is far out of reach for many American families.

"As housing, grocery, transportation and other essential costs pressure household budgets, earning a six-figure salary no longer guarantees financial comfort in much of the U.S.," the report said. "A single adult now needs at least $80,000 a year to live comfortably in every state, while the threshold exceeds $100,000 in nearly half of states. For a family of four, the income needed to live comfortably is as much as $329,000."

Still, earning the minimum income to live comfortably in Texas doesn't guarantee financial stability in the Lone Star State's major cities. Earlier this year, SmartAsset determined single residents in Houston need to make about $90,000 to qualify as financially stable, while families of four need around $205,000.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.