EBITDA: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Back to School)

EBITDA is one of those terms that has received increased usage but usually for the wrong reason. This article will define it and discuss how it can be useful but also misleading.

EBITDA is fancy tax lingo for earnings before interest, taxes,depreciation, and amortization. It is calculated by taking operating income and adding back to it interest, depreciation and amortization expenses. EBITDA is used to analyze a company’s operating profitability before non-operating expenses (such as interest and “other” non-core expenses) and non-cash charges (depreciation and amortization).

The Good
EBITDA can be used to analyze the profitability between companies and industries. Because it eliminates the effects of financing and accounting decisions, EBITDA can provide a relatively good “apples-to-apples” comparison. For example, EBITDA as a percent of sales (the higher the ratio, the higher the profitability) can be used to find companies that are the most efficient operators in an industry.

The ratio can also be used to evaluate different industry trends over time. Because it removes the impact of financing large capital investments and depreciation from the analysis, EBITDA can be used to compare the profitability trends of, say, “heavy” industries (like automobile manufacturers) to hi-tech companies.

The new accounting rules that eliminate the amortization of goodwill, formally know as FAS 142, will bring operating income closer to EBITDA, but EBITDA will continue to be a better measure of core operating profitability.

The Bad
EBITDA is good metric to evaluate profitability but not cash flow. Unfortunately, however, EBITDA is often used as a measure of cash flow, which is a very dangerous and misleading thing to do because there is a significant difference between the two.

Operating cash flow is a better measure of how much cash a company is generating because it adds non-cash charges (depreciation and amortization) back to net income and includes the changes in working capital that also use/provide cash (such as changes in receivables, payables and inventories). These working capital factors are the key to determining how much cash a company is generating. If investors do not include changes in working capital in their analysis and rely solely on EBITDA, they will miss clues that indicate whether or not a company is losing money because it cannot sell its products!

The Ugly
It gets ugly when EBITDA is used as a key measure for making investment decisions. Because it is easier to calculate, EBITDA is often used as a headline metric in discussing a company’s results. This, however, could, as discussed above, misrepresent the true investment potential of a company because it does not accurately reflect a firm’s ability to generate cash.

To summarize the above,  EBITDA is a good measure to use to evaluate the core profit trends, but cash is king. EBITDA can be used to evaluate the profit potential between companies and industries because it eliminates some of the extraneous factors and allows a more “apples-to-apples” comparison. But EBITDA should not replace the measure of cash flow, which includes the significant factor of changes in working capital. Cash is king because it shows “true” profitability and a company’s ability to continue operations.

5 thoughts on “EBITDA: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly (Back to School)

  1. Hello Sandeep, Really useful article. Would like to add few points here that it EBITDA Multiple can be used by large companies having large assets or debt. It is of no use comparing small companies using this margin (Because of absence of debt financing or small assets). Thought it is good for comparison of companies, it will overstate income and using EBITDA multiples for valuation purpose can turn out to be dangerous (Also not taking working capital in effect is dangerous especially when it is negative). EBITDA can show loss making company as profit making company (as it adds back depreciation, interest, tax)

    Like

  2. Hi Sandy,

    I like your articles but in this case you should have cited your source, an article written by Ricard Wayman some years ago.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s