Normally, investors focus on cash flow, net income, and revenues as the basic measures of corporate health and value. But over the years, another measure has crept into quarterly reports and accounts: earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA). While investors can use EBITDA to analyze and compare profitability between companies and industries, they should understand that there are serious limits to what the metric can tell them about a company. Here we look at why this measure has become so popular and why, in many cases, it should be treated with caution.
Key Takeaways
- Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) is a metric that measures a company’s overall financial performance.
- In the mid-1980s, investors began to use EBITDA to determine if a distressed company would be able to pay back the interest on a leveraged buyout deal.
- EBITDA is now commonly used to compare the financial health of companies and to evaluate firms with different tax rates and depreciation policies.
- Among its drawbacks, EBITDA is not a substitute for analyzing a company’s cash flow and can make a company look like it has more money to make interest payments than it really does.
- EBITDA also ignores the quality of a company’s earnings and can make it look cheaper than it really is.
EBITDA: A Quick Review
EBITDA is a measure of profits. While there is no legal requirement for companies to disclose their EBITDA, according to the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), it can be worked out using the information found in a company’s financial statements.
The usual shortcut to calculate EBITDA is to start with operating profit, also called earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), and then add back depreciation and amortization. However, an easier and more straightforward formula for calculating EBITDA is as follows:
E
B
I
T
D
A
=
N
P
+
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
+
T
a
x
e
s
+
D
+
A
where:
N
P
=
N
e
t
p
r
o
f
i
t
D
=
D
e
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
A
=
A
m
o
r
t
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
\begin{aligned} &EBITDA = NP + Interest + Taxes + D + A \\ &\textbf{where:}\\ &NP = \text{\small Net profit}\\ &D = \text{\small Depreciation}\\ &A = \text{\small Amortization}\\ \end{aligned}
EBITDA=NP+Interest+Taxes+D+Awhere:NP=Net profitD=DepreciationA=Amortization
The earnings, tax, and interest figures are found on the income statement, while the depreciation and amortization figures are normally found in the notes to operating profit or on the cash flow statement.
Should You Ignore EBITDA?
The Rationale Behind EBITDA
EBITDA first came to prominence in the mid-1980s as leveraged buyout investors examined distressed companies that needed financial restructuring. They used EBITDA to calculate quickly whether these companies could pay back the interest on these financed deals.
Leveraged buyout bankers promoted EBITDA as a tool to determine whether a company could service its debt in the near term, say over a year or two. Looking at the company’s EBITDA-to-interest coverage ratio could give investors a sense of whether a company could meet the heavier interest payments it would face after restructuring.
The use of EBITDA has since spread to a wide range of businesses. Its proponents argue that EBITDA offers a clearer reflection of operations by stripping out expenses that can obscure how the company is really performing.
Easily Understood Financial Health of a Company
Interest, which is largely a function of management’s choice of financing, is ignored in EBITDA. Taxes are left out because they can vary widely depending on acquisitions and losses in prior years; this variation can distort net income. Finally, EBITDA removes the arbitrary and subjective judgments that can go into calculating depreciation and amortization, such as useful lives, residual valuesand various depreciation methods.
By eliminating these items, EBITDA makes it easier to compare the financial health of various companies. It is also useful for evaluating firms with different capital structurestax rates, and depreciation policies. EBITDA further gives investors a sense of how much money a young or restructured company might generate before it has to hand over payments to creditors and the taxman.
All the same, one of the biggest reasons for EBITDA’s popularity is that it shows higher profit numbers than just operating profits. It has become the metric of choice for highly leveraged companies in capital-intensive industries such as cable and telecommunications.
The Drawbacks
While EBITDA may be a widely accepted indicator of performance, using it as a single measure of earnings or cash flow can be very misleading. A company can make its financial picture more attractive by touting its EBITDA performance, shifting investors’ attention away from high debt levels and unsightly expenses against earnings. In the absence of other considerations, EBITDA provides an incomplete and dangerous picture of financial health. Here are four good reasons to be wary of EBITDA.
No Substitute for Cash Flow
Some analysts and journalists urge investors to use EBITDA as a measure of cash flow. This advice is illogical and hazardous for investors. For starters, taxation and interest are real cash items, and, therefore, they’re not at all optional. A company that does not pay its government taxes or services its loans will not stay in business for long.
Unlike proper measures of cash flow, EBITDA ignores changes in working capitalthe cash needed to cover day-to-day operations. This is most problematic in cases of fast-growing companies, which require increased investment in receivables and inventory to convert their growth into sales. Those working capital investments consume cash, but they are neglected by EBITDA.
Even if a company just breaks even on an EBITDA basis, it will not generate enough cash to replace the basic capital assets used in the business. Treating EBITDA as a substitute for cash flow can be dangerous because it gives investors incomplete information about cash expenses.
Skews Interest Coverage
EBITDA can easily make a company look like it has more money to make interest payments. Consider a company with $10 million in operating profits and $15 million in interest charges. By adding back depreciation and amortization expenses of $8 million, the company suddenly has EBITDA of $18 million and appears to have enough money to cover its interest payments.
Depreciation and amortization are added back based on the flawed assumption that these expenses are avoidable. Even though depreciation and amortization are non-cash items, they can’t be postponed indefinitely. Equipment inevitably wears out and funds will be needed to replace or upgrade it.
Ignores Quality of Earnings
While subtracting interest payments, tax charges, depreciation, and amortization from earnings may seem simple enough, different companies use different earnings figures as the starting point for EBITDA. In other words, EBITDA is susceptible to the earnings accounting methods found on the income statement. Even if you account for the distortions that result from interest, taxation, depreciation, and amortization, the earnings figure in EBITDA is still unreliable.
Makes Companies Look Cheaper Than They Are
Worst of all, EBITDA can make a company look less expensive than it really is. When analysts look at stock price multiples of EBITDA rather than bottom-line earnings, they produce lower multiples.
A company may trade at what appears to be a low multiple to its forecast EBITDA, making it appear to be a bargain. However, when comparing that same company using other multiples—such as operating profits or estimated net income—that same company may trade at much higher multiples. To gain a complete picture of a company’s valuation, investors need to consider other price multiples besides EBITDA when assessing a company’s worth.
The Bottom Line
Despite its widespread use, EBITDA isn’t defined in generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. As a result, companies can report EBITDA as they wish. The problem with doing this is that EBITDA doesn’t give a complete picture of a company’s performance. In many cases, investors may be better off avoiding EBITDA or using it in conjunction with other, more meaningful metrics.