nanog mailing list archives
Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects]
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil () semihuman com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 12:08:32 -0400
The main fallacy of EBITDA is that a lot of people confuse EBIDTA figures with cash flow figures. While the utility of a quarterly figure showing cash flow P&L, stripping off all noncash transactions, would be substantial, most companies prefer to quote EBIDTA instead, which, while disregarding all noncash figures, also removes interest and taxes as well, both of which are very much recurring cash expenditures and should be included in cash-flow P&L figures. In the absence of a cash-flow P/L figure, a lot of people look at EBITDA instead and forget about the very real cash expenditures involved with interest and taxes (and often other case expenditures that the company chooses to throw out in order to make the number look better). Intermedia, for example, was EBITDA positive for all of the time I was working for them, yet was bleeding approx. $100 million plus in interest payments per year. This created a very real cash crunch that prompted the sale to Worldcom. -C On Sat, May 18, 2002 at 06:09:56PM -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Mike Leber wrote:press releases regarding their other choices, or perhaps considering whether the companies they consider alternatives are EBITDA postive (making a profit, or in otherwords will exist in 12 months) today (not in an imaginary planned future) or for the few that are EBITDA positive, whether they actually seem to want your business."EBITDA positive" does not mean profitable, or even necessarily financially stable. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amoritization -- all things that tend to have an impact on your finances. If you were using EBITDA as the measure of your personal financial situation, you could spend far more than your after tax income, but less than your before tax income, and declare yourself to have come out ahead. Your bank, however, probably wouldn't see it that way. The same goes for corporate finance, except that the corporations that were announcing their EBITDA numbers as the important financial data often had enough in the bank, and enough market cap, that it didn't become a critical problem for a few years. My understanding is that EBITDA does have legitimate accounting uses, but I'm not clear on what they are. I'm tempted to label this message as off-topic nitpicking, but given that the biggest problem with Internet stability at the moment seems to be financial, I'm not sure it is. -Steve -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Gibbard scg () gibbard org
Attachment:
_bin
Description:
Current thread:
- Interconnects Iljitsch van Beijnum (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects ren (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Ralph Doncaster (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Alex Rubenstein (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Mike Leber (May 18)
- EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Steve Gibbard (May 18)
- Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Mike Leber (May 18)
- Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Paul Vixie (May 18)
- Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Chris Woodfield (May 20)
- Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Valdis . Kletnieks (May 20)
- Re: EBITDA [was Re: Interconnects] Brian (May 20)
- Re: Interconnects Ralph Doncaster (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Mitch Halmu (May 18)
- Re: Interconnects ren (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects ren (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects todd glassey (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Scott Granados (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Mitch Halmu (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Stephen J. Wilcox (May 17)
- Re: Interconnects Valdis . Kletnieks (May 17)