The Great EBITDA Myth and Its Impact on Bankruptcy

By Ted Gavin, CTP, NCPM, Managing Director & Founding Partner

When evaluating a company’s financial health, EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization) often comes up as a primary measure. It’s widely promoted as an indicator of a company’s operating performance, free from the effects of financing and accounting decisions. However, for finance professionals, especially those involved in bankruptcy analysis, relying solely on EBITDA can be misleading. Let’s explore five critical reasons why EBITDA may not be the reliable measure it’s often touted to be.

1. EBITDA Makes Asset-Heavy Companies Look Healthier Than They Are

EBITDA excludes depreciation and amortization, which are non-cash but crucial expenses for asset-heavy companies. These companies may appear financially sound, but ignoring the wear and tear on their assets provides an incomplete picture. Depreciation reflects past capital expenditures and future asset replacement needs, which require cash or debt. Ignoring these can lead to overestimating a company’s operational health.

Key takeaway: Depreciation and amortization expenses offer insights into future cash needs for asset replacement, making them critical for evaluating a company’s long-term viability.

2. EBITDA Misrepresents Debt Service Capability

While EBITDA can indicate a company’s ability to service debt, it doesn’t account for the type and structure of that debt. For example, a company with $10 million in EBITDA might still struggle if its interest payments on senior secured debt are $12 million. This creates a misleading picture of financial stability, particularly for creditors lower in the debt hierarchy.

Key takeaway: EBITDA fails to provide a complete picture of a company’s debt service obligations, potentially leading to underestimation of financial risk.

3. EBITDA Ignores Working Capital Requirements

Positive EBITDA doesn’t necessarily mean a company has sufficient cash flow to meet its working capital needs. For instance, a retail chain might show positive EBITDA but still face cash shortages due to seasonal inventory purchases – and you can’t pay employees with amortization. This could necessitate borrowing, thereby increasing debt service costs or stretching payables, which could lead to liquidity issues.

Key takeaway: Working capital requirements are critical for maintaining operations, and EBITDA does not account for changes in working capital needs.

4. EBITDA Doesn’t Follow GAAP

EBITDA is not a GAAP-compliant measure, meaning it lacks the transparency and consistency of generally accepted accounting principles. Its manipulation can obscure a company’s true financial health. Some multi-location companies even go beyond EBITDA to EBITDAR (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation, Amortization, and Rent), further distorting financial reality by excluding significant operating expenses.

Key takeaway: Non-GAAP measures like EBITDA can be manipulated, reducing transparency and comparability across companies.

5. EBITDA Can Present Misleading Valuations

Relying on EBITDA for valuation can result in significantly different outcomes compared to other metrics. A company’s value based on EBITDA might be inflated compared to valuations based on revenue or gross profit. This discrepancy can lead to overvaluation and poor investment decisions, as evidenced by Moody’s report on the failings of EBITDA as a cash flow determinant.

Key takeaway: EBITDA should not be the sole basis for business valuation due to its potential for significant manipulation and overvaluation.

Conclusion

While EBITDA can provide some insights into a company’s operating performance, it’s far from a comprehensive measure. Finance professionals, especially those involved in bankruptcy analysis, should exercise caution and consider additional metrics for a more accurate assessment of financial health. Understanding the limitations of EBITDA can prevent overestimating a company’s viability and making misguided financial decisions.

By looking beyond EBITDA and incorporating a range of financial metrics, finance professionals can make more informed decisions and better evaluate a company’s true financial health.