[Timesink]

Ha ha ha ha ha! I posted the same thing on another thread a couple of nights ago, and said "The SEC ought to ban publicly-traded companies from releasing EBITDA results." I got all sorts of flak about that telling me I was wrong and EBITDA is quite useful and meaningful; one guy snottily said, "It's obvious you're not a financial professional," blah blah Barbra Streisand blah. All the while I was watching dozens of people on CNBC say "EBITDA can literally be made up out of thin air," "it's meaningless crap," etc. And now this.

So please excuse me if I say to those Freepers: Nyah nyah!

There, I feel better. *grin*

[traditionalist]

The idea that the SEC should ban companies from releasing EBITDA has got to be one of the stupidest regulatory ideas I have ever heard.

Most companies don't report it anyway, and even if it were banned, it takes about two seconds to calculate: all you have to do is add depreciation and amortization back to operating income. What are you going to do next, ban anyone looking at a company's financial statements from calculating it?

Or wait, maybe you plan on banning the reporting of operating income and depreciation and amortization? How about allowing companies to disclose net income and nothing more, cause that's what you would have to do to stop people from looking at EBITDA.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

With all due respect, your post is ridiculous. Not let companies release EBITDA? Do you think companies should be able to release finanical statements? You do realize that all of the components of EBITDA are line items on the income statement, right? I learned long ago that it is best to keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking about. Just becasue an idiot at slate.com thinks EBITDA is worthless doesn't mean that your own argument has validity.