SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : James Cramer -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RockyBalboa who wrote (710)9/17/2000 8:56:43 PM
From: StockDung  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 766
 
Here is a good one from the Street.coms web site. Even though Herb Green (A writer who I admire) wrote a few articles warning of the dangers inherent in overreliance on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) this is what there goal for the year 2001 is on the investor relations page at TheStreet.com. Maybe Cramer missed that article?

"Goal: EBITDA positive in US operations in second half 2001"
thestreet.com

Digging Deeper into the Problems of EBITDA
By Herb Greenberg
Senior Columnist
6/9/00 6:29 AM ET
An item here yesterday mentioned a report by Pamela Stumpp of Moody's that warned of the dangers inherent in overreliance on earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) as a measure of a company's financial performance (something this column has been railing about for years).
thestreet.com

More Reasons to Be Leery of EBITDA
By Herb Greenberg
Senior Columnist
6/8/00 6:29 AM ET

I've written here and in Fortune about why you should be extra careful of companies that steer investors toward earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (a.k.a. EBITDA) rather than earnings (or in the cases of most of those companies, losses). That's not to say there aren't legitimate reasons to rely on EBITDA for analytical purposes, especially for companies that spend heavily on building a fixed infrastructure, such as cable. (And even then, it's debatable.)
thestreet.com