RE:Questions for Teflon2Hype and followers of this boardKeith your post is totally out of context. I was responding to yet another poster who believes you can value a company based on some multiple of EBITDA.
No one (Including myself ) has any problem with secondary tools for the purpose of sub-analysis of how numbers originated or are influenced. That is a far cry from pretending that these secondary tools can be used to determine value a company...and that is what the poster that I was responding to tried to do.
As far as your list goes I am more than happy without any proof of any kind to accept that those companies mentioned secondary tools for sub-analysis in published documents, as long as you show me how many of them used EBITDA as a method to try to value their company?
Keith, the issue is not use, it is abuse. Let me give you an example. Is a kitchen knife a good tool or a bad tool? Well it all depends if it is going to be used for it's intended purpose. Do you plan on slicing a tomato with it, or your spouse? Now lets talk about using numbers with no reference point. Is 5 feet high or low? Well it is high if we are talking about the height of a wall that is standing between a frog and the pond that they are trying to get to, but it is also pretty darn low if the discussion is about the cruising altitude of a jetliner. So no one can say if 5 feet is high or low if you do not have the necessary framework for the discussion laid out beforehand. Is that fair?
I can say that niether myself, Warren, Charlie, Moodies, the SEC and on and on have any problem with people using such things for secondary analysis of stated GAAP and IFRS numbers, but we all have a real problem with people that try to use EBITDA to replace them (Conning).
Now Keith before you say that Peter does state the real numbers, then let me remind you that government organizations have cracked down on these press releases that try to pawn off EBITDA as their homemade accounting standard for reporting their performance. Peter does not have much of a choice in the matter other than to at least mention those numbers that paint an accurate picture of a company's real performance.
To that point my question to you is, would Peter avoid the real numbers if he was once again allowed to? Before you answer that, realize that Investor information presentations are not cover by the government choker. Now go check your own and see if you can find anything other than EBITDA or skewed numbers derived from EBITDA. Is there anything anywhere about their projected breakeven point? Profit? EPS projections? PE? PEG? etc etc? You know, all the things that any real savvy investor needs to know and wants discussed...Or is it all sugar coated "bullshit" for the rube kiddies? Why do you think that is?
Now check anyone on that gross overkill list that you gave. Do their investor presentations look like yours? I don't think so.
Same general point made yet once again...Now the point of ad nausium....but the Little Johnnys will never give up trying to get to that cookie jar.