RE:RE:RE:Phantom menace strikes againThere is no formal definition of adjusted ebitda, generally this is set by the company. I don't use Ebitda in my analysis, however your point is importnant because alot of lazy analysts don't spend much time crunching the numbers and just use the ones provided by the company. A good analyst will crunch the numbers and often use their own definition to be consistent from company to company.
lscfa wrote: Co. removed swings in unrealized warrant liabilities from adj. ebitda calc (See image). It should do the same for unrealized changes in fair value of phantom stock plan liability.
lscfa wrote:
I believe the answer is it is buried in the line item called: net change in working capital, decrease to accrued liabilities
This understates the cash flow from operations no. and by not adding it back to adjusted ebitda that no is understated too.
In the June 2020 qtr a $3.6 million Covid grant was not subtracted from the adj. ebitda calc., overstating it and making comp with the upcoming Jun 2021 qtr look worse than it really is.
These bozos need to try harder at calculating adj ebitda so that it reflects economic reality and provides a better picture of what can be expected going forward under normalized conditions.
lscfa wrote:
Any forensic accountants out there?
Included in SG&A this qtr is $2.465 million of phantom stock expense but no cash was paid out. It was all due to a change in the fair value of the plan. Why does this non-cash item not appear as an add back on the cash flow statement? Why isn’t this non-cash item included in the calc. for adjusted ebitda like other stock compensation is?
| Qtr ending | SG&A | Phantom exp | adj ebitda (reported) |
| Mar 21 | 14,509 | 2,465 | 5,468 |
| Dec 20 | 12,274 | 185 | 9,458 |
| Sept 20 | 13,550 | 459 | 7,720 |
| Jun 20 | 16,428 | 4,308 | 16,287 |
| Mar 20 | 10,577 | (697) | 7,869 |
| Dec19 | 10,174 | 428 | 5,569 |
| Sep19 | 10,231 | 1,054 | 4,883 |