On Mon, 20 May 2002 12:08:32 EDT, Chris Woodfield said:
Intermedia, for example, was EBITDA positive for all of the time I was working for
them, yet was bleeding approx. $100 million plus in interest payments per year.
This created a very real cash crunch that prompted the sale to Worldcom.
I
My take on ebitda, it is what non profitable companies use to put a
positive spin on their situation.
Bri
On Mon, 20 May 2002, Chris Woodfield wrote:
The main fallacy of EBITDA is that a lot of people confuse EBIDTA figures with cash
flow figures. While the utility of a quarterly
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Mike Leber wrote:
press releases regarding their other choices, or perhaps considering
whether the companies they consider alternatives are EBITDA postive
(making a profit, or in otherwords will exist in 12 months) today (not in
an imaginary planned future) or for the
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Steve Gibbard wrote:
EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily
financially stable. EBITDA is earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amoritization
Correct, however I was trying to provide a simplified translation.
A company that isn't
EBITDA positive does not mean profitable, or even necessarily
financially stable.
Right you are. So please let me clarify my earlier statement (that PAIX
has been modestly profitable for years). If we were not a wholly owned
subsidiary we would owe income taxes. When we have been wholly
