1. How to use GuruFocus - Tutorials
  2. What Is in the GuruFocus Premium Membership?
  3. A DIY Guide on How to Invest Using Guru Strategies
Brian Flores
Brian Flores
Articles (126)  | Author's Website |

Munger, Klarman and Buffett on EBITDA

May 15, 2015

I was reviewing some of my notes and ran across some of the quotes that I have highlighted regarding commonly used metrics, such as EBITDA, for valuation purposes.

Before going into the direct quotes, here are the main takeaways that are relevant for us as investors.

  • Depreciation is a cash expense that is paid up on front
  • Interests and taxes are very real expenses and should be taken into account
  • Capital expenditures are required for any on-going business. These are hard to predict but necessary to consider

Warren Buffett (Trades, Portfolio) mentioned the following:

“It [depreciation] is reverse float — you lay out money before you get cash. Any management that doesn’t regards depreciation as an expense is living in a dream world, but they’re encouraged to do so by bankers. Many times, this comes close to a flim flam game. People want to send me books with EBITDA and I say fine, as long as you pay cap ex. There are very few businesses that can spend a lot less than depreciation and maintain the health of the business. This is nonsense. It couldn’t be worse. But a whole generation of investors have been taught this. It’s not a non-cash expense — it’s a cash expense but you spend it first. It’s a delayed recording of a cash expense. We at Berkshire are going to spend more this year on cap ex than we depreciate.”

Charlie Munger (Trades, Portfolio), as usual, provides great wisdom with just a few words:

“I think that, every time you saw the word EBITDA [earnings], you should substitute the word “bullshit” earnings. People who use EBITDA are either trying to con you or they’re conning themselves. Telecoms, for example, spend every dime that’s coming in. Interest and taxes are real costs.”

And Klarman mentioned the following in Margin of Safety:

“It is not clear why investors suddenly came to accept EBITDA as a measure of corporate cash flow. EBIT did not accurately measure the cash flow from a company‘s ongoing income stream. Adding back 100% of depreciation and amortization to arrive at EBITDA rendered it even less meaningful. Those who used EBITDA as a cash-flow proxy, for example. Either ignored capital expenditures or assumed that businesses would not make any, perhaps believing that plant and equipment do not wear out. In fact, many leveraged takeovers of the 1980s forecast steadily rising cash flows resulting partly from anticipated sharp reductions in capital expenditures. Yet the reality is that if adequate capital expenditures are not made, a corporation is extremely unlikely to enjoy a steadily increasing cash flow and will instead almost certainly face declining results.

It is not easy to determine the required level of capital expenditures for a given business. Businesses invest in physical plant and equipment for many reasons: to remain in business, to compete, to grow, and to diversify. Expenditures to stay in business and to compete are absolutely necessary. Capital expenditures required for growth are important but not usually essential, while expenditures made for diversification are often not necessary at all. Identifying the necessary expenditures requires intimate knowledge of a company, information typically available only to insiders. Since detailed capital-spending information was not readily available to investors, perhaps they simply chose to disregard it.”

About the author:

Brian Flores
"I constantly see people rise in life who are not the smartest, sometimes not even the most diligent, but they are learning machines. They go to bed every night a little wiser than they were when they got up and boy does that help, particularly when you have a long run ahead of you." - Charlie Munger

Visit Brian Flores's Website

Rating: 4.9/5 (13 votes)



Thomas Macpherson
Thomas Macpherson premium member - 4 years ago

Excellent post Brian. We pound the table against using EBITA as a valuation tool but don't seem to find many like minds in the investment field. Along with pro forma earnings, we think EBITA has skewed the way investors look at companies and how they value them. While we are not a fan, I suppose it's better for us that so many take the opposite view from Buffett, Munger and Klarman. Thanks again. Best - Tom

AlbertaSunwapta - 4 years ago    Report SPAM

EBITDA (and EV/EBITDA) is more of a catalyst or momentum tool than a business valuation tool. That doesn't mean it's not useful. If a company looks at low EV/EBITDA takeover candidates and this triggers a buy out or if the majority of brokers use it and it triggers price increases then that can be useful and profitable.

Analyzing Valuation Measures: A Performance Horse-Race Over the Past 40 Years

Wesley R. Gray, Alpha Architect; Drexel University - LeBow College of Business and Jack Vogel, Alpha Architect; Drexel University, March 29, 2012, Journalof Portfolio Management, Forthcoming




Maxan - 4 years ago    Report SPAM

What's worse than EBITDA is the use of non-GAAP figures in corporate disseminations. If Munger calls EBITDA bullshit, I can only imagine what he calls non-GAAP figures.

Please leave your comment:

Performances of the stocks mentioned by Brian Flores

User Generated Screeners

pascal.van.garsseHigh FCF-M2
kosalmmuseBest one1
DBrizanall 2019Feb26
kosalmmuseBest one
DBrizanall 2019Feb25
MsDale*52-Week Low
Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
/* */