This study evaluates EBITDA as a financial performance measure and investigates the use of EBITDA in financial reporting. First, we take issue with recent comments that both the SEC and the IASB have levied against non-GAAP earnings numbers, and in particular EBITDA. While EBITDA allegedly provides an accurate reflection of the operations and abstracts from how assets are financed, we argue that (net) operating profit already provides this information without the necessity of making subjective adjustments. Also, our evidence suggests that EBITDA paints a rosy picture of the firm's profitability and cashgenerating ability. Next, using textual analysis, we investigate the prevalence of EBITDA in financial disclosures based on a large sample of 15,895 annual reports and 51,758 earnings releases from S&P 1500 firms between 2005 and 2016. We find that 14.8% of sample firms disclose and emphasize EBITDA numbers. EBITDA disclosures modestly increase over time and tend to be rather sticky in nature. In our cross-sectional analyses, we find that, consistent with our hypotheses, EBITDA-reporting firms are smaller, more leveraged, more capital-intensive, less profitable and have longer operating cycles than non-EBITDA reporting firms. They also exhibit higher forecast errors and a higher likelihood of missing the analyst forecast benchmark. Additional tests further underscore the opportunistic nature of EBITDA disclosures as we find that these firm characteristics are more strongly associated with the disclosure of adjusted EBITDA measures, and less strongly associated with the disclosure of EBITA and EBIT.
The timely flow of financial information is critical for efficient capital market functioning, yet we have little understanding of firms’ and auditors’ collective abilities to maintain timely financial reporting when under duress. We use COVID as a stress test case to examine whether reporting systems can withstand systemic increases in complex economic events and coordination challenges. Despite COVID-related challenges persisting through 2020 and beyond, we document surprisingly modest average delays in financial reports during COVID and only in Q1-2020. Reporting timeliness reverts to pre-COVID levels no later than Q2-2020. We find no evidence of meaningful declines in actual reporting quality during COVID, but we do find some evidence consistent with declines in perceived reporting quality. Overall, our findings indicate that current financial reporting processes are remarkably robust and provide insights about financial reporting more broadly. In particular, given that nearly all firms were able to weather the unprecedented disruptions caused by COVID, our findings imply that most material reporting delays observed outside of COVID are likely a result of either a firm’s strategic choices or exceptionally fragile reporting processes. This paper was accepted by Ranjani Krishnan, accounting. Supplemental Material: The data and online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4670 .
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.