> EBITDA itself is not the problem, but rather the calculation companies themselves use to derive it. Heh, I find it a bit difficult to consider it a useful m

> EBITDA itself is not the problem, but rather the calculation companies themselves use to derive it. Heh, I find it a bit difficult to consider it a useful measure, when (as you point out) you have to immediately clarify how it's calculated. It's like me saying "I'm a world champion sprinter" and then mumbling "as measured by positions in races between my desk and the downstairs loo". There are contexts for specialist use, but overall I'd avoid it. The article was referring to more general business use - PR & investment - I guess another situation where profitability comes up is candidates discussing whether an organisation they might join is profitable. I would argue that if someone uses EBITDA then it indicates that you should be asking lot more hard questions. Not that it's even the worse, as the article points out - my broader point is that every era comes up with new pet terms and ways of manipulating them for PR.