Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortization (EBITDA)
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
The financial performance from 2012 through 2016 is characterized by extreme volatility across all profitability metrics, with a pronounced cycle of growth, collapse, and marginal recovery.
- EBITDA Trend Analysis
- A significant fluctuation in EBITDA is observed over the five-year period. Following a decline from 6.55 billion USD in 2012 to 2.17 billion USD in 2013, there was a substantial surge in 2014, reaching a peak of 12.25 billion USD. This peak was followed by a severe downturn in 2015, where EBITDA plummeted to a negative 3.76 billion USD, before returning to a marginally positive 245.65 million USD by the end of 2016.
- Operational Profitability and Non-Cash Expenses
- A consistent gap exists between EBIT and EBITDA, indicating significant non-cash charges related to depreciation and amortization. In 2016, this divergence is particularly noteworthy; while EBITDA returned to positive territory, both EBIT and Earnings Before Tax (EBT) remained negative. This suggests that the recovery in EBITDA was not driven by a return to operational profitability, but rather by the accounting treatment of non-cash expenses relative to operating losses.
- Net Income Correlation
- Net income patterns closely mirror the volatility of EBITDA, particularly during the 2014 peak and the 2015 contraction. The transition from a net income of 7.52 billion USD in 2014 to a net loss of 4.36 billion USD in 2015 represents a critical shift in the company's financial position, aligning with the collapse seen in the EBITDA figures during the same timeframe.
- Recovery Analysis
- The results for 2016 indicate a stabilizing trend. Although the EBITDA of 245.65 million USD is significantly lower than the levels seen between 2012 and 2014, it represents a successful pivot away from the deep deficits experienced in 2015.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
Without a user account, I tend to respond rather slowly.
How can I help you?
Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio, Current
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | |
| Enterprise value (EV) | 41,958,614) |
| Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) | 245,647) |
| Valuation Ratio | |
| EV/EBITDA | 170.81 |
| Benchmarks | |
| EV/EBITDA, Competitors1 | |
| Accenture PLC | 11.68 |
| Adobe Inc. | 9.81 |
| AppLovin Corp. | 21.15 |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc. | 48.08 |
| Datadog Inc. | 331.59 |
| International Business Machines Corp. | 16.59 |
| Intuit Inc. | 13.45 |
| Microsoft Corp. | 20.03 |
| Oracle Corp. | 14.40 |
| Palantir Technologies Inc. | 241.54 |
| Palo Alto Networks Inc. | 203.74 |
| Salesforce Inc. | 14.27 |
| ServiceNow Inc. | 35.79 |
| Synopsys Inc. | 39.69 |
| Workday Inc. | 31.42 |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31).
1 Click competitor name to see calculations.
If the company EV/EBITDA is lower then the EV/EBITDA of benchmark then company is relatively undervalued.
Otherwise, if the company EV/EBITDA is higher then the EV/EBITDA of benchmark then company is relatively overvalued.
Enterprise Value to EBITDA Ratio, Historical
| Dec 31, 2016 | Dec 31, 2015 | Dec 31, 2014 | Dec 31, 2013 | Dec 31, 2012 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Selected Financial Data (US$ in thousands) | ||||||
| Enterprise value (EV)1 | 38,765,313) | 25,544,484) | 34,717,286) | 36,835,581) | 20,060,871) | |
| Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA)2 | 245,647) | (3,759,227) | 12,245,663) | 2,173,280) | 6,554,543) | |
| Valuation Ratio | ||||||
| EV/EBITDA3 | 157.81 | — | 2.84 | 16.95 | 3.06 | |
| Benchmarks | ||||||
| EV/EBITDA, Competitors4 | ||||||
| Accenture PLC | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Adobe Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| AppLovin Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cadence Design Systems Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Datadog Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| International Business Machines Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Intuit Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Microsoft Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Oracle Corp. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Palantir Technologies Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Palo Alto Networks Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Salesforce Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| ServiceNow Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Synopsys Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Workday Inc. | — | — | — | — | — | |
Based on: 10-K (reporting date: 2016-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2015-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2014-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2013-12-31), 10-K (reporting date: 2012-12-31).
3 2016 Calculation
EV/EBITDA = EV ÷ EBITDA
= 38,765,313 ÷ 245,647 = 157.81
4 Click competitor name to see calculations.
The financial period between 2012 and 2016 is characterized by extreme volatility in operational profitability and inconsistent valuation trends. While the enterprise value generally increased over the long term, the underlying earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization experienced severe fluctuations, including a transition into negative territory.
- Enterprise Value Trends
- The enterprise value demonstrated a non-linear growth pattern, rising from approximately $20.06 billion in 2012 to a peak of $38.77 billion in 2016. A significant contraction is observed in 2015, where the value dropped to $25.54 billion before rebounding sharply in the final year of the period.
- EBITDA Performance
- Operational earnings showed substantial instability. A decline from $6.55 billion in 2012 to $2.17 billion in 2013 was followed by a sharp increase to $12.25 billion in 2014. This peak was immediately followed by a collapse in 2015, resulting in a negative EBITDA of -$3.76 billion. By 2016, earnings returned to a positive but marginal level of $245.65 million.
- EV/EBITDA Ratio Analysis
- The EV/EBITDA ratio reflects the instability of the company's cash flow relative to its valuation. In 2012 and 2014, the ratios were relatively low at 3.06 and 2.84 respectively, indicating periods where the enterprise value was well-supported by earnings. However, the ratio spiked to 16.95 in 2013 and reached an outlier level of 157.81 in 2016. The 2016 ratio indicates a profound disconnect between the market valuation and actual operational performance, as the enterprise value remained high while EBITDA plummeted to near-zero levels.
AI Ask an analyst for more
Hi, I’m an AI-powered financial analyst at Stock Analysis on Net.
Without a user account, I tend to respond rather slowly.
How can I help you?