Methodological analysis of the incompatible EBITDA disclosed by companies listed on B3: identification of divergent variables in the conciliations
Purpose: To identify the variables responsible for the methodological divergences causing incompatibilities in the EBITDA disclosed by the companies listed on B3, related to errors in data collection and undue changes in the formula by the conciliation issuers. Methodology: Application of descriptiv...
Na minha lista:
| Principais autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | Online |
| Idioma: | eng |
| Publicado em: |
Portal de Periódicos Eletrônicos da UFRN
|
| Endereço do item: | https://periodicos.ufrn.br/ambiente/article/view/33069 |
| Tags: |
Adicionar Tag
Sem tags, seja o primeiro a adicionar uma tag!
|
| Resumo: | Purpose: To identify the variables responsible for the methodological divergences causing incompatibilities in the EBITDA disclosed by the companies listed on B3, related to errors in data collection and undue changes in the formula by the conciliation issuers.
Methodology: Application of descriptive statistics on a sample of 35 entities that disclosed the incompatible EBITDA for 2018, observing the behavior of the indicator's variables in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020.
Results: The most common cause of incompatibilities in EBITDA occurred when collecting data from the financial statements. The variable that most impacted erroneously calculated values was related to Depreciation, Depletion, and Amortization. It is concluded that, even with the standardization of the disclosure of EBITDA by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Brazil since 2012, errors in the calculation of this indicator are still common, which reinforces the need for practical studies that verify the conformity of these companies' non-GAAP disclosures.
Contributions of the Study: Considering that non-GAAP performance measures, such as EBITDA, are disseminated worldwide among investors and analysts to analyze companies results, such measures are at risk of error and manipulation by the issuers' managers. In this sense, the study contributed to the practical sphere because it demonstrated which errors companies effectively made when calculating and demonstrating their EBITDA conciliations. In addition, it bridges an academic gap concerning the methodology for calculating EBITDA, since even with the growing literature related to non-GAAP disclosures, the method of calculating the indicator has received low attention. |
|---|