Why do P/E multiples an EBITDA multiples yield different valuation results?
Stuck on this interview question that an interview asked me.
| +215 | Downfall of Qatalyst | 41 | 5h |
| +167 | UBS IB 26Q2 a Disaster! Advisory Revenue Down 23%, Capital MarketsDown 5% | 22 | 2d |
| +110 | UBS Americas IB: The Kids’ Table of Wall Street | 15 | 1h |
| +81 | Lincoln International Return Offers | 42 | 1d |
| +52 | so confused about 28 SA timeline | 27 | 5d |
| +44 | London IB BB is a challenge | 29 | 54m |
| +37 | momentum of Rx groups | 11 | 1d |
| +36 | Fired during interview | 6 | 5h |
| +33 | [WSO MODS] Please Delete This BS Host Books Spam! | 2 | 5d |
| +22 | Associate 3 in ECM - Worth Moving to Broader Advisory? | 8 | 1d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
A bunch of reasons, but the answer that the interviewer is probably looking for is "Leverage." P/E ignores leverage since it is an equity-based valuation, but EBITDA values the enterprise value. If you lever up a whole bunch to increase earnings, that doesn't actually increase the value of the company / asset, it just makes the earnings more volatile, indicating that the earnings should warrant a lower P/E multiple. So one should generally avoid P/E multiples since they are distorted by the effects of leverage and utilize an EBITDA multiple or some other multiple that gives enterprise value versus equity value.
I'd say "capital structure" not "leverage" because an excess of cash on the balance sheet (especially in a low rate environment) is also going to cause PE and EBITDA valuations to diverge.
Your answer also kind of suggests that debt is free, but it creates interest expense, which of course depresses EPS, until/unless the company is converting the debt to earnings at a rate in excess of the debt's cost.
(All that said, I realize this was a WSO comment, not a PhD dissertation).