You cannot call something earnings while ignoring the cost of debt, interest income, taxes, and replacing the assets required to produce the earnings, and that includes for
$GME.
Warren Buffet said: “People who use EBITDA are either trying to con you or they’re conning themselves… Interest and taxes are real costs.”
Charlie Munger said: “I think that, every time you see the word EBITDA, you should substitute the words ‘bullshit earnings.”
Interest (paid/earned) and taxes are real costs and/or income. In that sense, EBITDA can describe pre-financing operating output really well, but it is not an estimate of residual earnings to shareholders.
So to each their own, but this is how I value a company that has said their priority is capital allocation and inorganic growth. Yes, their operating income from the legacy business is great and some of recent their investment gains from the investment arm of the company aren’t recurring, but you can’t discount any and all recurring investment income by 100%*** in any legitimate model, specially since they have shown for multiple years now their ability to yield from their AUM.
Interest on treasuries don’t get a multiple, so you can disagree what you want but taking net income is overestimating the actual value