i'm pretty sure i made it clear that my point on EBITDA versus "traditional" cash flow is specific to large corporate credits (and even more so for CBG). for smaller companies that don't have easy access to the capital markets (ability to sell stock, issue bonds, etc..), you need to use the traditional cash flow analysis.
as i said before, if this traditional cash flow analysis was so important, why does every large loan from a bank (say $100 million or more) have covenants using EBITDA ? why does every buyout firm and/or major investor (like paulson in CBG) use EBITDA to value their acquisition and/or investment target ?
another company in the news alot is LVS. i'm long on that one (i bought jan 2011 $15 calls and sold jan 2011 $25 calls). LVS has some real assets (hotels/casinos) unlike CBG but it is also "governed" by EBITDA and "owned" by its lenders.