blainehodder Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 The lead director of the Rennes Foundation, which is based in Liechtenstein, is Rolf Herter, a Zurich attorney who is also a member of Ebix’s board of directors. The foundation owns 9.6 percent of Ebix’s stock, according to public records, which don’t identify the foundation’s owners. lichtenstein? lol. Agreed. That is humorous... but honestly, they own shares. They aren't the company. Who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 from EBIX.. http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/7269302-ebix-comments-on-false-and-inaccurate-assertions-in-bloomberg-article "Ebix confirmed that it has no business relationship or transactional relationship with any company affiliated with the Rennes Foundation, other than the investment in Ebix common stock by the Rennes Foundation" who is the rennes foundation? where are the details? The lead director of the Rennes Foundation, which is based in Liechtenstein, is Rolf Herter, a Zurich attorney who is also a member of Ebix’s board of directors. The foundation owns 9.6 percent of Ebix’s stock, according to public records, which don’t identify the foundation’s owners. lichtenstein? lol. lol. Equating uncertainty to risk is the hallmark of "short and distort" mentality. I just see everything differently, I suppose. At every single sentence uttered by the shorts, only one question remains in my mind - HOW WILL THIS IMPACT THE FUTURE CASH FLOWS OF THE COMPANY? And maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see Zurich or Lichtenstein ownership impacting the future cash flows of EBIX very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 Agreed. That is humorous... but honestly, they own shares. They aren't the company. Who cares? umm because it might point to fraud? did you read the bloomberg article? how can you read these articles and come away with a positive view of this situation? everything about it screams to me RUN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 I just see everything differently, I suppose. At every single sentence uttered by the shorts, only one question remains in my mind - HOW WILL THIS IMPACT THE FUTURE CASH FLOWS OF THE COMPANY? And maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see Zurich or Lichtenstein ownership impacting the future cash flows of EBIX very much. there might not be any fcf. it might be an "illusion". I would never trust the financials of this company. zurich, lichtenstein, panama. rennes invest in a long string of penny stocks that get delisted or go kaput. ebix was a penny stock that did two reverse splits and poof! it's no longer a penny stock. how does a family foundation invest that way? who would tolerate that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticdrew Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 The lead director of the Rennes Foundation, which is based in Liechtenstein, is Rolf Herter, a Zurich attorney who is also a member of Ebix’s board of directors. The foundation owns 9.6 percent of Ebix’s stock, according to public records, which don’t identify the foundation’s owners. lichtenstein? lol. umm because it might point to fraud? did you read the bloomberg article? how can you read these articles and come away with a positive view of this situation. everything about it screams to me RUN. Agreed. That is humorous... but honestly, they own shares. They aren't the company. Who cares? The article focuses on Rennes being potentially criminal. But what does that have to do with a company it owns shares in? It's like saying that any company that SAC owns a big position in is guilty of some crime because Cohen's firm bought stock in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 The article focuses on Rennes being potentially criminal. But what does that have to do with a company it owns shares in? It's like saying that any company that SAC owns a big position in is guilty of some crime because Cohen's firm bought stock in it. because the guy is on the ebix board. and it seems everything he invests in goes kaput. that's why I would be concerned. besides you focus on the latest piece of news. it's simply one more in a long string of negatives with this company. a very long string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysticdrew Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 The only reason I'm focusing on the latest news is because I've already considered the previous news and issues in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 This the latest article, but not the latest news. "As previously disclosed, the Company was notified that the U.S Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit against the Companys directors and officers, the media and other sources. The pending shareholder class action lawsuit and an SEC investigation involving the same subject matters as this lawsuit were previously disclosed by the Company in its periodic reports filed with the SEC." "Bloomberg chose to disregard these formal objections, relying instead on sourcing its allegations to unnamed sources, and refusing to state whether these sources were in fact plaintiffs in litigation against Ebix." from the article during "allegations of intentional misconduct", they asked one guy about money laundering. "In one of the interviews, the former executive said he was asked by the FBI whether he thought the transfer of funds constituted money laundering. " suddenly now it has become a money laundering issue and this "new" article is published just one week before earnings where ebix can not buy back stocks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFValue Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 This the latest article, but not the latest news. "As previously disclosed, the Company was notified that the U.S Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit against the Companys directors and officers, the media and other sources. The pending shareholder class action lawsuit and an SEC investigation involving the same subject matters as this lawsuit were previously disclosed by the Company in its periodic reports filed with the SEC." "Bloomberg chose to disregard these formal objections, relying instead on sourcing its allegations to unnamed sources, and refusing to state whether these sources were in fact plaintiffs in litigation against Ebix." from the article during "allegations of intentional misconduct", they asked one guy about money laundering. "In one of the interviews, the former executive said he was asked by the FBI whether he thought the transfer of funds constituted money laundering. " suddenly now it has become a money laundering issue and this "new" article is published just one week before earnings where ebix can not buy back stocks.. earnings are out in 2 days...fascinating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 If there was ever a company that needs to go private, this one is it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 there might not be any fcf. it might be an "illusion". Understanding that this statement is nonsense is basically my thesis. The company might have problems...but it is not in the cash flows. How can the cash flow be an illusion? As mentioned numerous times on this thread (see Edwards tables), if you add the cash inflows of the company from financing , and then add all outflows including cash takeovers, there is a large discrepency which must be filled with operating cash flow. Is it your conjecture that the owners on the other side of the EBIX acquisitions accepted magic illusion cash for their companies? Do you have any other possible explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 the last insider buy from rr was over 2 years ago at $17+. why no buying at $12? what better way to stick it to the shorts than by making millions when you prove them wrong! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 from EBIX.. http://seekingalpha.com/news-article/7269302-ebix-comments-on-false-and-inaccurate-assertions-in-bloomberg-article "Ebix confirmed that it has no business relationship or transactional relationship with any company affiliated with the Rennes Foundation, other than the investment in Ebix common stock by the Rennes Foundation" who is the rennes foundation? where are the details? This is from the bloomberg article. “Rennes Fondation is a discretionary family foundation. The foundation’s beneficiaries are not public. Not even the beneficiaries themselves have knowledge of their entitlement. Also, the beneficiaries do not have any enforceable claim of distribution against the foundation. Therefore, the beneficiaries will not be disclosed.” "The SEC tried to identify the sources of the Rennes Foundation’s funds in 2005" "Investigators from the SEC haven’t found any violations regarding the Rennes Foundation." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vish_ram Posted August 6, 2013 Share Posted August 6, 2013 I love the way wellmont thinks and argues; God bless his heart. wellmont has no answer for the excel that Edward produced , it showed the cash from debt, equity, operations etc and explained how ebix paid for this. wellmont will also not have any explanation this piece of data http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/1/3/6050591-13572419140717623-usinvestor_origin.png wellmont had no valid objections to what mankap explained in earlier posts IF you read his earlier posts, he gets confused between RRF and Rennes. They are different. Rennes was involved in Delphi days. I own some EBIX. I've met Raina twice. yet, there could be truth in what Greg is saying. There is a possibility that Ebix has some accounting irregularities. The question is, if SEC, FBI have done the investigations, why haven't they shut it down? Why would all Bloomberg article continually refer the three unnamed sources? I enjoy a rational discussion. we have them plenty in this board. But what I find annoying is the one liners like "fcf is an illusion" that is not backed by reasoning. Fact of the matter is, shorts are well connected, powerful. I will agree with wellmont on one thing. "only time will tell". I wrote this article a while back http://seekingalpha.com/article/1095511-understanding-ebixs-growth-strategy FFH, OSTK etc had a 7 year short attack. We may be in year 4. I'll dump my EBIX is any of allegations are found to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpectedValue Posted August 7, 2013 Share Posted August 7, 2013 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-06/ebix-said-to-be-reviewed-by-u-s-for-money-laundering.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 Q2: http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/08/09/565851/10044370/en/Ebix-Announces-Second-Quarter-2013-Results.html Conference call at 11 AM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ebix-announces-second-quarter-2013-113000375.html Beat on earnings with 35 cents. Missed on Revenues but are still growing at 9% y/y. -earnings include one time charges of the put option and also include escalated legal expenses. -Very disappointed with buybacks of $2.5M and 6M revolver payoff? What are they thinking? -Lastly I'll obviously be keeping an eye on the Op cash flow, which is lower for the quarter, but is generally volatile. One data point is nothing to be overly concerned with. I continue to like the risk/reward here at 6 times earnings and believe the farud allegations are without merit. Picked up a bit more this morning at 10.60. No brainer at 6 times earnings to me. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Share Repurchases: The Company purchased 250,900 shares of its common stock in June at an average price of $9.93 for an aggregate amount of $2.5 million . No shares have been purchased in Q3 2013. The Company currently has approximately $ 102.9 million remaining in its share repurchase authorization. so at a time when their stock collapses, they use 2% of their authorization and have made Zero repurchases in q3? they don't have the liquidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 I find the lack of buybacks very strange. Maybe they're about to close a big acquisition, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 Share Repurchases: The Company purchased 250,900 shares of its common stock in June at an average price of $9.93 for an aggregate amount of $2.5 million . No shares have been purchased in Q3 2013. The Company currently has approximately $ 102.9 million remaining in its share repurchase authorization. so at a time when their stock collapses, they use 2% of their authorization and have made Zero repurchases in q3? I agree. Even if acquisitions are on the table, what could be a bigger bargain than the stock? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 9, 2013 Author Share Posted August 9, 2013 I agree. Even if acquisitions are on the table, what could be a bigger bargain than the stock? Agreed. They might be prevented from buying before earnings and such, but that probably doesn't cover the whole period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 ebix: Made an acquisition at full price (During the quarter the Company continued to invest in the growth of the business with the purchase of Qatarlyst for $4.7 million,) , while it's own stock was selling at discount, or 6 x "earnings". Classic poor capital allocation if indeed it is earning what it says it is. ebix also spent more on Qatarlyst than it spent buying back it's own stock. classic example of a company that needs to "eat" others to survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 ebix: Made an acquisition at full price (During the quarter the Company continued to invest in the growth of the business with the purchase of Qatarlyst for $4.7 million,) , while it's own stock was selling at discount, or 6 x "earnings". Classic poor capital allocation if indeed it is earning what it says it is. ebix also spent more on Qatarlyst than it spent buying back it's own stock. The Qatarlyst acquisition was done before the stock fell off a cliff. Other than that I agree on the low buybacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1624642-ebix-management-discusses-q2-2013-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single my quick take: -the answer on the buybacks is pure garbage. I hate management speak, but basically I think they said they’d rather pay down the credit facilities first, then buyback stock. Morons. I’d use the credit facilities for the buybacks...basically the exact opposite. -sounds like they might be about to sign 1 or 2 huge deals in the 10-15M/year revenue range. This would be amazing. They only do deals at about 40% op margins. -the goldman explanation was terrible. -Raina doesn’t seem overly concerned with the lawsuits….or he is a good actor. -The growth seems far from over. 6 times earnings. Still seems like less than half price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted August 9, 2013 Share Posted August 9, 2013 that was a great interview by Jeff Van Rhee. But I didn't realize that's what conference calls were for? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now