bookie71 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm still watching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm still in. I think they were hoarding money for debt conditions/ any fine from the investigation. So far nothing has come out of investigation, so I think the mgmt feels confident in releasing money. I hope they will buyback a ton of shares at this price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enoch01 Posted February 5, 2014 Share Posted February 5, 2014 I'm watching it for the comedic value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Class Action (fueled by Copperfield's allegations on SeekingAlpha) settled for $6M: http://www.faruqilaw.com/news/show/id/93 http://www.faruqilaw.com/get_file.php?id=0660feec41ab30a9277bc59ef19caa56486 -------------- EBIX had ~$38M Cash at the end of Q3 2013 compared to $57M as of December 31, 2013. That's $20M increase in cash in a quarter after netting out debt reduction and any buybacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140206-912722.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This is legal extortion. Looks like all the articles were to extract money from Ebix. But I think it is good that Ebix has settled and should move on. The share price has already moved from $8 to $14. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blainehodder Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 This is legal extortion. Looks like all the articles were to extract money from Ebix. But I think it is good that Ebix has settled and should move on. The share price has already moved from $8 to $14. Agreed. Anything to stlow down the legal fees. The settlement is a bargain from that perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaceliacapital Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Guys, I examined the business case a couple of months ago but just one quick question as I am apaprently suffering a little bit of Alzheimer, is this the main litigation which they now settled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie71 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 AND as usual the attorneys will get a huge chunk of the settlement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 Guys, I examined the business case a couple of months ago but just one quick question as I am apaprently suffering a little bit of Alzheimer, is this the main litigation which they now settled? As far as litigation, yes. But the attorney general's investigation regarding "intentional misconduct" hasn't had any recent updates which means it's still open. But then again, the investigation was "brought to (Attorney General's) attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit against the Company's directors and officers, the media and other sources" - which is the the same lawsuit that we're talking about here. I've said it before and I still think it makes sense - if there was a blatant fraud going on at EBIX why would it take so many months for the government to take any action? Why wouldn't EBIX have shut down by now? Why wouldn't have clients fled? How would EBIX's cash position increase by $20M in 1 quarter? Why would Raina feel safe to reinstate a dividend? You could argue - why isn't EBIX buying back stock hand over fist? I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Raina has a good justification for it but that reason doesn't automatically mean it's a fraud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 it takes time to do an investigation. the market is certainly still skeptical given the stock is trading way below the busted deal price and about where it traded 5 years ago. and I agree with you. It's strange he isn't buying any stock back even as he authorized a $100m program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Guys, I examined the business case a couple of months ago but just one quick question as I am apaprently suffering a little bit of Alzheimer, is this the main litigation which they now settled? You could argue - why isn't EBIX buying back stock hand over fist? I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Raina has a good justification for it but that reason doesn't automatically mean it's a fraud. Raina addressed that in the last conference call, There were no buy backs and dividends because of lending covenants to maintain certain financial ratios. http://www.ebix.com/investors/Inv_call_13_Q3.mp3 (listen to it from 22:30 ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Vanguard joins the party - http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102909/000093247114003738/ebixinc.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wellmont Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Guys, I examined the business case a couple of months ago but just one quick question as I am apaprently suffering a little bit of Alzheimer, is this the main litigation which they now settled? You could argue - why isn't EBIX buying back stock hand over fist? I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Raina has a good justification for it but that reason doesn't automatically mean it's a fraud. Raina addressed that in the last conference call, There were no buy backs and dividends because of lending covenants to maintain certain financial ratios. http://www.ebix.com/investors/Inv_call_13_Q3.mp3 (listen to it from 22:30 ) but why did they buy a lot of stock at higher prices the year before and why did he authorize a $100m plan if he couldn't execute it? and why does a company supposedly spitting out tons of FCF have to worry about violating lending covenants? No need to answer. the fullness of time will reveal all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Up almost 8% on no apparent news, trapping many shorts who shorted below this price. Still almost 14 million shares short - http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ebix/short-interest with days-to-cover approaching 39 days. What will happen if/when the investigation is settled without crippling EBIX? When the market realizes that EBIX actually generates real cash and Raina isn't a Madoff? Suddenly all those that were waiting on sidelines will rush to buy the stock and shorts will rush to cover. But who will sell at that point? All the fickle/weak hands have been eliminated from EBIX at this point (thanks to the multiple short attacks and bad headlines) and the current holders will hold until a price they feel compensates them for all the pain they've endured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mankap Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 May be the news of another settlement is leaking out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 May be the news of another settlement is leaking out Would NOT surprise me, because Raina would only reinstate the dividend if he that the outstanding issues were handled. Up over 10% now. The longs are reclaiming the lost ground from the shorts! Here we go! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vish_ram Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 This is like fairfax coming out of the shadows years back. sweet. we still have a long way to go. the shorts are not going to give up easily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Guys, I examined the business case a couple of months ago but just one quick question as I am apaprently suffering a little bit of Alzheimer, is this the main litigation which they now settled? You could argue - why isn't EBIX buying back stock hand over fist? I don't know the answer to that but I'm sure Raina has a good justification for it but that reason doesn't automatically mean it's a fraud. Raina addressed that in the last conference call, There were no buy backs and dividends because of lending covenants to maintain certain financial ratios. http://www.ebix.com/investors/Inv_call_13_Q3.mp3 (listen to it from 22:30 ) but why did they buy a lot of stock at higher prices the year before and why did he authorize a $100m plan if he couldn't execute it? and why does a company supposedly spitting out tons of FCF have to worry about violating lending covenants? No need to answer. the fullness of time will reveal all! Even at those high prices the stock was undervalued, so ebix bought back the stock. For no buybacks even after authorization, I think the lending covenants may have included some ratios related to equity and not FCF. When the stock hit 8, the equity ratios would have been very close to breaking. What was the guarantee that Greg Farrell would not have written another article connecting Raina to Mexican drug cartels and taken the stock to 3 ? I think thats why he opted to repay debt. Just because he did not buyback stock it does not mean he did not create value by paying debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 An intraday high of $17.18/share! Hard to believe that EBIX, not too long ago, was apparently "Worth No More Than $8, Likely Headed To $0." Some heads even believed it, selling at the bottom of $8.21. Panic was rampant and just about everything that could have gone wrong, did go wrong. There was no denying that FCF was real and none of the issues were irreparable. But did anyone care about the veracity of cash flow? The seminal point about Raina having opted to INCREASE his stake rather than cash out in a GS buyout didn't matter. But tell me this - In a panic, who cares about fundamentals? Not many, just like not many care about risk in a euphoria. Even when subsequent earnings reports confirmed that clients weren't fleeing and EBIX wasn't losing business, no one dared to care. Yes, when shares are trading at 20% FCF yield and the company isn't losing clients, it means something. But did EBIX launder money? Was Raina a crook? Who was Rennes foundation and why was it based in Lichtenstein? Wasn't Rennes foundations' lack of disclosure troublesome? Did Raina's charity fudge numbers? This is far from over and still too early to toot one's horn but I think we're past the point where people are starting to doubt EBIX's existence. Those who've bought from the despondent sellers have profited very, very well. Even at these prices, I wish EBIX would buyback its stock rather than let shorts buy it to cover their position. I really do want shorts to feel that the GS buyout price was "cheap." Now, THAT would be poetic justice. EBIX's investment case study fits so perfectly to Dr. Mike Burry's Avanti's investment - it's uncanny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Even at those high prices the stock was undervalued, so ebix bought back the stock. For no buybacks even after authorization, I think the lending covenants may have included some ratios related to equity and not FCF. When the stock hit 8, the equity ratios would have been very close to breaking. What was the guarantee that Greg Farrell would not have written another article connecting Raina to Mexican drug cartels and taken the stock to 3 ? I think thats why he opted to repay debt. Just because he did not buyback stock it does not mean he did not create value by paying debt. Agree. That's the problem with all the safety measures though. Their importance isn't appreciated until one sees someone else get into trouble over the same thing. ie: You won't truly appreciate the value of fire insurance until you see your neighbor lose everything in a fire and learn that he didn't buy fire insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Stock down 5.2% when Seekingalpha rehashes a 1 year old article! Is it related to the 10,000 $12 March put purchase yesterday? Or the fact that this is the last day before options expiration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Stock down 5.2% when Seekingalpha rehashes a 1 year old article! Is it related to the 10,000 $12 March put purchase yesterday? Or the fact that this is the last day before options expiration? If history has taught us anything, it's that you can expect that every single time the stock goes up a fair amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siddharth18 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Stock down 5.2% when Seekingalpha rehashes a 1 year old article! Is it related to the 10,000 $12 March put purchase yesterday? Or the fact that this is the last day before options expiration? If history has taught us anything, it's that you can expect that every single time the stock goes up a fair amount. Seriously, how does this not raise eyebrows at the SEC? The options expiration date is tomorrow. 10,000 short-term out of the money puts changed yesterday. And today, the stock drops off the cliff even before SeekingAlpha posts the rehash. How is this not front-running? How is this not suspect? How is this legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Seriously, how does this not raise eyebrows at the SEC? The options expiration date is tomorrow. 10,000 short-term out of the money puts changed yesterday. And today, the stock drops off the cliff even before SeekingAlpha posts the rehash. How is this not front-running? How is this not suspect? How is this legal? Maybe if they had the all-seeing eye of Sauron, but I doubt it's on their radar. 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