EBIX - Ebix Inc

[twacowfca]

Not surprised by the high short interest given the number of red flags: weak auditor, auditor change, frequent acquisitions can be used to distort cash flow sustainability, reports of poor internal controls. These are all items that were pointed out by Kerrisdale. Still valid flags though IMO. Sure there are other items I'm missing too.

 

That's what makes this a great opportunity. The 'first glance' story looks like what you just said, but if you actually dig into each of those, it looks different, and what will matter in the end is not the 'first glance' look of things but the actual fundamentals.

 

It reminds me of a quote by I don't remember who: "I like things where the 1 hour complicated explanation of a stock is dramatically different than the 30 second explanation." (the reason for that of course is because it allows you to get an edge over those who won't dig deeper)

 

Personally, I've been satisfied with what I found doing my due diligence, and EBIX is my biggest position. Time will tell...

 

 

One thing to look for to separate the borderline frauds who play the serial acquisition game from acquirers who make good deals is to see what happens to the economic value of the acquired companies after acquisition.  This isn't always easy to do if the results of the acquirees are consolidated.  One way to look through the financial statements to spot the frauds is to see if there is a pattern of overpaying for acquisitions with large performance based contingent value payments that are then written off and counted as GAPP income in future years when acquirees don't meet the stated performance criteria. 

 

Thus a fraudulent serial acquirer might buy a company for a stated price of say $30M, $20M to be paid in cash or stock or both with a further payment of $10M to be made the following year subject to generating a certain amount of profit.  Then, when the acquired company fails to meet the performance criterion during the time period following the acquisition, the $10M contingent purchase payment liability is written off and through the perfectly legal magic of GAPP accounting becomes $10M income the next year.  Thus, the acquisition of a crappy business that didn't perform well generates a large amount of earnings for the acquirer in the future.

 

Happily, I did not see this pattern with EBIX when I looked back a few years to see how their acquisitions had done as indicated by whether or not EBIX had generally made future performance based contingent payments on their acquisitions.  My examination was not exhaustive, but the pattern I saw was not that of a fraudulent acquirer.  It appeared that most of their acquisitions did in fact achieve the future performance level to qualify for additional purchase payments to their sellers in the year or two after acquisition.

 

Thus, it appears that EBIX's acquisitions generally do fairly well and contribute to real economic value in the year or two after acquisition.  :)

 

[Liberty]

twacowfca, indeed, making lots of acquisitions to me is a red flag, which is why I spent a lot of time trying to understand EBIX's strategy. I've written extensively about my findings elsewhere in this thread, but suffice it to say that IMO it makes a lot of sense, produces a lot more value than what is paid out, and Raina is the kind of guy who counts the sheet of toilet paper per roll to make sure he isn't getting ripped off, so costs are kept to a minimum.

[twacowfca]

twacowfca, indeed, making lots of acquisitions to me is a red flag, which is why I spent a lot of time trying to understand EBIX's strategy. I've written extensively about my findings elsewhere in this thread, but suffice it to say that IMO it makes a lot of sense, produces a lot more value than what is paid out, and Raina is the kind of guy who counts the sheet of toilet paper per roll to make sure he isn't getting ripped off, so costs are kept to a minimum.

 

Parsimony may be a major source of competitive advantage for EBIX.

 

My sister used to be a high level programmer for IBM.  Her division was sold when IBM was experiencing difficulty in the 1990's.  Now, she works for a company that outsources all of their programming to a division that employs programmers in India. She reviews their work while understanding the big picture, occasionally redirecting their efforts for efficiency.  The result is generally satisfactory.  She says the cost of completing a project is a tiny fraction of what it would be if US programmers did all the work.  Therefore,  EBIX's outsourcing the great majority of their programming overseas is probably an important competitive advantage.  :)

[mankap]

Twacowfca

 

You raise a very good point.I do not remember Ebix writing down the performance incentive .Infact the opposite was true in case of E-Z Data acquisition.Ebix had granted put option to E-Z Data for the shares that were issued to E-Z Data.After the short attack when the share price dropped , put option liability went up and it was bringing the Net Income down.When the share price started going up of course the opposite was true.

[Liberty]

Parsimony may be a major source of competitive advantage for EBIX.

 

My sister used to be a high level programmer for IBM.  Her division was sold when IBM was experiencing difficulty in the 1990's.  Now, she works for a company that outsources all of their programming to a division that employs programmers in India. She reviews their work while understanding the big picture, occasionally redirecting their efforts for efficiency.  The result is generally satisfactory.  She says the cost of completing a project is a tiny fraction of what it would be if US programmers did all the work.  Therefore,  EBIX's outsourcing the great majority of their programming overseas is probably an important competitive advantage.  :)

 

Agreed, though I wouldn't call it outsourcing. Most of EBIX's in-house programmers have been based in India for a decade, and they work for the company, they aren't external consultants. It's semantics, but it's more 'insourcing' than anything else :)

 

I also think that they have an advantage there as they are operating in Raina's home turf and he knows the culture and conditions. Many companies who go to India because of the sticker price find out there that there's more to the story...

 

I also believe that he based the operations in India not only because it's cheaper, but because he knew that there was a big pool of talented engineers coming out of world-class institutions like IIT that were under-employed and could be hired while elsewhere talent of that caliber might have been harder to get at any price. I like how they hire engineers and then take the time to train them at insurance stuff in their in-house educational facilities rather than have insurance people try to describe what they need to pure engineers, or to (gasp) try to teach programming to insurance people. Seems like the smartest way to do things.

[shoeless]

Fwiw, The earn-out discussion reminded me of this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/ebix-inflated-earnings-as-software-maker-ignored-bad-debt-lawsuit-alleges.html

The Peak directors sued after Ebix management refused to pay an earn-out, or incentive tied to the sale, of $1.5 million this year. The denial was made on the grounds that Peak didn’t meet its target of $6.5 million in revenue for 2010 to trigger the payment, according to court papers.

 

The ConfirmNet investors also said Ebix tried to deduct $213,393 from its 2009 earn-out payment on the grounds that the company had overstated its 2008 revenue by more than $100,000. In April, a judge ruled in ConfirmNet’s favor on the issue of the earn-out, while tossing out a third ConfirmNet claim about the timing of revenue from one specific client. The parties reached a confidential settlement June 20.

 

Regarding employees, I sometimes find it interesting to read employee reviews at glassdoor:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Ebix-Reviews-E1328.htm

 

 

[twacowfca]

Parsimony may be a major source of competitive advantage for EBIX.

 

My sister used to be a high level programmer for IBM.  Her division was sold when IBM was experiencing difficulty in the 1990's.  Now, she works for a company that outsources all of their programming to a division that employs programmers in India. She reviews their work while understanding the big picture, occasionally redirecting their efforts for efficiency.  The result is generally satisfactory.  She says the cost of completing a project is a tiny fraction of what it would be if US programmers did all the work.  Therefore,  EBIX's outsourcing the great majority of their programming overseas is probably an important competitive advantage.  :)

 

Agreed, though I wouldn't call it outsourcing. Most of EBIX's in-house programmers have been based in India for a decade, and they work for the company, they aren't external consultants. It's semantics, but it's more 'insourcing' than anything else :)

 

I also think that they have an advantage there as they are operating in Raina's home turf and he knows the culture and conditions. Many companies who go to India because of the sticker price find out there that there's more to the story...

 

I also believe that he based the operations in India not only because it's cheaper, but because he knew that there was a big pool of talented engineers coming out of world-class institutions like IIT that were under-employed and could be hired while elsewhere talent of that caliber might have been harder to get at any price. I like how they hire engineers and then take the time to train them at insurance stuff in their in-house educational facilities rather than have insurance people try to describe what they need to pure engineers, or to (gasp) try to teach programming to insurance people. Seems like the smartest way to do things.

 

It's the same with my sister's company.  The company directly employs the Indian programmers.  Her boss is a US citizen who moved to the US with his family when he was a young child.  He has enough familiarity with the culture there to travel to India and assess problems and staffing issues if necessary.

[shoeless]

Just to add:  From what I know I do agree with twacowfca that "EBIX's acquisitions generally do fairly well and contribute to real economic value ...". 

 

Questions for the board: It looks like Ebix rollup strategy is working wrt cost cutting by moving development to India etc... What I'm not sure about is whether any cross-selling or other organic growth is occurring. Do you think organic growth is important for the investment thesis? How do you go about estimating organic growth from the financial statements?

 

[alpha231616967560]

Yes - I read these glassdoor.com comments a couple of years ago (looks like only 2 added since then). They are informative anecdotes, but that's it. I also recall the Peak / Confirmnet issues, and the CEO spoke to each at the time and I was satisfied with his explanation. He is definitely cheap (on some level the root cause for displeased employees and displeased acquired companies)! But as others have pointed out, on balance this is a virtue. Given the hard work that it takes to get to his position in the first place, I would prefer few virtues more than honesty and frugality in a CEO. 

 

Fwiw, The earn-out discussion reminded me of this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-30/ebix-inflated-earnings-as-software-maker-ignored-bad-debt-lawsuit-alleges.html

The Peak directors sued after Ebix management refused to pay an earn-out, or incentive tied to the sale, of $1.5 million this year. The denial was made on the grounds that Peak didn’t meet its target of $6.5 million in revenue for 2010 to trigger the payment, according to court papers.

 

The ConfirmNet investors also said Ebix tried to deduct $213,393 from its 2009 earn-out payment on the grounds that the company had overstated its 2008 revenue by more than $100,000. In April, a judge ruled in ConfirmNet’s favor on the issue of the earn-out, while tossing out a third ConfirmNet claim about the timing of revenue from one specific client. The parties reached a confidential settlement June 20.

 

Regarding employees, I sometimes find it interesting to read employee reviews at glassdoor:

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Ebix-Reviews-E1328.htm

[Liberty]

Just to add:  From what I know I do agree with twacowfca that "EBIX's acquisitions generally do fairly well and contribute to real economic value ...". 

 

Questions for the board: It looks like Ebix rollup strategy is working wrt cost cutting by moving development to India etc... What I'm not sure about is whether any cross-selling or other organic growth is occurring. Do you think organic growth is important for the investment thesis? How do you go about estimating organic growth from the financial statements?

 

I think organic growth is very decent but shouldn't be compared to companies that are selling perpetual licenses and booking big gains at the moment of the sale with razor thin margins. EBIX's high-margin recurring revenue stream model means that they're seeing a smooth ramp up as they sign more people to their exchanges and other services and as those customers progressively ramp up their number of transactions. They're basically sacrificing some top line growth for profitability and predictability. I like that tradeoff.

 

I also think this is a company where it's genuinely hard to really separate organic and inorganic growth after acquisitions. They aren't just acquiring companies to keep running them as is and get those revenues without taking the income statement hit that spending more on R&D, Sales and CAPEX would entail if the equivalent growth had been organic. They are buying customer relationships and access to certain strategic markets that are very hard to get into because this is a slow-moving conservative industry (I bet it took years to some of those companies to build these relationships, and I wouldn't want EBIX to spend years trying to get in these markets if they can cheaply and accretively acquire established players). Once they are in, they might have 20 products to cross-sell to these long-term customers while the original acquired company had just 1 product, and their costs are also probably lower than the original acquired company thanks to good cost controls, economies of scale, and Indian development. Is that post-acquisition growth organic or not? would it have happened to that company without EBIX's 19 other products and lower cost operations? Does it matter too much as long as they get a lot more value than they give away?

 

In the end, the financial metric that matters is sustainable FCF/share, and if you look at that for EBIX over the past decade, you'll see it's very healthy. A traditional rollup doesn't have that kind of profitable growth because it has to print more shares to do more acquisitions and keep top line growth high to keep it's high multiple so it can do more acquisitions with more shares, and it eventually sacrifices its margins for top line growth because once it's on the treadmill, it's hard to get off, and it results in a brittle company that can fall from any hiccup. The size of the company grows really fast, and sometimes they even have good paper income (though no real cashflow), but the per share amount of FCF can't look good. That's just a house of cards, and the reverse image of EBIX, IMO.

 

I'm sure EBIX could grow a lot faster if they cut their margins to 10%, sold perpetual licenses in the carrier channel, printed more shares for acquisitions and bought all they could rather than just strategic piece of the puzzle available at good prices, and leveraged the balance sheet more. But it would be growth for growth's sake and I don't think the CEO is looking for a larger empire to justify a fatter salary; he's a Buffett fan and the biggest shareholder, and I think he looks at it from the point of view of growing IV/share while minimizing risk.

 

I don't recall exactly all the details on the bloomberg piece, but I remember looking into it last year and not being convinced. It's kind of a confused mess. It accuses them of over-stating things (by 150-200k, out of 170 million revenues - and they wrote it off when it was discovered) and then accuses them of under-stating to avoid paying earnouts, etc. Meh. EBIX has paid lots of earnouts over the years and most of its acquired managers are still with the company, and it's in their interest to be known as good acquirers. Could it be someone looking for excuses to sue because he was unhappy about how things turned out? Was this story fed to a journalist looking for anything that seemed controversial by people who were looking for anything to make the company look bad at the time? Who knows. I guess some lawsuits are par for the course for public companies in the US. AFAIK nothing ever came out of it, like the other accusations.

 

As for glassdoor, it's interesting info, but I discount it heavily because the shorts have shown that they're ready to say anything, and because disgruntled employees are always more motivated to post than happy ones (especially for unglamorous companies). It's a self-selected group with opaque motivations, so not exactly a scientific sample. It might sound like "oh, how convenient to heavily discount this negative stuff!", but I believe in this case it's the right thing to do.

 

Each much do their own due diligence, though.

[shoeless]

Thanks for the detailed reply Liberty.

I think I understand the cross-selling strategy wrt acquisitions and it does seem to make good sense. But I would like to be able to see it in the numbers.

E.g. if you back out (the relevant proportion of) Adam 2010 revenue from Ebix 2011 revenue you get about 7% revenue growth for Ebix in 2011 that is unrelated to Adam. Perhaps another way to see evidence is looking at changes in the relative proportion of each type product in the exchanges unit. I haven't yet done this.

I was wondering what other approaches can be used.

 

I didn't mean "roll-up" in a bad way. Globally exchanges are highly fragmented and given the nature of exchanges I don't see many alternatives to buying your way into a geography. Paying the right price and then adding Ebix low cost R&D (and maybe taxes) has worked nicely. However I agree with others who have brought up the concern that larger acquisitions would need to be made in the future to maintain the growth and this can be risky. If they can execute on cross-selling it might alleviate some of this concern.

 

I do agree one should be weary reading glassdoor.com reviews in general and especially given the shorts.  Regarding the Bloomberg piece, to be honest I haven't followed up on it (amounts were small).  But the fact the lawsuits occurred is yet another anecdote, as are the glassdoor reviews and personally I don't discount them completely. Like the images of the India offices or Raina's charity activity etc... Over time I think the little things add up to some mental picture of what the company culture is like and what the CEO is like which can be useful (especially when shorts are involved and opportunities could come up).

 

[Liberty]

Thanks for the detailed reply Liberty.

I think I understand the cross-selling strategy wrt acquisitions and it does seem to make good sense. But I would like to be able to see it in the numbers.

E.g. if you back out (the relevant proportion of) Adam 2010 revenue from Ebix 2011 revenue you get about 7% revenue growth for Ebix in 2011 that is unrelated to Adam. Perhaps another way to see evidence is looking at changes in the relative proportion of each type product in the exchanges unit. I haven't yet done this.

I was wondering what other approaches can be used.

 

I didn't mean "roll-up" in a bad way. Globally exchanges are highly fragmented and given the nature of exchanges I don't see many alternatives to buying your way into a geography. Paying the right price and then adding Ebix low cost R&D (and maybe taxes) has worked nicely. However I agree with others who have brought up the concern that larger acquisitions would need to be made in the future to maintain the growth and this can be risky. If they can execute on cross-selling it might alleviate some of this concern.

 

These are good questions. I don't have a perfect answer, but here's some food for thoughts: I believe they are now beginning a new phase of growth. Their stated goal is to provide straight through processing to their customers, after one data entry, they can do whatever they need to with the data, including transactions on B2B and B2C exchanges, and that for each of the different players in the industry. That's kind of what you can see on slide 34 of their latest presentation. To get there, they had to build or acquire (and often re-write) all the various pieces of that puzzle.

 

I think that for many years' they've been focused on opportunistically adding pieces to that puzzle (especially when the macro environment provides bargains), and now they almost have all that they need on the insurance side. They've started building new puzzles in health and financials, though (f.ex. ADAM + Taima + HealthConnect).

 

I think that in the past year+ they've started to switch gears and invest a lot more into their other engine of growth by building a much bigger sales organization. They now have this integrated suite of products to sell that nobody else has and exchanges that are more valuable and useful with each new member thanks to the network effect, and they are now big enough to be considered for much bigger deals than before. So while they should keep generating lots of cash and will probably reinvest a lot of it into acquisitions (probably more in health and financials, or in geographies where they need a beachhead), I think we should see more growth come from there. In a perfect world they could probably have invested in better internal sales a while ago, but business is all about tradeoffs and allocating scarce resources to their best uses while minimizing risk. Maybe management didn't have the bandwidth to deal with that and everything else at the time, or maybe they thought it was a better use of capital to spend more on acquisitions than sales (and didn't want to use more leverage), or maybe they just didn't feel like they were a big enough company to go after big deals and so it was better to focus on growing their capabilities and expanding to new geographies before focusing more on sales, maybe there was a land-grab time-sensitive aspect. I don't know, but it's not like they rested on their laurels in the past decade.

 

Another thing to note is that the past few years have been pretty bad for EBIX's customers, and that the kind of growth we're seeing now is what EBIX's potential is at the bottom of the cycle. BPO is dead as long as construction doesn't come back, carriers aren't spending on IT, and brokers and exchanges certainly aren't seeing as many transactions as in a hard insurance market and strong macro environment. So I'd say they aren't doing badly all things considered.

 

I do agree one should be weary reading glassdoor.com reviews in general and especially given the shorts.  Regarding the Bloomberg piece, to be honest I haven't followed up on it (amounts were small).  But the fact the lawsuits occurred is yet another anecdote, as are the glassdoor reviews and personally I don't discount them completely. Like the images of the India offices or Raina's charity activity etc... Over time I think the little things add up to some mental picture of what the company culture is like and what the CEO is like which can be useful (especially when shorts are involved and opportunities could come up).

 

I absolutely believe that part of the reason the shorts thought an attack could work is because of the optics, and because management gives a bad impression at first glance. They're an easy target, sadly. Some of it is probably due to "lost in translation" cultural issues, and some is because Rain is definitely an unconventional CEO in how he dresses and speaks and so on. So if I had stopped after this first impression, I'd definitely not have a very good feeling about this.

 

But I believe that listening to all the conference calls that are available (the text transcripts are often full of misheard words and don't provide the same experience because of other cues that can be heard in someone's voice) and reading all interviews provide a better idea of what management is really like and what it cares about than more superficial and second-hand impressions.

 

EBIX definitely isn't an easy stock to invest in. The business takes a while to understand, the growth strategy is different from what can be found in many other industries, there are some potential red flags (such as auditor changes), and the CEO sounds weird, dresses like a pimp, and isn't a staid old white guy. That's a lot of barriers to entry for most investors, but I believe that's part of what creates the mispricing :)

[Liberty]

http://www.ebix.com/pressrelease_text.aspx?artid=248

 

Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX), a leading international supplier of On-Demand software and E-commerce services to the insurance industry, today announced that it has signed an agreement to purchase two new buildings in India, to support its continued growth and associated increased need for offshore development and BPO resources. With this, Ebix will own 5 buildings in India, since it already owns three buildings in Noida, India.

 

The Company announced that this decision was made to allow Ebix to double its staff capacity in India over the next few years. The purchase of these two buildings will allow Ebix to have a large office campus over an area of 4000 square meters since four of these buildings are adjoining each other. Ebix presently employs in excess of 1100 employees in India, with its core development operations being awarded the coveted Level 5 Quality status of the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute’s Capability Maturity Model (CMM).

 

All software development work undertaken in these two new buildings is likely to be 100% tax-exempt till the year 2017/2018, under the Software Export Zone (SEZ) Act of the Govt. of India, after which the Company is likely to be entitled to a 50% tax-free status in India till 2022/2023.

[alpha231616967560]

New Robin Raina interview from Smart Business (an Atlanta monthly):

 

How Robin Raina readied Ebix for a crisis, then made the needed tweaks to get through

http://www.sbnonline.com/2012/09/how-robin-raina-readied-ebix-for-a-crisis-then-made-the-needed-tweaks-to-get-through/?full=1&edition=atlanta-editions

“That’s the biggest mistake I see companies make: They get carried away by their own vision,” Raina says. “It’s very important to have a simplified vision, a vision you can explain in a few words, in a few sentences. If it takes longer than that to explain your business model, it means it’s not a good business model. I’m a firm believer in that.”

 

It’s equally important to have a straightforward financial model, according to Raina.

 

“You’ve got to have a very simple financial vision and a simplified way of making money,” he says. “It really comes down to this: If you can figure out that your selling price has to be a lot higher than your cost price — if you can figure out that basic fact — then you’ve arrived, in my book. Many people laugh at that statement, but too many companies ignore this. You’ve got to get down to the basics of the business.”

 

[Fairfaxnut]

New Robin Raina interview from Smart Business (an Atlanta monthly):

 

How Robin Raina readied Ebix for a crisis, then made the needed tweaks to get through

http://www.sbnonline.com/2012/09/how-robin-raina-readied-ebix-for-a-crisis-then-made-the-needed-tweaks-to-get-through/?full=1&edition=atlanta-editions

“That’s the biggest mistake I see companies make: They get carried away by their own vision,” Raina says. “It’s very important to have a simplified vision, a vision you can explain in a few words, in a few sentences. If it takes longer than that to explain your business model, it means it’s not a good business model. I’m a firm believer in that.”

 

It’s equally important to have a straightforward financial model, according to Raina.

 

“You’ve got to have a very simple financial vision and a simplified way of making money,” he says. “It really comes down to this: If you can figure out that your selling price has to be a lot higher than your cost price — if you can figure out that basic fact — then you’ve arrived, in my book. Many people laugh at that statement, but too many companies ignore this. You’ve got to get down to the basics of the business.”

 

Nice find!

[LC]

Lawsuit filed...I don't follow EBIX so I'm not sure if this is news or not but here it is:

 

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120928L37.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

[Liberty]

Lawsuit filed...I don't follow EBIX so I'm not sure if this is news or not but here it is:

 

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120928L37.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

 

Seems like the usual recycled stuff that's been floating around for years. The way it's written, I wouldn't be surprised if it's by the same people who wrote the anonymous piece on SA. They must hold a lot of shares short and care more about bad publicity than winning in court... Guess the bounce back in price in past months has been hard on them.

 

Kind of hoping they drop the price 10$ again and allow the company to buy back a few million shares.

[enoch01]

Lawsuit filed...I don't follow EBIX so I'm not sure if this is news or not but here it is:

 

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120928L37.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

 

Seems like the usual recycled stuff that's been floating around for years.

 

Actually it looked to me like it was a court order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.  Am I misreading?

 

"The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pled material misrepresentations and omissions, scienter, and loss causation under the applicable pleading standards. In accordance with the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint [28-1] is DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED."

[twacowfca]

Lawsuit filed...I don't follow EBIX so I'm not sure if this is news or not but here it is:

 

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=In%20FDCO%2020120928L37.xml&docbase=CSLWAR3-2007-CURR

 

Seems like the usual recycled stuff that's been floating around for years.

 

 

 

Motions to dismiss rarely succeed if there is a question of fact to be determined.  The judge's ruling is not necessarily a negative.  --TWACOWFCA

 

 

 

Actually it looked to me like it was a court order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss.  Am I misreading?

 

"The Court concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately pled material misrepresentations and omissions, scienter, and loss causation under the applicable pleading standards. In accordance with the foregoing, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Amended Complaint [28-1] is DENIED.

 

SO ORDERED."

[mankap]

It took the court almost one and a half years to deny defendant's motion.I wonder how long will it take for the trial.

[biaggio]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robin-raina-president-chief-executive-134200282.html

 

don t know if this is a new interview- probably not much new

[Liberty]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/robin-raina-president-chief-executive-134200282.html

 

don t know if this is a new interview- probably not much new

 

Looks like this is just part of the interview transcript, though.. Just when it was getting interesting, it stopped  :-\

 

But thanks for posting  :)

[writser]

nice move today ..

[fareastwarriors]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/ebix-accounting-practices-said-to-be-probed-by-sec.html

 

thoughts?

[Guest hellsten]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/ebix-accounting-practices-said-to-be-probed-by-sec.html

 

thoughts?

 

FTP -40% and EBIX -25% today. I have been following both with one eye. Noticed that short interest is similar to OSTK's:

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/ebix/short-interest