Liberty Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 They strike again. Will have to wait until tonight to read it. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1210281-the-truth-about-robin-raina-s-ebix-part-i?source=yahoo History repeats itself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
premfan Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Hi guys, Can someone give me a run down on ebix's business model. Like a "dummies" version on how they make there money. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 You know, I still believe that EBIX is legit and the shorts are wrong and doing some massive market manipulation. But days like this make me glad I sold my EBIX to buy BAC and AIG warrants (that was a tough choice). I think time will prove EBIX right, but it certainly feels good to have a bit less drama in my portfolio... And who knows, maybe I'll get to re-buy a stake at some point for a lower price than what I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooskinneejs Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 PSDFinancier said: "Clearly very difficult to lie about cash in the bank" I used to think the same thing until... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmalat#Financial_fraud_.282002.E2.80.932005.29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairfaxnut Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Mmm....haven't dug into this "seeking alpha" report yet, but the poster is already suspicious to me. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://gothamcityresearch.com/ ......no archive of their website http://whois.domaintools.com/gothamcityresearch.com .....private registration on their website No author name, and seemingly similar name to Gotham Capital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Mmm....haven't dug into this "seeking alpha" report yet, but the poster is already suspicious to me. http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://gothamcityresearch.com/ ......no archive of their website http://whois.domaintools.com/gothamcityresearch.com .....private registration on their website No author name, and seemingly similar name to Gotham Capital The company was registered one month back using Harvard Business Services and paying $50 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockket Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 not sure i understand the significance of who the person is vs the content of his short thesis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 not sure i understand the significance of who the person is vs the content of his short thesis i agree. i cant speak to the accuracy of the financials, especially across different countries with different reporting standards. therefore i will keep my mouth shut ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bargainman Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 They strike again. Will have to wait until tonight to read it. http://seekingalpha.com/article/1210281-the-truth-about-robin-raina-s-ebix-part-i?source=yahoo History repeats itself... What r u talking about? This isn't copperfield research, it's clearly another deep unbiased research report! Now we have 2 of them! must make them legit!! PS: warning, there might be some sarcasm in my message.. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShahKhezri Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I never understood how cash came in and cash went out. I first heard about EBIX 4 years ago when a friend who does oil and gas underwriting told me about them. After some research, bought some at 20, ran up to 28 and sold at 20. It was a very small position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Ebix responds to Seeking Alpha blog Atlanta, GA – February 22, 2013 – Ebix, Inc. (NASDAQ:EBIX), today issued a response to the Report appearing in the Seeking Alpha blog yesterday. In a statement, the Company said – The Company has reviewed the unsubstantiated report released on February 21, 2013. Management believes that to the best of its knowledge Ebix’s financial reporting, including, among other things, the Company’s accounting for and reporting of intercompany loans, is appropriate and complies with all SEC reporting requirements. That's it.. They did not clearly explain anything about the claims made.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 I was making some dough on this thing then lost it all yesterday morning. Lucky to lose only my gain before stepping out. I had thought that the worst was behind and that they were now clean, the stock was cheap and ripe for a short squeeze, then came this report. I could not tell if it was entirely false but, this response from EBIX tells me that some of it is true. It is also very disconcerting to see that just one report from an unimportant source can cause such stock panic. This was also part of my rationale to sell: if doubts can linger "forever" then a substantial discount to IV will always be present. By the way, this was poor stock selection on my part not liking the fact that Raina as CEO spends too much of his time on charity. A chairman can do that, but as CEO it makes you wonder if you are getting the best management of the firm as a shareholder. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 This rebuttal is from David Collins which was rejected by Seeking Alpha. http://cgfocuslist.com/?p=79 "Why has the company not responded? I imagine it is because they are in a quiet period pre-earnings release, though I have not confirmed this. Impeccable timing on the part of the author" "To me, knowing accounting, the transactions seem to be fairly obvious, though confusing to those that have never seen cross border IP transactions at the granular level. It appears that US Parent loaned money to Singapore sub, which purchased the intellectual property in the Australia transaction, with the tangible assets staying with the Australian sub. On a consolidated basis, this all rolls up to one clean balance sheet. Why? The company is taking advantage of Singapore’s favorable tax climate by having that subsidiary purchase the intellectual property in the foreign transaction, and then using “transfer pricing” to determine the portion of the revenue for each contract that is “earned” with the IP in Singapore, with the remainder of the revenue “earned” in Australia, thus lowering the effective tax rate" I still think only EBIX can explain this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvalue Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 It is surprising to me that people could read/listen to calls etc and not be concerned with management style and answers to simple questions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie71 Posted February 22, 2013 Share Posted February 22, 2013 Dumb question: Aren't these people audited? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitee00 Posted February 23, 2013 Share Posted February 23, 2013 This rebuttal is from David Collins which was rejected by Seeking Alpha. http://cgfocuslist.com/?p=79 "Why has the company not responded? I imagine it is because they are in a quiet period pre-earnings release, though I have not confirmed this. Impeccable timing on the part of the author" "To me, knowing accounting, the transactions seem to be fairly obvious, though confusing to those that have never seen cross border IP transactions at the granular level. It appears that US Parent loaned money to Singapore sub, which purchased the intellectual property in the Australia transaction, with the tangible assets staying with the Australian sub. On a consolidated basis, this all rolls up to one clean balance sheet. Why? The company is taking advantage of Singapore’s favorable tax climate by having that subsidiary purchase the intellectual property in the foreign transaction, and then using “transfer pricing” to determine the portion of the revenue for each contract that is “earned” with the IP in Singapore, with the remainder of the revenue “earned” in Australia, thus lowering the effective tax rate" I still think only EBIX can explain this.. Gotham City Research did reply to a similar concern in the comments to the SA article although I am not sure if this answers your question As to hte loan shown on Singapore filings...wouldnt you expect that to eliminate in consolidation if it is with a related party? I.e. if the loan is with another EBIX entity, it will net out to zero when results are consolidated. So I am confused, are you implying that is a loan with a related party that is not EBIX (i.e. a director, etc)? Great question... read our report carefully, our answer is there (we advise reading the report in its entirety on our website; we only went about this "part I" route because the Seeking Alpha format is just not conducive for serious, forensic, due-diligence based research reports) . We are wondering the same thing, right? Shouldn't the loan just cancel out elsewhere? So let's examine what that would look like: (1) We are told Singapore was lent $X (per the Singapore filings) (2) Singapore filings indeed show inflow of $X (3) Singapore filings show minus $X as a "use of cash" (under the investing activities) So THE QUESTION: Who was the recipient of the Singapore subsidiary's use of cash? Where did the money go? Based on the Singapore filings, it seems to belong in Australia (as the Singapore filings allege that Singapore purchased intangible assets from Australia). Yet the Australian filings show NO in flow of cash!! See the report for more, but that's why we're just as confused as you are. The other thing is, some people will say "but but Google does all kinds of related party loans, and doesn't disclose" To which Gotham would respond: "yeah, but Google doesn't do intercompany loans of 50+ billion dollars (50 billion dollars is roughly the amount of tangible assets GOOG has; Ebix's undisclosed related party loan, $66 million, equaled the entire company's tangible assets!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSDFinancier Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Has anyone else pulled the Australia/Singapore subsidiary financials? Trying to corroborate or deny Gotham's accusations, and would love to compare notes with anyone going through the same process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardboard Posted February 24, 2013 Share Posted February 24, 2013 Waste of time IMO. EBIX reply to these allegations was subpar to say the least. There are so many good companies out there to buy, I want no part in one that is subject to such fraud or major disclosure allegations by short sellers. Just think about AIG or BAC that could easily be doubles from here. I had my lesson with Fairfax. There was some truth in what the shorts were saying about Fairfax. Then the company explained it and you could see that it wasn't a big deal. Despite the "cooperation", a discount remained. They also had to raise capital at really high prices even when you thought that things were now stable and looking up. You hear about people making a fortune on 2006 calls or as a refuge and money maker in 08/09 during the credit crisis, but for long term holders who bought at something like $200 in 2002, returns have not been that great. You had to trade. Cardboard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSDFinancier Posted February 25, 2013 Share Posted February 25, 2013 Cardboard, totally hear what you're saying, although Fairfax's ROEs from the early part of the decade don't really compare to EBIX's current ROEs (assuming that the latter's are real, of course). If EBIX's financials are real, this thing could be a home run. Or it could be a donut. I agree that the Company's response was lackluster. In particular, it was noteworthy to me that they didn't outright deny the SEC investigation like they did back in November. The related-party loan seems like a non-issue to me after flipping through the subsidiary financials, but I do wish that EBIX had clearly included line items pertaining to the IP transfer in the Australian sub cash flow statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Conference call today: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ebix-to-attend-analyst-call-to-discuss-seeking-alpha-blog-2013-02-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpha231616967560 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 Sounds good. Anyone know where to find the live stream link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooskinneejs Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 An observation and a general question: The observation: This company's PP&E looks really, really small relative to the operating income and operating cash flows it reports. PP&E (which includes computer equipment) at 12/31/11: $8.8 million, net (about half of which is computer equipment) Developed technogology (intangibles acquired through business combinations) at 12/31/11: $11.6 million, gross Operating income for year ended 12/31/11: $68.7 million Operating cash flows for year ended 12/31/11: $71.3 million An unrelated question (not specific to this company): How hard would it be for a company to fraudulently report treasury share repurchases of stock? Anyone out there work in the "registrar and transfer agent" business? I haven't seen this kind of fraud before, but I'm wondering whether a company that fraudulently reports profits could also fraudulently report treasury share repurchases to "account for" the use of the money they purported to earn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie71 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 I'm not sure what it signifies but I had a call from Schwabb wanting to lend my few shares to a short seller. The offer was quite tempting but I turned them down. I still in the back of my mind think this whole thing would have been covered in any type of audit. If true then there are some auditors sh@#ing bricks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cemadh Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 For the record, I think Robin Raina is the real deal. I live in metro Atlanta and I met him at the annual shareholder meeting. Is he a little cocky and arrogant? Perhaps? Does he dress "inappropriately" sometimes? Perhaps? Did he overstate his charity's spending in a South Asian magazine interview? Perhaps. Does EBIX use all the tax strategies ("loopholes"?) it can to reduce taxes? Perhaps. But, in my opinion, EBIX does not do anything illegal. The cash flow is real. The earnings, net income and share buybacks are real. As those who actually own the shares for more than a few days/hours know, the cash dividends are real. Thanks to Gotham City Research (Dan Yu?) we longs got an opportunity to add more at these prices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bookie71 Posted February 26, 2013 Share Posted February 26, 2013 cemadh, Thanks, I kindof feel the same way. I did buy a bunch of options in my "crap shooting" acount that did real well. 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