% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Ebix Inc. Message Board

  • blueline_4321 blueline_4321 Feb 5, 2013 8:38 PM Flag

    Only 348,600 shares owned by individual shareholders?

    According to Yahoo Major Holders, 99% of the stock is owned by institutions and major shareholders. That leaves just 1% of the stock that is owned by individuals. Something sure does not look right here.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Another interesting fact PER YAHOO. Institutions and insiders own 99%, but yet in the last quarter, the net institutional sales were 3.4 million, or 10 times the amount of the individual shareholders amount of 348,600 shares being held by them. So, how do institutions reduce their holdings by 3.4 million and still control 99% of the total company shares after that reduction?

    • jakesinger Feb 6, 2013 1:39 PM Flag

      I have a couple of questions that I hope somebody can answer.

      Question 1: Do my shares held in a Fidelity brokerage account get attributed to me as an individual investor or to Fidelity as an institution?

      Question 2: Is there any way to prevent my shares from being lent out for short sale?

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • The numbers are right, it is the institutional shareholders who have lent out +10M shares to the shorts (while buying themselves), which then end up in the retail hands.

      What this means is that if the institutional shareholders decided to call back their shares, then the shorts would have to buy from just about every single retail holder to cover that. The shorts on the other hand think a few minor lawsuits over $1-2M will somehow bankrupt the company.

      This is a huge game that has nothing to do with EBIX's actual business (which is fine).

      What is very interesting, is if RR proceeds with more buybacks, then where will the share come from?

      • 1 Reply to twfry_2001
      • I posted about this the other day. Naked shorting creates phantom shares. People or entities are allowed to naked short without actually borrowing the shares from another person or entity before hand. If all these transactions were subsequently accounted for, and found the necessary shares to borrow within the next few days of clearing, everything would be fine. However in practice, this is all mostly unregulated as far as I can tell. As a result, a naked short share could be a phantom share which doesn't actually exist. I'm guessing the regular posters on this board own nearly 348k shares, and in practice, individuals holding the stock would be a much higher stake than that. Not every short share is a phantom share, but some percentage of them are. These phantom shares have an effect of diluting the stock by adding shares to the total float. Since this is all unregulated, Yahoo can't predict what percentage of the short shares are phantom shares any better than I can.

29.77-0.21(-0.70%)Apr 24 4:00 PMEDT