Agreed about managerial incompetence.
I'm looking at the recent report and I see income tax expense of $1.955M even when they show a net loss - why is that?
Thanks for that info! I wasn't aware of this. So if one has a broker that handles both Oslo and OTC, you could technically buy in one exchange and sell in the other!
Who's your broker? If you use InteractiveBrokers, you can go to "Tools" and look at "stock borrow" tool and see the rates there.
Thanks for that info. I know share belongs to owner of record and owner can technically sell on any exchange.
However, can you and I buy shares in US via Pink Sheets through ScottTrade and decide to sell it on OsloBors?
Does this mean the Scandinavian Fund can buy shares in one market and sell it in other? I assumed the fungibility of shares is only limited to a specific exchange (meaning shares bought in Oslo can only be sold in Oslo and shares bought on OTC can only be sold on OTC).
If not, then they probably sold shares when it hit an intraday high of $26/share here in USA. Because, the highest it traded in Oslo is 137NOK which is a few dollars below $26/share.
In the last few weeks, a lot of stock has been transferred into the hands of the yield-hungry US investor from the hands of skittish/conservative Norwegian fund/investor. And since most US buyers think it's a screaming buy, I would postulate that the shares appreciation (at this price) would most likely happen when we run out of Norwegian sellers as there are no US sellers to speak of.
I asked a question about currency/foreign exchange implications. Forgive me if that offended you.
That's one of the better and well-reasoned posts I've seen coming from you. I don't think that shares hit a $26 in Oslo markets (that would over 150NOK/share) - only in US market. I doubt Scandinavian funds are holding Awilco in grey market.
These are the shares from the warrants they received during the fiasco right?
Are they selling it in the open market?
Why are they selling now?
stdvooh: I'm sorry if I drowned your optimism with a dose of humility. I'm humble enough to acknowledge my shortcomings and admit that I am prone to making mistakes just as anyone else. My post was simply intended to point out the dichotomy between the apparent conviction and harmony we see when discussing Awilco (this thing is a table pounding buy!) and price action/movement (3 million dollars worth of shares being sold in Oslo).
Said differently, I wanted to focus our discussion on why someone, somewhere thinks it's a good idea to sell it at such a price.
I do worry though - about unknown unknowns. Everyone's sure this thing is worth a lot more than ~$22/share yet you have shares being sold in droves that quenches all the thirst of the retail buyer at this price - what gives?
Awilco earns revenue in US Dollar, but what currency do they pay out their costs in?
If US dollar gets weaker/stronger, the share price in Oslo should rise/fall proportionally I'd think.
Much better target this time, and excellent attack timing - just a day before options expiry to pay the least time premium and obtain the maximum return.
He probably made around $5-$10M from his puts + shares short.
There were a lot of new buyers in the $8-$10 range following the termination of merger (as the short interest didn't decline meaningfully).
So I'm guessing that the ones who're selling now are those that are looking to bail out on a 20%-40% gain.
A "lackluster" quarterly results according to most people. I personally was very glad to see the top line hold up strongly while Raina making his intentions clear (yes, he is going to repay debt before buying back shares) and the commitment to settle the outstanding issues. Everyone seems to forget that this stock is trading for a ridiculously FCF yield and implies that the stock is going out of business in a few years.
So today we see a sharp rise on a low volume. Not sure what this portends. Are shorts covering?
Just trying to come up with various scenarios here -
What if EBIX just issues note payable with a cash incentive to fund to acquire growth?
It's strange how some keep lamenting for the lack of growth, because currently, the stock is priced like the company is going out of business in a few years...
Please excuse my ignorance with respect to the formalities and dynamics involved in acquisitions. My level of understanding of M&A is elementary at best and I tend to rely on common sense in order to supplant my lack of specifics.
You need something of value in order to buy companies - be it cash (currency) or stock/debt (paper). I see no difference. The only scenario I can think of, where stock is absolutely essential in funding growth is when a company produces no free cash flow (like Amazon). It was easier for Amazon to use its stock to buy Zappos than use its cash.
To the extent that the short attacks have prevented EBIX's stock from being priced above its intrinsic value, I suppose that EBIX is being hurt. But that's like complaining about a lack of free lunch.
Even in stock based acquisitions, cash goes out the door ultimately if the stock drops too low. (for eg: PlanetSoft's put options).
But in EBIX's case, it can use its free cash flow all day - for buying growth or buying back its own shares.
Let me know what you think.
Why can't the company just pay cash to fund its acquisitions? Issuing stock for acquisitions and then buying back that stock in open market using cash is just a circuitous way of funding an acquisition via the ultimate medium of exchange - cash.
I did increase my position by 40% at around $12.8/share.
We're far, far away from fair value on this. It may be that the shorts (who are underwater) are covering. I want more weakness as this still isn't as big a part of my portfolio as I want it to be.