The bashers here continue their usual baloney. It is all hilarious. They never have any of their facts straight. They are reduced to citing some "fraud" case from 15 years ago when all they have been doing is claiming fraud at every turn without one piece of evidence or even reasonable thought to the claims they make.
In early 200's ESI faced a "qui tam action" brought under the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. Section 3730 (the "Qui Tam Action"). This type of claim is a "whistle blower" claim. It was made by some clown trying to get the government to go after ESI and then to take home personally 20% of whatever ESI was fined or would settle for. The clown got the government and Justice Department to subpoena 14 schools (I think that was the number - could have been 11 schools). The Feds appeared at the schools and took some records. The schools were closed for ONE DAY while the feds got the papers they wanted.
The qui tam case went nowhere and there was no fraud or wrongdoing found. There have been other such cases against ESI and they have all failed. What a bunch of basher baloney. Just more lies and falsehoods from them.
Do not believe a word the bashers post here.
The only filing that ESI is late on is its Q3 2014 and FY 2014 financial reports and these will be cleared up in the next few weeks. ESI's educational programs are solid. There has never been a case of fraud brought against ESI claiming that is education programs were fraudulent. Its programs are all accredited and certified. These certifications are not fraudulent and the every aspect of them is regulated by state and federal government authorities.
If students want to mount a debt strike on the loans that they must pay to the United States government, good luck. The student signed loan papers with the government, not with ESI. Not paying the government back is like not paying your IRS bill. And we all know how that will end. There will be no debt strike, so to speak. If there is one, it will be one that spirals throughout the whole education system, affecting student loans issued by the US Government to students attending all sorts of educational establishments.
Educational fraud would be if a school said that it was certified and it was not (there have been such cases, but not at ESI). Fraud would be if an educational program was certified, but then the school substituted some other lame non-certified educational program in place of the one that was certified.
Claims of educational fraud on the chat board are a joke.
The commentary about debt strike and educational fraud at ESI are bashers throwing stones as usual. We all know about people that point their fingers and throw stones at others. History is littered with these pathetic types, dating back to well before the Salem Witch Trials.
ESI has already experienced a type of "so called" debt strike in that the 2007 RSA., the 2009 RSA and the PEAKs student loans that were issued by companies other than ESI have seen high default rates, due to the awful condition of the job market and the cutbacks in demand from drafting/design and criminal justice professionals. Students who graduated with these degrees went from looking at robust job markets to depression level job markets very quickly. This was no fault of ESI. Prior to the 2008 economic collapse, ESI graduates in these two disciplines were well employed and there was no issue with any significant number of students or with the Department of Education over ESI's educational offering. ESI "experienced" these defaults, not because it was the lender of the loans to students, but because it had agreed to guarantee these loans. Students did not default to ESI. They defaulted to an unrelated lender who then called in the guarantee that ESI had extended to help the students out.
If students want to "debt strike" loans that they took out from the US government to attend ESI educational programs, these students are in for a rude awakening. They will be defaulting on a US government obligation made in good faith to willing students who attended educational programs that were well certified and which are closely regulated. COCO's student's got debt relief because COCO did not comply with the Department of Education multiple requests for information about its programs. ESI has no such lapses in the least. It is totally up to date on filing education statistics to the DOE.
I have to make an exception to not commenting on a "bashers" post. But this above post is so pathetic that it deserves a response.
Moron. Companies do not "do" loans. Loans are "issued" or "extended". Secondly, ESI has never issued or extended loans directly to students. The company has never made any such loans. So what are you talking about?
You are now officially back on my "do not respond to this idiot list".
The CPFB lawsuit is a joke. It covers five months in the back half of 2011 and involves only refinancing loans that were issued by companies other than ESI. ESI did not extend these loans. They had no financial benefit from the terms of the loans and they did not set the interest rates on the loans. In fact, the interest rates on the loans were ZERO percent!!!!!!!!!
And as the CPFB staff indicates, the CBPF has zero jurisdiction over the interest rates charged on ANY loans anyway.
So, for the past 15 years, all the CPFB can drum up against ESI is a lame case of a small number of loans (over a 5 month period in 2011 - and these were not every loan that ESI students took out during this period - only a small percentage). And ESI did not even make the loans!!!!! ESI did not set the interest rate!!!!! ESI did not collect the interest or record any income from any interest paid!!! All ESI did was to provide the lender a guarantee in case the student turned out to be a deadbeat, and that was something that was of great value to the student. A guarantee in such a case has significant value as it says that you will make up for the loss that another party causes.
Why would ESI ever issue a guarantee like that to a lender unless in its due diligence it thought that the student would be good to make the repayment? It make absolutely no sense that ESI would allow students into its schools and at the same time provide such guarantees if it thought that the student was going to default or be unemployable or not be able to finish the educational program (leading to dramatically increased risk of default).
Bashers here have zero clue what they are talking about. The methods are of those who lie and who are infected with greed driven by dishonesty.
I looked at the CPFB lawsuit and the exact dates of the complaint against ESI are from July 21, 2011 to December 2011 (exact end date in December 2011 was not specified). Basically this is a five month period.
Interesting thing is that ESI did not issue these loans. These were all loans of third parties. ESI did offer the lending company a guarantee if the student defaulted however. SO while ESI got no benefit from the level of interest rate charged or the terms of such loan, ESI would have to cover 100% of the loss if the student defaulted. I find it fascinating how the CFPB could file a lawsuit against ESI when then did not lend the student any money but in effect offered the actual lender a guarantee on behalf of the student (in effect, doing the student a favor). Had ESI not offered that guarantee, the student would probably have not been able to get a student loan. So ESI had no upside from the loan terms or its interest rate, but had all the risk of default. And this is worthy of a lawsuit???? Totally perverse.
I was listening to NPR on the radio last night and the segment had an official from the CFPB (US Consumer Finance Protection Board) speaking about protecting citizens from "bad practices". There was much talk about "payday lenders" where interest rates charged by the lenders can range as high as 300% to 500% annually. In New York State, the interest rates that these lenders and charge is restricted to 36% annually by state law. Many other states have no interest rate restrictions. The CFPB spokesperson then indicated that the CFPB has no authority at all to restrict interest rates charged on any loans! I was shocked to say the least, as interest rate abuse (charging excessively high interest rates) should probably be the number one focal point for the CFPB.
This then got me thinking about the CFPB case against ESI. Their case against ESI related to the refinancing options for a small number of loans that were issued over a four to five month period at the end of 2010, I believe. The case is for a tiny number of loans and only are related to the "purported" refinancing options that were offered to the borrowers. There were no super high, awful interest rates charged to students, unlike what the "payday" lenders charge. It relates to a short time frame for a small number of loans, etc, etc.
Nonetheless, the bashers here make some big deal out of all of this. It is a total joke. Student loan interest rates are subsidized. The loans are basically US Government guaranteed, which makes the interest rates on them low. In addition, one does not have to start paying interest on the loans until after graduation. The terms of these loans are exceptionally favorable to students, unless they try to default and walk away without paying. Then there are tougher consequences as the government wants its money back. The government will not let you cheat it by filing bankruptcy and then not paying your loan.
It is this situation that the a company like ESI has found itself in. The company's drafting/ design and criminal justice education programs (which never garnered any meaningful volume of student complaints leading up to the 2008-2011 economic collapse) suddenly were staring at employment markets for graduates that had fallen off dramatically because of the housing crisis and the massing state and local government spending cutbacks. The economic developments were not of ESI's creation, nor were their demise the result of anything ESI did. Furthermore, the students were the ones who choose what educational/professional fields they wished to pursue and it was their choice to take out a student loan. ESI did not make these students take out loans. Additionally, ESI took it upon themselves to offer loans to some students who requested financial assistance and many of these students defaulted on these loans to ESI, leaving the company holding the bag. These students got their educations and can continue to seek jobs using their educational credentials, while ESI is unable to collect for the educational services rendered. ESI will not be offering such financial assistance to prospective students anymore, that is for sure. In order to alleviate themselves of the financial pressure of a student loan, the student then complains to whatever government authority that will listen, hoping that there will be some relief offered. It is simply someone trying to shirk their repayment responsibility by blaming a person or company for their own failure or for an unfortunate change in the prospects offered by the economy at that particular point in time.
That said, I see no issue with students attending ESI's nursing or technology programs, where the job market has remained solid and employment opportunities are solid.
The bashers as part of their methods of operation throw stones are everything using distorted perspective to justify their actions. One of the most frequent attacks is that an ESI education is not worth anything and that students are unable to get jobs. This is hogwash as a generalization. ESI nursing and technology students get plenty of excellent paying jobs. If an individual decides to pursue a career in criminal justice ( which is a perfectly fine profession) and then signs up to get educated in that field (and take a student loan at their own choosing), they take on a certain level of risk. Ricks are: can they complete the coursework and graduate, are they themselves the type of person that an employer will want to hire, will their be a robust job market in the student's area of educational expertise? Noe of the above can be guaranteed by anyone and any student thinking that life has such guarantees is completely naive and unrealistic.
The unfortunate difficulty is when a prospective student who is completely employable undertakes an educational pursuit in an area where the job maker looks solid. However, during the time that the student works on their education, the job market makes a dramatic change and the formerly robust job opportunities disappear, not as a result of any fault of the student or the school. The student then faces a difficult situation where he has a student loans and can't find a job in the area of his interest that until recently looked so promising. Furthermore, there may be recently graduated student that had found decent employment in their specialty after graduation but then lost their jobs due to general economic cutbacks, not because of their skill level or the "value" of the education. These students then feel overwhelmed and betrayed by the the whole system - the employers, the school, the student loan system. It is easy to blame everyone else, when in fact there is no blame to be placed on anyone but themselves.
Not sure how you are "in control" when your shorted CLF two weeks ago at $4.95 and the a day or two later, you doubled down at $5.25. With CLF shares now at $6.20, you are looking at massive losses. Your margin losses are 40% in just a couple of weeks. Wonderful.
You logic is totally flawed. First off, it is the decision of the individual to attend school and it is also that person's decision which school to attend. It is also the decision of the student as to whether to take out a student loan. These are not the decisions of the school. You make in interesting point in that technology has eliminated millions of jobs. Well, dummy, ESI has an incredible strong position in the technology education sector. ESI is educating students in the areas that are replacing other lost jobs you refer to. Furthermore, you are totally off base in your comments as it pertains to nursing. Nursing jobs are in huge demand and demographics are such that the demand for these jobs will grow for decades. ESI education programs got hurt in two areas: drafting/design and criminal justice. Drafting/design was geared towards the housing market and suffered when the housing boom collapsed in 2008. ESI had nothing to de with the collapse in the housing market. Its drafting/design programs were a casualty of the housing collapse, which itself was a failure of bad government policies and poor decisions by the banking sector. The criminal justice programs came under pressure when state and local governments, facing difficult budget environments in the 2008-2011 recession, cut spending sharply in all areas, including police and criminal justice. This development too was not the fault of ESI. The downturn in criminal justice was not something in ESI's control. I would say that I haven't seen any slowdown in the ongoing crime rates in the United States in the meantime.
Now that the the China iron ore market has seen the spot price collapse in the face of increased production from the leading global iron ore producers, there is nothing more to be squeezed out of the CLF share price on this front. In fact, the shorts and the analysts have been able to squeeze much much more out of the CLF share price from the China situation than is deserved. The US is CLF's leading business by a large margin. This is a great market for CLF.
To support their absurd, short seller hedge fund client driven $1 share price targets, the Wall Street analysts must attack CLF's US market. The recent Credit Suiss report was such an attack with dubious logic. The report lowered CLF's 2015 earnings forecast to massive losses. But CLF has price protection in the US and the iron ore volumes being shipped in the US are very very solid. I do not believe the overall opinion, earning projections, or fundamental viewpoint of the Credit Suiss analyst. He is moving the target of his disgruntlement with CLF from China to the US now that there is nothing left in China to complain about that would push CLF's share price lower. It is only a matter of time before the analyst will have to dramatically increase his newly revised-lower earnings estimates.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Imagine if your buy a car with a loan (you pay no money to buy it - all the money is borrowed). And then if you default on the loan, the lender can not repossess the vehicle. The end result would be obvious. Everyone would buy a car and then stop payment. You would continue to have the car at no cost. Of course the lenders would stop making such loans, as the losses would mount. Then no one would be able to buy a car, except the wealthy. There is no free lunch, so to speak. No free car. No free education. Everything has a price. If you want to buy, you should be the one who has to pay, not someone else.
This is pretty much the how the education system works. The bozo bashers here all got student loans (like Obama) and they got an education in some field. The choice was theirs to make. But now they do not want to pay for it - and the education that they got can not be repossessed. So guess what. There are no significant private lenders in the education space anymore. Who want to lend to financial deadbeats like the bozo bashers here on this chat board. The government long ago realized that the only solution is a government funded system. The government will lend the student (NOT the school) the money to buy something, but that loan must be paid back. If you do not pay it back, the loan can not be discharged in bankruptcy and your social security benefits are lost. That is the price of default. Everyone knows this is how the system works. But, it is easy to point the finger at education companies for the personal failures of the students who because of their own personal issues and failures are unable to be hired or employed on a consistent basis.
It never ceases to amaze me how so many people think that education should be free. This mindset comes from the public K through 12 system, which these bozos think is "free". There is no such thing as free education. These public systems are incredibly expensive and students get a free ride as the local government makes taxpayers pay for it through heavy taxation. For instance in New York State, education expenses paid by the government at the current $60 billion per year are the LARGEST expense item every year (higher than any other government outlay) and represent the largest component of real estate taxes levied on taxpayers. Of course, the State of New York does not pay these expenses per se. The taxpayers pay these expenses by funding the government's expenditures program. This system of "free" or subsidized education has yielded awful results as the public school system with all its money has become some kind of political entitlement for teachers and administrators who do a poor job and can not be replaced due to tenure and other unionized job security benefits.
After high school, students are "adults" for the most part - no longer minors, they can vote, and do mostly whatever they please. The free lunch on education ends there, except for the overly taxpayer subsidized community college system. Basically, if you want an education after that, you have to pay for it out of your own pocket, unless you can get a scholarship, financial aid, or some other handout. For those that complain about having to pay for something, then they shouldn't buy it. If you buy a car on a loan and stop payment, the auto company repossesses your car in no time. Same for your house or almost anything else in life - except education. Education can not be repossessed. As such, the obligation to pay for it is not something easily discharged - and it should not be easily discharged.
The CS analyst said....."We've been writing about an inflection point in the S/D balance for the US iron market for the past two years, and in 2015 it has arrived. The US has historically been a net importer of iron ore, with most material coming from Canada, but the ongoing reduction in local demand now means that very little Canadian material is required to balance the Great Lakes market," Credit Suisse said.
According to latest trade statistics, the yearly iron ore exports by Canada increased during 2014. The exports (to all other countries, including the US) during the year totaled 40.3 million tons, up nearly 6% when compared with the previous year. Canada’s iron ore exports during 2013 had totaled 38.02 million tons. The largest importer of Canadian iron ore in 2014 was China. The Chinese imports totaled 10.07 million tons, accounting for nearly one-fourth of the total exports by Canada. However, exports to China saw significant decline during the year. The exports dropped by 33% when compared with 15.04 million tonnes of iron exported from Canada to China during 2013.
I am not sure what the Credit Suisse analyst sees in order to warrant such a decline in earnings estimates for CLF. Analyst indicates that Canadian exports to the US are going to zero in 2015. I find this hard to believe. But the analyst can make whatever projection he would like. CLF is announcing earnings shortly and that will give the company the opportunity to update the 2015 guidance, if need be.
The analyst certainly does not seem to be on the investment banking payroll.
I would not put too much on CLF's upcoming quarterly earnings. It is usually their slowest quarter of the year. Last year CLF lost money in Q1. Not sure how it will work out thins year. The prior quarter was hugely ahead of estimates ($1 versus expectations of $0.18). But it seems like no one cared. But that is fine. People will care when they decide to care.
CLF shares are still a huge buy, regardless of Q1 2015 results.
Auditor fee info was in the most recently released quarterly SEC filing. It is prominently listed in the financial statements and notes.
Golden Rule for dealing with the Bashers:
IGNORE THEM ... When you REPLY to Bashers, you give them an opportunity to earn appox. 5-7 dollars. The service agreement they enter into with their employer states their messages will be monitored for content,
profanity, lies, etc. but overseers and the like don't have the time to check all their
Bashers messages. Only occasional spot checks are done. Those who manage the
Basher will generally read the headlines to see if a Basher is replying to other posters
by name. That tells them the Basher isn't just "posting blindly".
These bashers offer no insights or fundamental analysis of any value. They criticize everything, regardless of being good or bad. Already with ESI we have a basher criticizing ESI's upcoming earnings news release (and the earnings release is not even out yet). How hilarious, but typical of a basher and their methodologies.
The Bashers on this chat board as so lame. Do not respond to their posts as it only serves to them to earn a fee from their short selling hedge fund sponsors. Furthermore, their posts are void of any value and provide zero insight - so don't even bother reading what they write.