Barington had very good timing on EBIX and they went public with their position just before a variety of overhanging issues cleared up.
From checking their website, they have two other activist shareholder positions. DRI which they stated in Dec '13 and OMN which they stated in Dec '14
What do you guys think of these?
Having read these hit pieces for years, you have to wonder just who keeps falling for these considering how horrible the logic used is.
This is an example of the customer stickyness / wide moat EBIX has. It took 2-3 years to roll out this platform, they will continue to use EBIX for some time...
It was a small pool of shorts that published those attack pieces. Now that the EBIX short case is falling apart I'm wondering what other stocks they went after to see if any others are good buys.
Anyone have any knowledge on this?
I wish I sold in the $20 range prior to the acquisition falling apart. Was planning to put the sell order in but got distracted with something else, then the price was $9. At least it was a good point to double down on the position. It's been a long 3 years with this one though.
Even if a short entered their position at the 2011 high of $30.35, if you factor in the cost to borrow share every short is now underwater even if they timed the last high perfectly.
At the end of Jan shorts had covered another 1M shares, but still had over 12M short.
I'm waiting for the forced liquidation of these positions.
The high for EBIX was $30.35 in early 2011.
The $36 number was from 15+ years ago when EBIX was a completely different company, that company practically went under, stock was under $2 for years. Then RR came in and completely changed focus.
Point is $30 is the relevant all time high for EBIX as it currently exists.
Wait a minute, with IB if they lend your shares you get a cut?
You mean that if I transferred my shares from Schwab to IB years ago I could have been making a percentage of that for free while sitting on the shares? Is this right?
Does anyone know Schwab's policy on this? I asked them this exact question last year and they told me that Schwab never lends shares out, I suspect that is BS and told them that but they stuck to the story....
Been following this stock for 5 years, never have seen a meeting go by without a press release or some news on the content. Seriously Barington was suppose to make IR better, not worse.
Where is a press release on what was announced at the share holder meeting. This silence is strange.
That's 5.7% from the same period one year ago, for 5.7% annualized. EPD is not increasing it's distribution by 22%/yr.
I think the Goldman deal that fell apart last year showed that RR's true intentions is to get a large cash out, preferably soon.
Barrington provides a path to that end, where as other options look limited now. Firms like Barrington go in an clean up entities, with the intention of making them better over as short of a time period as possible in order to cash out as soon as possible. This is what RR wants as well.
I have the same question.
Schwab told me that they never lend shares out short. Personally I find that hard to believe and think my "financial consultant" just didn't know what she was talking about.
If RR acquires shares through repurchases, then the shares are simply retired and have no voting privileges because they no longer exist. Otherwise RR could use company funds (i.e. shareholder funds) to acquire votes, that's not how it works.
What it does mean is it puts pressure on the shorts by putting pressure on stock lenders. Shares that are lent to short sellers also lose their voting rights when they lend out the shares. This means that if RR needs those votes (for example with a friendly mutual fund) , he has to recall back the lent share, which in turn forces the short seller to repurchase.
Either way, whenever there is a fight for votes, there is a fight for shares since they equal votes. This is good for longs.
"The fact that insiders/institutions own combined 91% of the stock is neither here nor there to my point because they just sit and do nothing in terms of buying or selling so they have little impact on share price. "
Tried to quote that above in my note above, but Yahoo somehow cut the quotes outs.
The fact that insiders/institutions own combined 91% of the stock is neither here nor there to my point because they just sit and do nothing in terms of buying or selling so they have little impact on share price.
They sit back and lend their shares out at 10% per year, add in the dividend and that is a nice return even if the stock sticks around $13-$15. This has been the problem, I think both the institutional longs and the shorts have been happy with the status quo for this stock.
The current stats are
Total Shares: 38.33M - 1.64M = 36.69 shares
Total Float: 34.11M - 1.64M = 32.47M shares
Of these the % held by insiders (which we can assume are not shortable) is 27.15% or 9.26M shares. This means there are 32.47M - 9.26M = 23.21M shares that are publicly traded and held by institutions or retail.
As you showed of these 23.21M shares, 15.63M are lent to shorts or 15.63/23.21 = 67.3% of ALL public shares are shorted. This is amazing.
Now lets assume RR buys back another $75M shares at $13.67, or 5.48M shares. The numbers then work out to
23.21M - 5.48M = 17.73M shares held by the public
15.63M short / 17.73M public = 88.2% of ALL shares shorted.
These numbers can not hold. And if somehow they do RR just needs to buy back a mere $15M additional shares to force a squeeze by bringing the public float below the number of shares lent. Something has to break here at some point.