jrad, I agree that everyone should break out and file the 5 sub-K-1s separately.
What I am worried about though is what happens from doing this with a long term holding.
Each year the tax basis decreases due to distributions. However at the same time most of the losses carried forward are assigned to the RGP portion and not the ETE portion.
This means that at some point I will receive distributions with a zero capital account and need to start to pay taxes on those distributions. Normally there would be passive losses accumulated that could be used to offset the distributions, in effect drawing down on passive loss amounts until that reaches zero as well.
However with ETE, these passive loses are mostly in the RGP portion not the ETE portion. That is what I am worried about. It will be a few years before this happens, but I'm not selling and that date is getting closer and closer.
I've seen this question asked on other turbotax boards, and tax accountants have admitted they have no idea what to do in that situation.
The most obvious and probably only likely acquirers are the few larger competitors EBIX has in the insurance brokerage business.
That makes a lot more sense and would demonstrate that major players in the insurance business see long-term value to EBIX.
The Goldman M&A seriously worried me regarding EBIX's long-term viability. That private equity path normally just wants to purchase stable cash cows that they can squeeze as much cash flow out of, PE typically does not purchase growth firms which was EBIX's story and why the Goldman M&A never made sense to me. The only way it made sense was that it enabled RR to increase his stack and cash out some, which was why so many long-term holders viewed it so negatively.
Easy, let the price rise to the $100 level needed to convince 50% of total holders (management, institutional, retail) to sell their stake.
I still don't understand why institutional funds don't call back there shares. It would be the mother of all squeezes because there would be no one to buy from. Stock would sky rocket and shorts would have to buy back in the hundreds of dollars from institutional funds.
I know funds make some money from lending shares, but the opportunity on the other side is so much higher.
the attack completely failed and the stock recovered within 4 hours of Gotham's articles (this happened on August 6th check the price action that day)
The reason the attack failed to make a meaningful and longer lasting impact was the market had finally become aware and weary of the same nonsense being published again and again.
Now the shorts can barely move the stock at all even for a short time, let alone make a meaningful impact. Hopefully this will cause them to finally move on to another stock to manipulate. The one little issue is they need to find 40% of the float to buy in order to exit and move on.
Those idiots are getting scared. I think they started to actually believe their own nonsense and can not understand why EBIX is recovering.
The next earnings will say a lot.
"However, guy who sold these puts. Better have 1 million shares to deliver, if these puts are exercise specially if stock price continue to drift higher."
If the stock price continues to drift higher the put seller does not care since they are not exercised.
The stock would have to be hammered to below $12 again for him to have to find 1 million shares, and if the stock goes that low finding 1M shares will be no problem
RR's latest communication was that the company had largely completed its debt paydown and increased cash significantly, those were numbers for end of dec. If EBIX has done nothing then they probably have around $50M in cash. RR is not going to sit on that. My guesses are: 1) Buybacks have finally re-started or 2) They have another acquisition in the works which signals a restart to their growth through acquisition model.
The shorts better get their act together. We are almost back to where the stock was trading before the Goldman buyout was announced (around $17 I think)
So is the settlement good or bad?
Was there nothing to the case and this was a small payoff to make the lawyers go away? Or were there minor accounting issues and the courts viewed $6M as an appropriate settlement?
$6M is a decent chunk of EBIX's annual cash flow (around 10%). If nonsense seeking alpha articles can cause me to lose 10% of annual FCF, something is wrong and I am seriously #$%$ at cooperfield.
Now about those stock buybacks, we still have a large $100M program to go through that RR announced last summer after the stock crashed below $10.
I want to see stock buybacks since the stock is till undervalued and RR can easily retire ~25% of the float over the next year to two. That is the best way to address the ~50% short positions IMHO
The fact that EPD retains a larger percentage of its cash flow than most other MLPs and reinvests them in the business, is why EPD is a core holding of mine. It allows the company to grow without having to do nearly as many equity offerings and instead grow primarily with debt backed financing.
With institutional holders owning so much, I just don't understand where the shorts are borrowing their shares from. Unless companies such as blackrock are lending out a large portion of their shares, the math just does not work out.
It seems all they have to do to create a short squeeze is to call back their lent shares, but this never happens. Why?
When you run the numbers the only way it works out is if very large percentage of institutional shares are lent out.
It has been this way for years now and why people keep waiting for the short squeeze that never happens.
The cost to borrow shares may be one reason funds hold EBIX, they receive a decent return just by lending the shares and the stock does not need to go anywhere.
North America has a structural LNG cost of around $3-$5, while the rest of the world has a structural cost over $12 (and they continue to use more natural gas than we do).
Any business associated with LNG export is going to do very very well...
It seems like all Carson Block does is take a massive short position, then release an article he wrote, then cover and walk away. How is this legal? How does the market fall for it again and again?