Seeking Alpha

Gotham City Research

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Gotham City Research's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Ebix: New Problems Emerge In Singapore, Sweden And India [View article]
    We did...it's unrelated to Ebix, Inc. Good question though.
    Sep 19 10:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ebix: All Distraction, No Clarity [View article]
    Thank you.
    Jun 20 04:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Ebix: All Distraction, No Clarity [View article]
    Thanks for your question. We we were aware of this many weeks ago. Note that if you examine the balance sheet of the 2009 filing, it does reflect a concurrent reduction in an 'investment' asset and a 'payable' liability, roughly in the amounts equal to those intangible assets purchased by Ebix Singapore (as reflected in the Singapore filings). The problem, as we've identified in our reports, is that the same filing's statement of cash flows does not reflect/explain the reduction in the asset and liability. Nor is there a footnote to explain how those shrank without any impact to the statement of cash flows.

    Implication:

    We have the right filing, just based on the math. Your point about consolidation or lack of thereof, doesn't matter, as the math shows.
    Mar 8 01:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ebix: All Distraction, No Clarity [View article]
    Thanks for your question. We we were aware of this many weeks ago. Note that if you examine the balance sheet of the 2009 filing, it does reflect a concurrent reduction in an 'investment' asset and a 'payable' liability, roughly in the amounts equal to those intangible assets purchased by Ebix Singapore (as reflected in the Singapore filings). The problem, as we've identified in our reports, is that the same filing's statement of cash flows does not reflect/explain the reduction in the asset and liability. Nor is there a footnote to explain how those shrank without any impact to the statement of cash flows.

    Implication:

    We have the right filing, just based on the math. Your point about consolidation or lack of thereof, doesn't matter, as the math shows.
    Mar 8 01:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ebix: All Distraction, No Clarity [View article]
    Thank you for your question. Your assertion, "Australian accounts only became fully consolidated in 2011. For 2009 you need to pull the EbixExchange Australia Pty Ltd Sub to see the cash flows which isn't available from ASIC. " is actually incorrect. See note 14. and note 13 for the 2009 and 2011 filings respectively.
    Mar 8 01:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    Great question... read our report carefully, our answer is there (we advise reading the report in its entirety on our website; we only went about this "part I" route because the Seeking Alpha format is just not conducive for serious, forensic, due-diligence based research reports) .

    We are wondering the same thing, right? Shouldn't the loan just cancel out elsewhere? So let's examine what that would look like: (1) We are told Singapore was lent $X (per the Singapore filings) (2) Singapore filings indeed show inflow of $X (3) Singapore filings show minus $X as a "use of cash" (under the investing activities)

    So THE QUESTION: Who was the recipient of the Singapore subsidiary's use of cash? Where did the money go? Based on the Singapore filings, it seems to belong in Australia (as the Singapore filings allege that Singapore purchased intangible assets from Australia). Yet the Australian filings show NO in flow of cash!!

    See the report for more, but that's why we're just as confused as you are.

    The other thing is, some people will say "but but Google does all kinds of related party loans, and doesn't disclose" To which Gotham would respond: "yeah, but Google doesn't do intercompany loans of 50+ billion dollars (50 billion dollars is roughly the amount of tangible assets GOOG has; Ebix's undisclosed related party loan, $66 million, equaled the entire company's tangible assets!)
    Feb 22 01:16 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    Matter of fact, if you look carefully at our report (on our website), your gut feel seemed well placed: over 95% of the intangible assets on the Singapore's books has NOTHING to do with intellectual property!

    Thanks for your comment.
    Feb 22 01:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    Nope, not ignoring that at all. You're (inconveniently) forgetting these two things called: (a) interest (b) penalties.

    Don't trust me, go look it up!
    Feb 22 01:15 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    We did, and the math doesn't support that theory. Thanks.
    Feb 22 01:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    We spoke with and speak with transfer pricing domain experts (i.e. people who do this for a living). We are fully aware of all you mentioned. Few things (thanks for your comments by the way):

    (1) Whoever conducts or facilitates these "studies" distance themselves, as far as implementation go; they want the upside of doing the "work" but not downside in case of illegal activity

    (2) See OECD docs on arm's length; go to our report on our website, we specifically cite Singapore specific criterion for related party loans. Doesn't pass the sniff test, doesn't pass the nitty gritty tests.

    (3) C'mon, are we 2nd grade? Tests don't insure anything. Sino-Forest hid behind the Poyry reports as a defense... and remember Bre-X?

    S
    Feb 22 01:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
13 Comments
5 Likes