So, let me see if I can summarize what FACTS are known for the two alternate cases:1. EBIX is vulnerable to short attacks both by history and by small number of outstanding shares (relatively) plus high institutional ownership. The historical short attacks involved unsubstantiated accounting sins, previously discredited, but profitable to the attackers. The current attack looks similar, may or may not be related to the first attack, and contains specific details some as yet unknown party with the proper knowledge and resources will check and eventually discredit. BUT the odds are this is a repeat.2. EBIX is pressing the limits of arcane and novel? accounting tax treatments for international operations, or may have stepped over the line. Disclosures of researchers with no real reputation have some credibility because of their specificity and detail. Some of the accounting flaws suggested would seriously confuse or maybe compromise EBIX so far good financial results at best, and at worst run the company afoul of the SEC and other legal pitfalls. There has not yet been a serious and well executed fact check of the "charges" and the EBIX issued press release was generic with no specific answers to the accounting flaws "exposed".Do I have that about right?
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. M