Amb,
"Aside from momentum players, who are the other eyes? Daytraders are a fickle lot. And there is no hard evidence of increasing institutional backing. Is there?"
The increasing volumes and breakout to new all-time highs attracts attention imo. Combine that with the fact that the results for the company are real, insiders are buying, a share repurchase is authorized and there are possible game-changing deals that could be announced ect ect...sure, some of the move can from momo-traders, but I'd venture to say there are more strong hands that acquired the stock looking at a longer horizon than the traders that noticed the breakout and jumped in. Anyways, those traders are probably gone now as we consolidate in the .80's.
No, the evidence of institutional backing for the stock has been minimal at best considering their performance and outlook. Hopefully we'll see that changing as the price rises to $1+ and the prospect of listing gets closer. Another possible positive catalyst, and since there aren't many large concentrated institutional holdings left at this point we don't have much risk of a large holder liquidating their position.
[...the markets are not in free-fall mode (at least they havent been for a while, although I fully expect this to change)]
"If that's the case, then maybe it's just a matter of timing the exit before all hell breaks loose (again)."
That depends on one's philosophy regarding the marketplace. I have been laddering into a significant put option position on SPY and have been buying gold for months as well to protect my flank (NEM calls, GLD straight, GLD calls, AGT etc). But that doesnt necessarily mean I think that the overall market and EGMI are highly correlated...in fact, I was of the firm opinion that they were barely correlated at all until Trafelet folded...enter Systematic Risk stage left. Regardless of that event I think the correlation is low and the risk/reward too appealing to bail due to a belief in the market falling.
[...the fund manager for Pequot is on the EG BOD. We kind of have to assume this go around that the company and he would get together and cross the shares.]
"Is it legal for director Farrell to still manage the holdings in that Pequot fund containing EGMI? I'm not sure about this. I'm guessing no."
I highly doubt they would have elected him to the board had it been illegal. Presumably Pequot was in it for the long-term and having Mr. Farrell on the BOD was a vote of confidence in their investment and a positive for both. Also, presumably, he would be subject to similar blackout periods for trading the stock. Otherwise it might be construed as insider trading; but hey, one only has to look as far as the reason why the Pequot Funds are shutting down to see that the possibility is within the realm of reason.
-Bino
AI
