Partially agreed tradertrev. The lengthy negotiations some years ago between Burford Capital and the Stock Exchange Commission (SEC) were about whether, and to what extent, “fair valuing” of assets should be allowed by the SEC under US GAAP. To do so might destabilise the US share market, possibly Canada although few others.
Burford, mindful of the then recent Muddy Waters attack on their figures, understandably wanted to demonstrate “best practice”. The SEC eventually agreed a compromise to GAAP, and the differences with IFRS can be clicked on below.
Before then “fair valuing” of assets was never accepted practice under US GAAP or the global IFRS. The juducial acceptance of fair valuing started in Australia 17 years ago.
Further datails from:
hxxps://rsmus.com/content/dam/rsm/insights/financial-reporting/1pdf/us-gaap-to-ifrs-comparisons-20231215.inline.pdf |
I doubt - after all the back-and-forth with the SEC - that there will be any change to the accounting practices and principles. |
 Burford US shareholders now consist, much later than anticipated, of over 50% of shareholders outside the US. So, effective 1 Jan 25 BUR will become a US domestic issuer. What does this mean for UK shareholders? Quite a lot:
1/ Audited accounts calculated according to the globally more common International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) will no longer be produced. Audited accounts will continue, but only according the US Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP).
2/ That will mean quarterly results, already produced with three quarters unaudited, are now compulsory. Slightly less fair valuing of assets, and less emphasis on accruals and more on cash, both either way.
3/ It may also mean following standard US practices for example: Much reduced dividends, the ending of Trading Updates, and the imposition of US 15% (variable) dividend withholding tax. Probably BUR’s place of incorporation changing from Guernsey to the US, and a greater effect on the sterling share price caused by US events and the dollar exchange rate.
BUR have long believed that the overall effect will be an increase in the share price. About time, some may think. |
Up against 44m revenue from Q2 23 so should smash Q2. H1 23 425m so will need 381m to bring in line that's harder. H2 23 strong with new reporting, yes we need good news..Thursday will tell at 12:00 |
Year lows, and price just prior to previous Q results towers 35% above, Thursday had better be good! |
More from Seb.YPF judgment creditors seek to expand the number of state-owned companies that can be considered the Alter Ego of the Republic of Argentina. They are asking Judge Preska to order the government to provide information about Banco Nacion, Aerolíneas Argentinas, ENARSA, and ARSAT. They are also requesting a conference..Step by step, it's not quick but it's moving |
good find .... thnx |
Kaos3 Better to be on by the conservative side than bragging about some big numbers coming in |
Kais3Ok if it 50% taken off. We could be looking at an increase in the share price of around 5 pounds. Bringing us up to around 17 pounds.It's been a long wait for this but better than nothing |
what percentage of the eventual ypf reward is expected to go to the shareholders - after all other stakeholders take their priority cut?
like government, service providers, employees etc to name just few.
it could be up to 50 % imho depending on the contract signed and tax rates etc... it is mostly baked in already
so -simplictic math to establish value is just it - too simple
PS 50 % is too much - but take 20 % taxes, 10 % bonuses, legal services, legal services as a front for cash distribution to the parties agreeing like 10 - 20 % etc
my experiences are rough - maybe one could explain the exact game similation with numbers range for each stakeholder and of course, naming them |
Yet when they won the case I thought 30 pounds was a good valuation in a year or more When the money starts rolling in and dividend increased Happy to wait |
My valuation is $15 for YPF, $5 for the fund management business (c. $1bn as stand alone for AUM), and $10 for the balance sheet funded portfolio. So $30/£23 or approximately 2.2x current. When cash starts to flow in it should get there.
A watch out on the balance sheet valuation… BUR quote a value for the portfolio based on contract commitments but calculate ROI/IRR based on actual deployments for finished cases. Final deployments are usually lower than commitments. This is important when attempting a valuation for BUR balance sheet funding as the headline $7bn portfolio includes the third party fund business and undrawn commitments. The balance sheet money actually at work is a lot lower. Worth keeping an eye on next week when half year is published. |
My guess on settlement timing is as good as anyone else. I do think it will be entwined with the Argentine return to financial markets and out of IMF support. Perhaps next summer? |
Rivermann 77, Oh yes of course. New calculation after settlement around 18 pounds now. |
Some of this potential settlement will already be factored into the current share price (probably £3-4), so not sure you can just add them both up. |
Hi Kuk1doh,Let's convert to the pound.15 usd is equal to 11.69 gbp.Current share price being 10.80 gbp.That would bring us up to around 22.49 gbp.What's your thinking on timescale for this settlement ? |
My assumption is that YPF will settle for $10n present value on the back of some payment arrangement and BUR gets approx $4bn. After charges/bonuses etc, $15/share balance sheet value. I’m staying patient |
Only a month to go to the first anniversary of Judge Preska's decision re quantum of damages and judgement interest rate ( 5.42%) in the Petersen matter.Back of the envelope calculations,another $900 million due.
$360 million approx due to Bur. |
I expect burford to be in the oil business like it or not to get any money from Argentina Massive reserves to be appropriatedOver time |
They don't deserve to have a negotiated deal that lowers the full award plus interest. Not only that, Burford shareholders also deserve the full amount that's why we're here. |
He adds that The payment instrument is far from being defined and will depend on the Argentine economic situation when it comes to negotiating. Shares, bonds, equity, in installments...anything goes, but nothing today. |
From Seb Burford is not seeking to settle the ruling for $2 billion. This is very far from what they are looking for. I don't know if they are trying to leak a Government offer to Burford, but that figure is very wrong.hTTps://www.clarin.com/economia/reunion-secreta-titular-ypf-kicillof-moneda-aire_0_Q8PPNDKATM.htmlThe clock runs against them with a trial that is at the head of the Argentine State with unseizable goods. The amount of the judgement is devalued at US$ 1.3 billion in Burford's balance sheets. The answer of the lawyers is not simple. But they risk that the vulture fund seeks to fix about US$ 2 billion alongside the pressure on Judge Loretta Preska to place the responsibility on YPF, which is embargoable. |
Just in from Seb :
BUR's pleadings re YPF :
YPF judgment creditors: "That evidence begins with the February 2012 memorandum from Argentine Secretary of Energy Daniel Cameron to Argentina’s appointed member of the YPF board. In that memorandum, Cameron laid out two routes for acquiring control: first, “under the rules of [YPF’s] own bylaws,” which “implies moving forward with a stock tender offer,” or second, through “expropriation,” which would allow Argentina “to take control of the company without prior payment" A tender offer would cost Argentina “between 11 billion and 14.5 billion dollars,” so Cameron concluded “[t]he only way to go is expropriation.”;
YPF judgment creditors: "That inference of causation is confirmed by the April 17, 2012 speech to the Argentine Congress by Axel Kicillof, in his dual role as YPF’s Vice-Intervenor and Argentina’s Secretary of Economic Policy and Development Planning. In that speech—one day after the intervention—Kicillof unambiguously declared that YPF would do nothing at all to enforce the Bylaws, openly mocking as “fools … those who think that the State has to be stupid and buy everything according to the law of YPF itself, respecting its bylaws,” and dismissing the tender-offer provisions as a “bear trap.”
YPF judgment creditors: "Even if Argentina and YPF could somehow avoid their contractual obligations under the Bylaws, they would still remain bound by their equally clear promises in the IPO prospectus and subsequent SEC filings, which deliberately induced massive and concrete reliance on the part of Plaintiffs and other investors."
YPF judgment creditors: "YPF not only failed to carry out its promises to investors to police Argentina’s violations, but independently breached the Bylaws by taking actions that the Bylaws expressly prohibited".
Strong stuff!
GLA |
Customisable watchlists with full streaming quotes from leading exchanges, such as LSE, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, Bovespa, BIT and more.
Hot Features
Premium
