Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[dead duck resources] 26/10/2023 19:53

It's not such a strange concept. We knew the maximum judgement would be $16 billion,
to pick one article
and track record suggests the judge was always going to shoot for the maximum award;

“Mr Donziger spent years thumbing his nose at the US judicial system” Preska said at his sentencing. “Now time to pay.” The six-month sentence was the maximum Preska was allowed to impose. When a hacker was sentenced to prison for a decade for leaking US government emails, it was the maximum sentence Preska could impose. Show trials that judges like Preska preside over are meant to be biased. They are designed to send a message, that all who defy corporate power will be lynched. [...]

Now we're back to the share price the win was announced (of anything up to $16 bln). My view is there was a sense the max would be awarded, which of course says nothing about the eventual payout, that uncertainty remains. The only real confirmation was Judge Preska's reputation as a staunchly conservative corporate pet is undiminished.

What's strange is the response to non-bullish posts on this thread. Saying the rise
to 13.50 was overdone and merited a retrace to 10.00 is not even a bearish position
as it's not forward-facing. 10.00 looks about right until next quarter results imho.

[dgdg1] 26/10/2023 17:41

DDR, very strange to assume that it was near obvious that she would decide on 16th April date, but that the interest question was less obvious. I have no idea why that should be the case. The reality is that each thing is decided on its merits. But if you think the judge was biased against Argentina and therefore it was likely she would rule against it on the date then it also follows that she would be likely to rule against it on the interest rate. But actually I believe the opposite is true - that the interest rate was highly likely to be 8%, because she had already ruled that it was going to be 6% to 8%, and based on Argentina's behaviour and the fact that this was discretionary it was logical to decide on 8%. But the date question was far more complex and harder to determine. So I do think it made sense that the price increased after that ruling, why it has gone down now is an interesting question. Part of the answer is probably that there were people who were just waiting for the ruling as they though it would go in Burford's favour, and then sold on the news. And yes, probably the results were not considered so great, but I still think the shares are now very undervalued.

[dead duck resources] 26/10/2023 12:30

dgdg1, reading up on Preska's background (there's been a few links posted here) there does seem to have been an expectation maximum damages would be sought. I would not go as far as saying obvious, but somewhere between a fair assumption and near-guaranteed based on the judge's record on corporate cases. If that view is taken the main aspect to be debated was the quantum of interest. This would explain the retrace (with price action overdone on the secondary rise when a lot was already priced in), coupled with the weaker than expected Q2 performance. My view only and yours equally valid. Cheers

[planit2] 26/10/2023 11:50

It says 29th November on Trading View, that seems more likely. I think we will get confirmation from BUR at some point but I didn't expect it yet.

I am already loaded up but might buy more. There are lots of cheap shares out there. Seems like everything is priced for full on recession apart from the superstocks and energy holding the indexes up.

Utilities, telecoms and bonds have been hammered.

If BUR is priced like a utility/bond as a future income stream (and taking cost of debt into account) it would explain most of the fall.

[three black crows] 26/10/2023 10:29

Not sure if this date is correct, doesn't look right to me, also stating Ex dividend on November 9th.

[three black crows] 26/10/2023 10:20

I'm reading the market screener website.It says that the Q3 earnings release is at 21.15 tonight, presumably being USA time.

[dgdg1] 26/10/2023 00:21

The second judgment wasn't only about interest but also about which day to use to calculate the value of the YPF shares, which was a very significant question.The judge ruling that 16th April was to be used and not 7th May meant damages were 2/3 higher than they would have been. So it clearly warranted a price increase, unless of course you thought it was obvious from the beginning that she would go with 16th April. DDR, it seems very strange and suspicious that you always find different reasons to be negative.

[dead duck resources] 25/10/2023 21:30

BUR had dipped to the 500s before the 31/3 news that Argentina would be held liable, spiking the price up to 1000, with fine-tuning on the interest announced in September receiving much hype but worth the secondary move to 1350? No surprise to see a retrace back to the April level imho.

[time_traveller] 25/10/2023 17:08

It think that's pretty much assured that she'll demand a hefty bond.

But here we sit all the same, well below $ levels hit even prior to the initial judgement. Crackers.

[extrader] 25/10/2023 17:00

Seb's latest :

🔴Argentina files Pre-Argument Statement with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
- "Plaintiffs’ suit never should have seen the inside of a New York courtroom."
- "The district court (Preska) committed at least two legal errors in calculating the $16.1 billion damages award."

🔴Argentina will focus its appeal on 7 critical issues:
1. Forum non Conveniens.
2. International Comity.
3. Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.
4. Whether plaintiffs’ claims for damages were cognizable as a matter of Argentine private law.
5. Whether Argentine public law permits plaintiffs’ claims.
6. Legal right to bring claims for money damages.
7. Whether the district court erred in calculating a judgment of $16.1 billion.

BTL comment : "That's calculated to p*$$ Preska off"

ATB

[extrader] 25/10/2023 13:20

That kind of goes with the territory, I'm afraid.

In BUR's case, management at least has had the chops to come up with a new product...and the perseverance to make it work. So perhaps some recognition/reward is warranted?

There are undoubtedly 'lifestyle' company directors where your feeling certainly applies, usually identifiable by regular investor-dilutive growth in shares in issue (not applicable to BUR, incidentally)

I'm much less sympathetic towards 'custodians' of companies who basically 'sit on the shoulders of giants' and don't materially add value; or to the privatised utilities that almost seem to reward failure; or to the public sector employees and their unfunded, gold-plated pensions; or (at the bottom of my personal 'sh*t list') our MPs, whose equally generous pension scheme currently has 1.7% of its assets invested in UK Plc...

..
The parliamentary pension scheme invests just 1.7% of its fund in UK-listed companies, or 2.8 per cent of its overall quoted shareholdings, far less than the 12.6% average for UK defined benefit pension schemes.

Quite outrageously - and hypocritically, IMO - the Chancellor wants to promote his “Mansion House” reforms, which are intended to divert billions of pounds of pension savings into higher risk, higher growth UK companies.

“The overarching mission is to try to get more British capital into UK equities,” said one ally of Hunt. “It will be good for pension funds, good for British pensioners and great for promising British companies.”

The Treasury declined to comment.

The trustee of the Parliamentary Pension Fund said
“We have a responsibility to get the best returns possible,” he said. “If that is in the UK then we invest in the UK. If not, we won’t.”

.. a report on “reinvigorating the UK equity market”, said of the pension scheme for MPs and ministers: “They represent us but they have little exposure to the UK in their pensions.

“It’s not a great example when the government is trying to persuade funds to invest more in the UK when their own pensions are tied up in overseas assets.”

We're definitely NOT 'all in this together'.

AIUI

[time_traveller] 25/10/2023 12:36

But do you get the feeling the 'house' (Burford employees) always wins?!

[sogoesit] 25/10/2023 11:10

Weeelll... I invested in Burford, as have some large SWFs, so I guess we're all "gamblers" ... or not.

Anyway my Google responds that:
"Gamblers can seek help from government-financed treatment programs."

Is that the FCA in this case?

[extrader] 25/10/2023 09:57

Hi TT,

I invested in BUR because I wanted some portfolio exposure to uncorrelated risk and went for the best in class. It's exposed to macro events, for that I also hold some gold exposure.

I was aware that Argentina / YPF was material, but that BUR wasn't a one-trick pony; the judgment has turned out more favourably than I expected; the (likely)collection difficulties are (or should have been) known.....

Maybe a bit unimaginative , aka 'no-one got fired for buying IBM' but there you are.

HTH

[scubadiverr] 24/10/2023 18:03

This is the Burford thread. If you want a thread about politics and war go and find one.

[xarios] 24/10/2023 17:53

I’ve blocked Extrader on both boards.

[tomtrudgian] 24/10/2023 17:34

Oh dear, Extrader continues endlessly. Copy and pasted PR snippets wholly inconsequential to the global situation, to Israel, or to Argentinians without radios (or shoes).

[extrader] 24/10/2023 16:59

Got it, thanks!

It certainly won't want that, as implied by BUR's closing remark on judgment

.."As to YPF, Petersen and Eton Park argued that YPF had a duty to enforce its own bylaws and prevent Argentina from taking control of YPF in a manner inconsistent with the bylaws. The Court disagreed and held that YPF "was not obligated to enforce" the bylaws against Argentina. Unless reversed on appeal, the Court's ruling results in the dismissal of YPF from the case. YPF's presence in the case was not a source of additional damages; the damages will be the same whether the case is against just Argentina or YPF as well. However, YPF's dismissal may alter one potential path of enforcement of an ultimate judgment.

ATB

[375uv] 24/10/2023 12:43

YPF is covering itself from an unlikely overturn by the Second Circuit. All the company is saying is that, if Burford wins the appeal, it reserves the right to introduce additional arguments to the Second Circuit before the court sends the case back to the District Court (Preska) and a Writ is filed with the Supreme Court.

Remember that fewer than 10% of Federal cases are overturned on appeal. But still, 10% is 10% and YPF wants to be certain that it is not brought back into the case.

[extrader] 24/10/2023 10:12

Seb's latest :

YPF re-enters the fray, cross-cross-appealing on a conditional basis the action taken by Plaintiffs/BUR to appeal Preska's original decision to dismiss claims against YPF when awarding judgment against Argentina....

Seb's laconic observation
🛑Interesting cross-cross appeal on a conditional basis just filed by YPF. I was unaware that this was a legal channel available in the U.S. justice system.

If nothing else, this intervention will surely strengthen BUR's case for a substantial bond being required.

AFAICS 

[extrader] 23/10/2023 20:44

Concerned about possible low voter turn-out on 19th November, Government has abruptly postponed by a week a long-communicated public holiday due on Monday 20th, to discourage holiday-makers from disappearing for a long weekend...

Sebastian Maril reposted
🔴 AHORA | Por el balotaje, el Gobierno trasladará el feriado del 20 de noviembre al lunes 27 hxxp://infobae.com

[extrader] 23/10/2023 18:08

Ashmore (ASHM) take on the first round election result :

Argentina: At the General Elections on Sunday, with 97% off the vote counted, Sergio Massa held 36.6% of the vote ahead of Javier Milei with 30.0%; and Patricia Bullrich trailing with 23.8%.

The result sets the stage for a second round between Argentina’s far right and far left parties on November 19th.

The voter turnout was low at 74%, compared with 81% in 2019 elections and 79% in 2015.

Milei needs to dissociate himself from currency depreciation and come to the centre. Milei will also need a higher voter turnout outside of the Province of Buenos Aires (PBA), which historically has hurt the Peronist Party.

The Peronist Axel Kicillof [of 'we'd be stupid to pay compensation' fame]was re-elected Governor of the Province of Buenos Aires with c. 45% of votes. Massa received 43% of the votes in the PBA.

Bullrich said Juntos por Cambio (JxC) would never support communists.

Whoever wins will struggle to govern, because the Peronists, albeit losing the majority, still have the largest minorities in both houses.

The Senate (72 seats) split has 34 Peronists; 24 JxC; 8 Milei’s party; 6 others.
The Lower House (257 seats) has 107 Peronists; 94 JxC; 39 Milei’s; 17 others.

On economic data news, Argentina’s trade deficit was unchanged at USD 1.0bn in September, against expectations of a USD 200m surplus.

GLA

[lomax99] 22/10/2023 11:49

YPF expropriation case: Burford appeals, tries to bring the company back to the trialHttps://buenosairesherald.com/politics/judiciary/ypf-expropriation-case-burford-appeals-tries-to-bring-the-company-back-to-the-trial