Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[williamcooper104] 06/6/2019 16:45

Perversely some of Woodfords smaller companies may well end up not being sold whereas Bur can be sold

[trident5] 06/6/2019 16:45

WC104 - he bought high and sold low at Kier.

[williamcooper104] 06/6/2019 16:43

Minerva - don’t care much for graphs - but a lower share price equals better fundamentals

Good luck with Kier

Was chatting to a QS yesterday about them - you’ll need your luck :)

[williamcooper104] 06/6/2019 16:42

Czeck

Simple - pound cost averaging

Of course - I think - I’m often wrong - so hedge by spreading time of purchases

[rar100] 06/6/2019 16:37

From Citywire today

On the Alternative Investment Market, Eddie Stobart Logistics (ESLE) was down 3.2% at 76.5p, Horizon Discovery (HZDH) dropped 2% to 155.9p and Burford Capital (BURF) dropped 1.5% to £14.79.

The FTSE 100 climbed 48 points, or 0.7%, to 7,269, following comments from the US Federal Reserve suggesting a rate cut was on the cards. Weak US jobs data strengthened investor hopes of a near-term rate cut.

Other major fallers on the UK’s main market were trading without entitlement to their next dividend, or ex-dividend. Supermarket Sainsbury’s (SBRY) was down 3.5%, or 7p, to 195p, retailer Kingfisher (KGF) gave up 3.7%, or 8p, to 210p and telecoms giant Vodafone (VOD) lost 3%, or 4p, at 129p.

So today, BUR didn't do so bad as some. Small consolation...

[minerve 2] 06/6/2019 15:28

czeck

Only buy a business on its intrinsic value. Don't buy it just because it's fallen and looks good on the graph.

You ask a good question. The answer is they're STUPID.

[brexitplus] 06/6/2019 15:17

Trident

I guess you are asking minerve about his loss. It was substantial.

The lowest he would have bought at originally would have been about 750p because he took up the rights issue. Having sold at about 160p, to be generous, I calculate that the minimum he would have lost was 75%. Not bad for a super investor!!!

[czeck] 06/6/2019 15:09

Call me a novice if you like and forgive me for asking but if we have further to fall as yet why would you top up today and hold more for a later lower entry?

[williamcooper104] 06/6/2019 14:22

Everything Woodford related is down

It’s an easy short

It’s probably either a fire sale of divi en s

Some of the fire is in the price but clearly we have further to fall - topped up a little today; holding back more for later

[aishah] 06/6/2019 13:23

Simon McGarry, senior equity analyst at Canaccord Genuity Wealth Management, gets his team to pick seven good value stocks that they think will outperform in 2019.

Financial Sector stock – Burford Capital plc (BUR:LN)
Burford Capital is a global finance and investment management company for the legal sector. Its main line of business is providing capital to fund the pursuit of legal claims, in return receiving a portion of settlements paid by defendants or their insurers.

The global legal market is estimated to be worth more than $620bn and Burford estimates that litigation finance currently accounts for less than 2% of it, with Burford’s share under 1%. However, this market is growing rapidly.

Following an already strong 2017, Burford’s 2018 first-half performance was particularly impressive – year-on-year investment income was up 21% to US$195m and total revenue up 17% to US$205m.

However, despite this strong first-half performance, the shares have not been immune to global equity market weakness.

whatinvestment.co.uk

[trident5] 06/6/2019 13:10

Tell us about your timing on Kier - your in and out prices - big gap?

[minerve 2] 06/6/2019 12:37

COULD WE SEE 1000?

Minerve will say 'when'.

[minerve 2] 06/6/2019 12:36

Burford Special Brew

Those that laugh at Minerve are having to watch this closely.

I wonder if there will be a Burford fire sale?

ROFLMAO!

[sogoesit] 06/6/2019 12:30

Why would a company need to react to the misjudgement of a fund manager?
If it were to do so it would be a never-ending story.

Woodford's judgement has been called into question so, logically, anyone following his picks will also be "unfollowing" his picks. This process happens all the time admittedly not on such an extreme scale.

If you like the stock, and are getting a discount to your own valuation in the short term, why not buy it, for the long term, while the story unwinds or the share price finds a bargain price level?

[time_traveller] 06/6/2019 08:36

Concern over the Woodford overhang could so easily be mitigated by announcing a main listing.

[ali47fish] 06/6/2019 08:20

in the meantime is this a good opp to add as the share price is quite low

[trident5] 06/6/2019 07:59

A HF has just gone short Bur (0.5%) - first time I've seen that - presumably it's Woodford related.

[gettingrichslow] 06/6/2019 07:51

djderry, there's an important point there. I wonder how many CEOs and CFOs (or other combinations of Execs) are having secret affairs without anyone knowing? Bet no-one is worrying about that prospect but you can guarantee there are examples out there!

[djderry] 06/6/2019 07:44

It could even mean extra business for the asset recovery arm?

[djderry] 06/6/2019 07:40

Perhaps they could get divorced and 'live in sin?'

[lomax99] 06/6/2019 07:20

Not ideal but not unduly concerned.

[jonwig] 06/6/2019 07:11

galatea - you are using today's knowledge of the company to rationalise a situation which, in retrospect should have been disclosed in 2009's admission document.

Also, as I said, the AD had scant coverage of the key players, and no mention of their large shareholdings: Jonathan Molot (one para), Elizabeth O'Connell (no mention), Christopher Bogart (who'd have guessed at the time that he was the key man?).

The FT used to have a columnist, A. Hindsight whose predictions for the year were unfailingly accurate. He was always late producing copy, though - a year late.

I, too, am unconcerned, but only because the company has been successful (for me) and the relationship has - in retrospect - been of no consequence.

[brexitplus] 06/6/2019 06:38

Galatea

I have no concerns whatsoever.

[galatea99] 06/6/2019 05:56

The nature of Burford's business and the procedures in place may actually make the fact that the CEO and CFO are married to one another rather less problematic than such a situation would be in a more conventional kind of business. By that, I mean that the recognition of as yet unrealised income, that is the estimates of fair current value, is decided by a group of people within the company and not by either the CEO or the CFO acting alone or by only the two of them acting together. Then such or each of such decisions requires there to have been a documented and verified trigger event, in the form of a progressive court decision or something similar, an event or events recognised by the group as being a valid reason or valid reasons for attributing value to the case (or portfolio of cases) under evaluation. Then there is the fact that every one of Burford's employees is, reportedly, also a shareholder in the company, often with personal investments that are quite sizeable in relation to their own incomes and personal assets, meaning that there will undoubtedly be any number of sharp-eyed people (mostly lawyers, remember!) watching out for anything going on or watching out for decisions or behaviour (including by the CEO and the CFO) that could or might threaten their own futures and those of their families, in effect creating a pool of natural potential whistleblowers.

This is not a business where dummy invoices can simply be created by the CFO or liabilities suppressed or debts hidden somewhere in order to bury the bodies safely away from the gaze of the auditors. Quite the contrary, the procedures in place and the nature of the business arguably offer much greater protection to investors than there would be in a more conventional business, as well as making the marital circumstances of the CEO and CFO rather less of a concern than otherwise.

Thoughts would be appreciated.

[jonwig] 06/6/2019 05:27

bestace - first time I've seen any. They don't call themselves a hedge fund, but that's the sort of description I'd use.

"Gladstone Capital Management LLP is a long-term, fundamental Long / Short Equity investment manager established in 2005."

"Gladstone Capital Management LLP is based out of London. Gladstone Capital Management LLP is a large advisory firm with 4 clients and discretionary assets under management (AUM) of $598,890,119 (Form ADV from 2019-02-28)."

Why? I can only think of the technical position: 19,649,974 shares potentially up for sale.