Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Burford Capital Limited LSE:BUR London Ordinary Share GG00B4L84979 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +57.00p +3.61% 1,638.00p 1,631.00p 1,634.00p 1,636.00p 1,584.00p 1,591.00p 1,057,993 16:35:20
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 314.6 239.3 82.9 19.3 3,581

Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 6801 to 6825 of 7225 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  277  276  275  274  273  272  271  270  269  268  267  266  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
05/6/2019
23:09
BBD's trendline/neckline comes back into focus. Not sure why, but the chart appeared in my mind during the latter part of an extremely long [80km!] MTB ride today. It is not going to take much selling pressure for the H&S to confirm. An eod close below approx. 1450 confirms. The mid chart shows the tp at approx. 950, with strong historical support approx. 999 Next potential turn 11-12/6/2019 Longer term
bamboo2
05/6/2019
23:04
Burford Special Brew
minerve 2
05/6/2019
21:44
Brixitplus - most of the FTSE 250 positions may as well be unquoted given his relative holding to size of stock
williamcooper104
05/6/2019
20:30
Some short interest: Https://shorttracker.co.uk/company/GG00B4L84979/
bestace
05/6/2019
18:20
More bad news for Woodford From Citywire “St James's Place (SJP) has dealt a huge blow to Neil Woodford, dropping him from £3.5 billion of its funds as it terminated a relationship with the manager that has lasted nearly two decades. Woodford has now lost the support of his two biggest backers in the space of just three days, after Hargreaves Lansdown (HRGV) cut the manager from its Wealth 50 buy list after the suspension of his Woodford Equity Income fund. The funds he has run for St James's Place are separate mandates, and the advice group said it believed the switch would 'ensure its clients' investments continue to be managed effectively'. St James's Place has handed the mandate for the £1.4 billion St James's Place UK High Income, £1.5 billion Income Distribution and UK Equity funds to Richard Colwell of Columbia Threadneedle and Nick Purves of RWC. As with Woodford's flagship Woodford Equity Income fund, performance of the manager's St James's Place funds has deteriorated markedly over the last two years. The St James's Place UK High Income fund is down 17% over the last 24 months. Although the fund sits outside the Investment Association sectors, that performance would place it in the lower reaches of the UK All Companies sector. But there are significant differences between the St James's Place funds and Woodford's own Woodford Equity Income fund. His flagship, suspended fund features a sizeable allocation to unquoted companies, but they do not feature in the funds he has run for the national financial advice group, which in 2014 limited the UK companies he could buy to FTSE 100 and FTSE 250 stocks. Woodford has run funds for St James's Place since 2001. The financial advice group followed the manager when he left Invesco to set up his own fund group in 2014. ”
brexitplus
05/6/2019
17:31
HTTPS://www.ft.com/content/25261f66-86cc-11e9-97ea-05ac2431f453 Any thoughts on the comments section where someone mentions: 'Anything interesting in the (illiquid) positions that now need to be sold? Answer: 'Yep everything. But, how can Woodford get out unless he can keep the fund closed indefinitely? Regulator will intervene before then requiring an "orderly wind down" which will be anything but, give the rest of the market can merrily short the underlying AIM stocks in which he is the largest and bound-to-sell investor'
czeck
05/6/2019
17:15
In the States it’s not uncommon for the Chair and CEO to be the same person Enron had perfect corporate governance You have to look at actions/behaviour of management - eg Juridica - and judge accordingly Tick box corporate governance in and of itself can be a false comfort blanket
williamcooper104
05/6/2019
15:43
Trident, I don't know if they're public or private. I'm not convinced it's an issue at all. You want the holders of those two roles to be very close, trust each other and be joined up, and you can't get much closer than being married! If it was Chair and CEO that would be different.
gettingrichslow
05/6/2019
15:30
Woodford currently offloading PurpleBricks HTTPS://www.investegate.co.uk/purplebricks-group--purp-/rns/notification-of-major-holdings/201906051521392709B/
czeck
05/6/2019
15:09
It’s very common in family run companies Not ideal - but there’s many more cases of the CFO being little more than the yes man for a dictatorial CEO It’s a concern but not necessarily a Res flag If you sell part of a claim I don’t see how you cannot mark the rest of the claim on your balance sheet accordingly You don’t worry about investing in a commercial property company because their assets are marked much higher than cost To date their record on turning unrealised into realised has been good I’d be surprised if at some point they don’t take a write down on an unrealised being greater than what was realised - it equally there will be realised returns ahead of carrying book values Bur know they are creating a new industry and thus to date have been very conservative to build trust I don’t see this changing
williamcooper104
05/6/2019
15:06
Jonwig - do you know when she was appointed as CFO? I thought I read somewhere that it was a recent appointment. GRS - are those public companies? Has there ever been any emphasis on this being run by a husband and wife team?
trident5
05/6/2019
14:57
@ Xajorkith - I was unaware they were married until recently. I've decided, like you, that it's unlikely to be material. However ... the Guernsey company laws don't seem to attach much importance to anyone below main board directorship, despite the fact that Bogart and O'Connell are now two of the three most important people in the company. Bogart has relatively little mention in the original admission document, and O'Connell none. The people described in this document are in many cases quite different from the ones featuring today. Ongoing RNSs don't seem to capture these changes. If I have doubts about a company, one of the main things I check is the question of "related parties". The fact that I can overlook this one is a sign I'm relaxing my own rules. Not a red flag, then.
jonwig
05/6/2019
14:52
X and T5, according to Forbes, there are 8 >$1bn companies in the USA run by husband and wife teams. And over 1 million smaller companies.
gettingrichslow
05/6/2019
14:44
As per post early in the week if his site is correct then he had about 6.5% of burford as of close of business last Friday. Once he goes below 5% burford will be notified and it will posted on burford site under major shareholders ( see my post early in week for explanation)
syoun11
05/6/2019
14:06
Not sure if I can T5, but still don't believe that it's relevant & will have to agree to disagree on this. What I can find though, are numerous companies with suspect accounting (not that I agree BURs are) or where fraud has occurred, where the CEO & CFO were not married. BUR have a proven record over many years that their approach to valuing unrealised gains is very conservative & so far, very reliable (see the annual report). That may not continue of course, but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt given the surge in invested capital since 2017.
xajorkith
05/6/2019
13:47
lomax - on the supreme court deciding in Argentina's favour, it's unlikely but possible. The latest Argentine brief highlighted 2 cases where the supreme court had granted certiorari after the Solicitor-General had recommended that they shouldn't, so there are precedents and one of those 2 precedents related to the commercial exemptions allowed by FSIA, which is the relevant point in Petersen's case. I've only skimmed the brief, but they seem to be pushing the same point as before that the Repsol expropriation and the failure to carry out a tender offer are inextricably linked. This argument has been considered at length by the district court of SDNY, the second circuit and now the Solicitor-General and it’s rejected by all 3, so I think Petersen/Burford can be feeling confident.
bestace
05/6/2019
13:41
X - too much unrealised (ie estimated) revenue here for me. Huge reliance on this being calculated properly and for me it's undermined when the people in these v senior roles are married to each other. Also, according to her online cv - she doesn't appear to be an accountant. The realised revenue for the last two years seems to be largely made up of just two cases and sales of interests in those in the secondary market, rather than through settlement/court - which also left me less confident about the business model. You ask if a company becomes uninvestable if the CFO and CEO are married (to each other, presumably). That's a decision for each of us - my question to you is - can you find any other examples?
trident5
05/6/2019
12:59
I'm not sure what you are suggesting trident5. Are you implying that a company becomes uninvestable if the CEO & CFO are married? Whatever your view on the realised / unrealised argument, Burford have always been completely open about how they operate, and their annual report is one of the best I have seen. CEOs & CFOs always work very closely (albeit not that close!), and their actions closely scrutinised regardless of whether they are married or not. I agree it's not ideal, but personally don't see it as a major issue when set against BURs impressive record & huge potential going forward.
xajorkith
05/6/2019
11:30
apologies brexit+ didn't see your post, was an idle question i posed. was rather hoping he did not have anywhere near 5% left, sadly , would seem he has, it's not good !!!
stoxx67
05/6/2019
11:26
Having highlighted that the CEO and CFO are married to each other I'm at a loss as to how they can recommend Burford.
trident5
05/6/2019
10:59
It also raises the question of how CG can maintain their ridiculous target price and sell rating on Burford while also saying it is one of their top stock picks for 2019.
galatea99
05/6/2019
10:53
galatea99 - Clearly she did not. It really just goes to show that these are simply peoples opinions, always to be taken with a pinch of salt.
blackfinance
05/6/2019
10:26
Surprise, surprise! Here's Canaccord Genuity picking Burford as one of their stocks to watch in 2019. Https://www.whatinvestment.co.uk/seven-stocks-to-watch-in-2019-2616237/ Did Ms Portia Patel not get the memo?
galatea99
05/6/2019
10:17
Apple podcast: "Combrinck said: "I chose Burford, it is the largest litigation finance company on the planet. It is still fairly small in a fairly young very fragmented industry. I think there's about 20 public listed companies scattered around the globe - most of them in the UK the does litigation finest. You will mostly find them were there is Roman common law. Smaller law firms would offer their client's financing needs to Burford which takes a lot of pressure away from the litigation team and from the law firm itself. This started with individual cases at the beginning so Burford at this stage the have raised capital and are now managing some of these finance pools basically as collective investments or as a fund and you can invest in that fund if you are a private equity holder or you can just buy the share on the London Stock Exchange. It is trading a 16 price earnings ratio. Projections are is that the industry will be five times the size it is now in the next 10 years and Burford is currently the industry leader." Https://podcasts.apple.com/za/podcast/stock-watch-stock-picks-investec-and-burford-capital/id1301421528?i=1000440570370
galatea99
05/6/2019
09:36
Stoxx67 As posted above, he has to inform the Markets when he goes below 5%.
brexitplus
Chat Pages: Latest  277  276  275  274  273  272  271  270  269  268  267  266  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
BUR
Burford Ca..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20190724 02:16:08