Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[cockerhoop] 29/7/2019 18:04

Jonwig,Have you seen Matt Earl's (Shadowfall) tweets regards his Bear case regards BUR?Worth having a look if not but It's basically pointing out the disparity between profits and operational cash flow whilst ignoring re-investment in cases.

[riverman77] 29/7/2019 18:00

Clearly Woodford has no intention of selling BUR anytime soon - he will have to at some point (when his funds eventually reopen or get liquidated) but probably not this year. Therefore struggle to see that he's having an impact on the price - the latest leg down seems to be driven by malicious market rumours which are clearly scaring some investors away. All extremely dodgy but shouldn't impact the company's underlying business and share price will eventually recover.

[brexitplus] 29/7/2019 17:40

Apparently Woodford Equity gated until December.

[hpcg] 29/7/2019 17:16

mf - the uncorrelated and dollar earnings were the reason I looked at this in the first place. However there are less volatile places trading at 1x NAV - for example any number of US listed preference shares.

[djderry] 29/7/2019 16:51

Galatea99,that's an interesting article and quite helpful, bulltradept,re your post that' on an up day for the footsie,Burford is down mmmmm',it's the old 'there's no smoke without fire's argument.It's usually trundled out when the shorters having nothing left to say.It's paying way too much respect to the market which sometimes gets it right but offer doesn't know its arm from its elbow.It's the old adage ' Be fearful when others are fearful'!Let me know how that works out.One day, because either (a) something happens or (b) nothing happens,sentiment will shift the share price will surge and posters who watch those things will say ' Look at share price go,what a great company,I'm in!' Meanwhile the company gets on with its business.

[jonwig] 29/7/2019 16:49

re # 6828 - Shadowfall's accounts?

Assuming this is the right company, they are of no use whatever!



Their website is, erm, shadowy!

EDIT: I've contacted Shadowfall (very civilly) and will relay any response.

[williamcooper104] 29/7/2019 16:01

Nothing says "unbridled optimism" than a bit of personal wallet opening

[syoun11] 29/7/2019 15:50

agree, let’s hope they do soon

[syoun11] 29/7/2019 15:50

agree, let’s hope they do soon

[aquaesulis01] 29/7/2019 15:48

If the Directors are that confident in the business then it would be helpful and a good signal if they put their hands in their pockets and started to buy at this bargain sp

[galatea99] 29/7/2019 15:33

Article today from Bloomberg Law contrasting the approach of traditional law firms with that of litigation funders, more specifically with that of Burford.

"Big Law v. Litigation Funders: Who Wins?"





"Chris Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital, said picking winners requires more than just an analysis of legal liability. He said Burford turns down most cases not because of a disagreement with the law firm over liability. Instead, Bogart said there is a level of financial analysis his firm conducts at the start of a case that law firms don’t do.

“We look at credit risk, enforcement risk, asset recovery risk,” Bogart said. “And then we spend quite a lot of time working on damages and settlement value. And we do that in advance of when law firms often do that work. And those are not things that law firms have in their DNA.”

Law firms could build up their expertise in those areas. But it would be another cost in an already expensive transformation to invest in lawsuits. So, the edge probably goes to litigation funders.

One last requirement for making tons of money on contingency cases is having the ability to pay for a lot of them. And this is really where law firms, of course, just don’t stack up.

Finance firms have capital buffers to suffer losses that they anticipate. It’s part of the business model. Law firms don’t. Start losing contingency cases, and watch the partners walk out the door. Most law firms also do more than litigation. So even if all of a firm’s litigators want to take more risk, it’s unlikely the corporate partners would push their income into the gambling pile.

And that is the main reason why Burford’s Bogart said he would be “delighted if every law firm would do what Kirkland has now done.”

“The big difference between somebody like Kirkland and Burford is Burford’s balance sheet is vastly larger,” Bogart said. “We have the capacity to accept risk and to manage it on a diversified basis in a much more efficient way than a single law firm does.”

[achenaton] 29/7/2019 15:22

Anyone bothered to have a look at Shadowfall’s own accounts?

[epo001] 29/7/2019 14:04

I don't see the rush, look back at last October. I have funds waiting but I'm not buying just yet.

[mad foetus] 29/7/2019 13:58

Also, most of BURs earnings are in dollars, so we should be up on that alone. Makes no sense but can't fight it either

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:52

Bulltradept,that should read 'about 440K.'

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:48

Got them at £14.03.

[mad foetus] 29/7/2019 13:48

Liberum are at £26 or £27 but haven't updated post results. Their FY target was 457 revenues and 287 profit and BUR posted 346 and 225 so you would expect a big uplift. But basically it seems to me that people are spreading rumours that things aren't right and with an AIM listing and neither Molot or Bogart on the board you have 2 things which seem explicable but not ideal and which the company has said they won't change. Which is foolish and arrogant imo and the next results aren't till the spring

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:47

If you see 4600 shares going through,they're mine! Heavy? About 400K,but I'll check later.It's on days like this that investment careers are built.

[bulltradept] 29/7/2019 13:44

You going in heavy then?

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:35

Ok,it's happening! Near enough is good enough,another £65 K sterling raised,just waiting for it to clear and get it invested here.

[stoxx67] 29/7/2019 13:32

absolutely agree, the share price reaction on the last 2 release of results has been nothing short of incredulous.

i just fail to see how an outlook of "unbridled optimism" coupled with superb trading figures, can be justified by such an underwhelming share price reaction (it cant all be down to Woodford). However, i do realise no point arguing with the market short term, i have just kept buying. Seems ridiculous not to at these prices.

anyone have any update broker notes? price targets must be in excess of £23 going forward with that statement and set of figures?

[dgdg1] 29/7/2019 13:31

I think the only sensible reason might be that excluding Petersen, which could be regarded as a one-off, and accounts for about $120m of pre-tax profits, the figure would only have been $110m versus last year's $164m (although admittedly that also included about $30m for Teinver which could also be considered a one-off) and versus expectations of $346m for the full year (which I believe exclude Petersen although not sure about that). The counter-argument is that Petersen shouldn't just be considered a one-off and there is always potential for similar deals to come up. Also that you can't get carried away by a one-off interim results as it was always expected for results to jump around in line with random factors affecting when legal cases finalise. And finally that even excluding Petersen the valuation is low - certainly after the price falls it is.

[bulltradept] 29/7/2019 13:28

FTSE's up 1.76% as I type with BUR being down in one of the biggest up days this year (and yes I know it's no.1, one stock or two stock on Aim, but still). Mmmmmmmm

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:24

People are confused! Ha!

[djderry] 29/7/2019 13:23

Well,I've asked my broker to liquidate one of my other core holdings if Burford hit fourteen quid,for another 72K ( euro) of Burford.Peoole are confusing Burford the company with Burford the share price,Burford , the company,is doing fantastic,Burford,the share price,is stuttering and confused.