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
  -11.00p -0.69% 1,590.00p 1,585.00p 1,587.00p 1,621.00p 1,577.00p 1,610.00p 401,371 16:35:06
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 314.6 239.3 82.9 18.8 3,477

Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 6826 to 6850 of 7200 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  276  275  274  273  272  271  270  269  268  267  266  265  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
06/6/2019
08:20
in the meantime is this a good opp to add as the share price is quite low
ali47fish
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.
trident5
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!
gettingrichslow
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?'
djderry
06/6/2019
07:20
Not ideal but not unduly concerned.
lomax99
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.
jonwig
06/6/2019
06:38
Galatea I have no concerns whatsoever.
brexitplus
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.
galatea99
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.
jonwig
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
Chat Pages: Latest  276  275  274  273  272  271  270  269  268  267  266  265  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:20190720 04:56:59