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 6876 to 6897 of 7200 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  276  275  274  273  272  271  270  269  268  267  266  265  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
10/6/2019
11:28
The only way to make money is through volatility. A company with little movement in the share price is not going to provide the buy/sell opportunities to profit from.
slaccs
10/6/2019
11:26
trident5, what makes you say realised gains come largely from 2 cases? I note final results for 2018 say 26 cases contributed to realised gains,20 in 2017
maiken
10/6/2019
11:19
Agreed.Although I'm fully invested I wouldn't be surprised by volatility , particularly with the background fund manager's travails.But that's all just noise.Over time,its earnings,cold hard cash that will drive the results.I think the other catalyst will be the volatility in earnings,this company does not fit into predictable annual results.(Although,with the law of large numbers and 'other strategies' it should become less so.)The results will vary from year to year and give those who understand the business a clear advantage.Right,I'm leaving the interweb for now!
djderry
10/6/2019
10:48
djd - of course IFRS (13 I think) demands revaluation of assets, they can't just sit on the books at cost. They do have latitude to interpret and, as you say, are very cautious. Another thing: they write off costs associated with the cases they are funding. They could, if they wished, capitalise them onto the balance sheet. Now that would be a red flag!
jonwig
10/6/2019
10:36
But the process is the same.If you go back to the first or second 'vintage' or year ,you can go through the process and see,that year by year,as cases progress and come to fruition,the 'write up/ unrealised gain is always under reported.Time and time again they have proved their mettle.Are you suggesting that when objective tangible decisions are taken in cases that the co.should blithely ignore them? Or,if a tranche of the investment is sold for a much higher value that this should be ignored? I hope not.I think it is right to be sceptical until we have evidence.We have (almost) ten years evidence and the co.has come through with flying colours.A bull? Yes.Bedazzled? No.
djderry
10/6/2019
10:16
DJD - there are a lot of unrealised gains in their accounts. And the realised gains from the last 2 years appear to largely relate to sales in the secondary market of just two cases.
trident5
10/6/2019
09:53
I am disappointed with the FT,'beddazled bulls'?The writer talk about how the accounts depend on ' writing up' ,ie,unrealised gains.We've been through this time and time again,there is no write up without concrete and objective courtroom /arbitral decisions and they are almost always erring on the conservative side.This isn't just words,look at their record,almost all 'write ups' made in final year or two,and always less than the final outcome.Go back over the ten years of cases.As has been stated,they could run the business without recourse to borrowing or,for that matter,the SWF.It's just that they would be unable to pursue many of the cases that come through their extensive due diligence process.
djderry
10/6/2019
09:44
Good article by Lex. Sort of confirms what I have been saying. You need consistent and recurring injections of capital to reach critical mass which generally tend to further dilute return. In order to attract further capital, when cash flow is poor, directors of companies are under pressure to inflate opportunity. Whether that be explicit or implicit. I am not saying that is what is happening here, but cashflows are everything. Profits are only an opinion.
minerve 2
10/6/2019
09:16
winsome - The ordinary FT subscription is expensive enough, but that was 'premium' which I don't subscribe to. I'm a bit surprised it still exists, as very few articles are actually marked up.
jonwig
10/6/2019
08:20
You don't like it when the FT dishes it out to you, do you, jonwig? We all notice that if that had been a similar piece about WPCT you would have immediately copied and pasted it. That's what you do. Very little else! But you were not honest enough to do it in this case, were you? Somebody else had to do it. You are sooo lacking in integrity.
truthteller3
10/6/2019
08:11
There’s always the caveat, happy to back Bogart and his team. All we need now is the SWF to make a direct investment by buying W's holding.
lomax99
10/6/2019
08:05
ali - it's trying to elide two stories, the main one being that BUR is a seemingly a great business, despite Woodford investing in it (ages ago, before he went doolally). We've read this bit before, "... bedazzled bulls are ignoring a simple rule: a business with rising profits but operating cash outflows may be heading for trouble." - which misses the point that the cash generated is recycled by choice into new investments. Comparing it to say Carillion where profits weren't real, is inappropriate. In fact, the concept of free cash flow isn't suited to financial businesses. The last paragraph seems to warn it against Woodford-style hubris which is fair enough. But the article is a mish-mash, and that's a 'premium level' piece!
jonwig
10/6/2019
07:53
lomax-i don't know what to make of the ft' lex article- what conclusion to draw!
ali47fish
10/6/2019
07:33
From today's FT's Lex:Neil Woodford's portfolio companies have been accident prone. If that is the rule, illustrated by the shambolic likes of Kier, Provident and Purplebricks, what is the exception? Could Burford be an example of the struggling UK fund manager getting it right? He is a long-term backer of the UK-listed litigation funding business. An 11 per cent drop in Burford shares last week after Mr Woodford gated his fund followed a 10-fold rise over five years. Investing in courtroom dramas - or settlements that forestall them - is an unusual way to make a living. But it is a booming business in the UK and US. A company is more likely to sue over a commercial dispute when a litigation funder bears some of the risk for a share of any rewards. These can be tidy in our low-yield world.Litigation funders are nearly as chic and savvy as the lawyers they finance. Perhaps that is why bedazzled bulls are ignoring a simple rule: a business with rising profits but operating cash outflows may be heading for trouble.Burford's accounts are as eye-popping as its share price growth. Operating income rose to $345m last year, according to S&P Global, ten times higher than in 2013. Operating cash flow dropped from $42m to a negative $233m. The group is borrowing to fill the gap. Net debts have tripled in two years to $331m. Fans will riposte that this is chicken feed compared with investments in legal cases valued by Burford at $1.9bn. However, that figure depends in part on the company writing up the value of legal tussles that have not finished. These non-cash gains accounted for 54 per cent of revenues in 2018. Most of the rest came from concluded cases.In fairness, Burford's accounting policies are conservative by the racy standards of litigation funding. It has a good investment record. According to Jefferies analysts, it has been on the winning side in two-thirds of cases and four-fifths by value. But as Mr Woodford's downfall has shown, a rush of hot money can skew decision-making and erode returns.
lomax99
09/6/2019
19:02
No but if invesco and Woodford sites are correct then £200 million in sales since they last reported to burford must effect share price.
syoun11
09/6/2019
17:45
Hi all, Has anyone seen anything specific in recent press reports re: Woodford affecting BUR. I haven't seen anything specific but haven't got access to everything (or the time to read it all!). Hopefully the imminent interims will be better than last finals in terms of profit and hopefully also mitigate ferocious selling, I think over one year BUR is down 6% compared to FTSE.
rar100
09/6/2019
16:42
Just to be clear my post was about the amount of pressure on the burford share price through approx £200 million In sales between Woodford and invesco since they last reported their stake to burford. I’m holding off for a bit longer due to greed but I think there’s a great buying opportunity now and even more so the closer we get to earnings day coming out in July, if share price doesn’t rise to much.
syoun11
09/6/2019
16:11
Information to share if anyone interested and doesn’t already know. Looking through Ivesco funds appears majority of Burford shares are held in two funds. Invesco high income & invesco income. Both funds were taken over by mark barnett from Woodford when he left. I’ve calculated that the holdings are less than the 13.9% mentioned on the burford site (501 million) and something like405 million which is nearer to 11% .
syoun11
08/6/2019
20:04
I’m with HL. Excellent service.
brexitplus
08/6/2019
12:41
Copied from H/L website:-FUND AND SHARE ACCOUNT ?CHARGESAnnual account chargesYour annual charge depends on whether you hold funds or shares in your Fund and Share Account. There are no charges for opening an account, holding cash or inactivity.SharesIncluding UK and overseas shares, investment trusts, exchange-traded funds, VCTs, gilts and bonds.No ChargeFundsValue of fundsChargeOn the first £250,0000.45%On the value between £250,000 - £1m0.25%On the value between £1m - £2m0.1%On the value over £2mNo chargeImportant note about chargesThe investments you choose may have their own charges, such as charges from a particular fund manager. These are in addition to our account charges. You can find these in each investment's key investor information. If investing in funds, a bid/offer spread may also apply - see our Guide to Fund Prices for details. Hargreaves Lansdown receives commission from some fund groups for arranging and administering your investments.Dealing chargesFund dealingThere's no dealing charge for buying or selling funds.Online and mobile app share dealingIncluding UK and overseas shares*, investment trusts, exchange-traded funds, gilts and bonds.Number of deals in previous monthCharge per deal0 - 9£11.9510 - 19£8.9520+£5.95*There's an added foreign exchange charge for overseas share deals, depending on deal size. See our overseas share dealing page for details.Automatic reinvestmentIf you'd like any fund or share income automatically reinvested, we charge 1% of the trade value (minimum £1, maximum of £10). We'll reinvest your income once it reaches £10 per holding, or the amount you choose.
stevoc1964
08/6/2019
12:25
Can you invest in overseas stocks - and if so what’s the FX charge - on HL it’s steep (given that the cost in major currencies is 2 or 3 pips)
williamcooper104
08/6/2019
12:22
HL is I think £60 admin for isa, sipp and trading account Trades are 8.99 if you do more than 10 a month (and I think I’ve been charged less than that some months - which means I’m over trading) for less than 10 trades I think it’s £12 Used to use Fidelity before HL - HL wasn’t a big improvement when I first moved - now think it’s ok Have an IG account for funkier stuff but haven’t used it in a while Interested in other views as will be ramping up investment in my corporate account in the next few months (probably just buying boring EUR and USD fixed income/REITs to protect against the Great British Peso)
williamcooper104
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:20190722 00:02:42