Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[shanklin] 01/8/2019 09:09

With all the pressure on Woodford to increase the percentage of listed holdings and redemptions being moved back to at least December, I can't see any pressure on Woodford to sell BUR... ...unless he gets sacked. Can that happen?

[mad foetus] 01/8/2019 09:06

Would add that BUR is unique in that ALL institutional holders hold outsize stakes and they won't average down, so new institutional interest is needed. But the business is fine, just a question of when the market moves from voting to weighing mode

[mad foetus] 01/8/2019 09:03

It's the old run into the woods, let off a smoke bomb and run out shouting "no smoke without fire" truck. Everyone knows BURs accounting is about as transparent as it gets. I'm sure that the issue here is that the placing at 1850 satisfied institutional demand, the market wobbled, lots of PIs sitting on huge gains top sliced, people think Woodford will be forced to sell and there is little appetite to buy until Woodfords position is clear or an uptrend is in place

[glawsiain] 01/8/2019 08:58

Nice one Pete - if you can't argue the points raised, go for the man!

[pete_bane] 01/8/2019 08:27

I think you two seem a little bit TOO desperate to defend your favourite share. You may well be inexperienced in investment matters. You should know, however, that it's not just the fundamentals that count when it comes to the share price. Perception is also an important factor and there's no doubt that the perception of BUR after that stockbroker report has adversely affected the share price Many people now believe that BUR is a bit iffy in its accounting and that is affecting the whole sector. Life isn't always fair, you know.

I expect you will find that out eventually when you gain more experience.

[djderry] 01/8/2019 06:53

Absolutely,crucial point,also,they speak about an impressive pipeline of cases which they have,without addressing the funding issue.This is the Burford forum so I want to focus on that.I suppose my rationale for Lit is that Burford was a very different company ten years ago,so by having a small position in them,I would keep a watching brief,as it were.

[jonwig] 01/8/2019 06:43

djd - any comparison between BUR and LIT has to address the fact that BUR uses IFRS in letter and spirit by adopting fair value accounting of assets and writing off expenses as they occur.

LIT gets round the bother of testing fair value by regarding its financing as contracts (ie. static value) and, to flatter its balance sheet, capitalises all expenses! If I were awarding an Ig-Nobel prize for dodgy accounting it would be won, hands down, by LIT.

[djderry] 01/8/2019 00:54

In-depth analysis there,almost as good as Cannacord.Burford's unmatched track record,results,database,scale of funding,list of prestigious clients, sovereign wealth fund backing, innovative solutions,etc,etc,mean they are the gold standard when it comes to legal finance.Lit,whose shares I also hold,more as an option than anything else ,are hundreds of miles behind,be it in scale,diversification,but,most importantly,funding.

[pete_bane] 01/8/2019 00:29

Too much for the kind of share performance they’re currently achieving.

I don’t hold any BUR because it’s seen as being a bit dodgy. Unfortunately people are reading that across to shares like LIT, which I do hold.

[jonwig] 31/7/2019 11:19

@ gettingrichslow - I did a quick look at some figures and took a sort-of median value. I guess top US earners won't be leaving to join Burford, but middle-rankers might.

A London-listed company close in MCap is RIT Capital Partners (RCP). They provide more information on salaries. Their top man (Lord R) earns ~£1.4m and they have 57 employees costing £21m in all.

Burford produces much less information, and the $71m "admin costs" are not just salary costs, but I'd guess there isn't much difference at the top - maybe $1m apiece for the top three?

[gettingrichslow] 31/7/2019 11:02

Jonwig, I see your posts as always highly astute. But 'good experienced US lawyers can earn over $200,000'!!?? Far too low!
If a good experienced US lawyer was earning less than $300,000 he would be wondering what he'd done wrong...

[luckymouse] 31/7/2019 10:48

woodford doesn't ungate til december btw

[stentorian] 31/7/2019 09:04

...especially when Freshfields' Partners average £1.8m a year

[jonwig] 31/7/2019 08:33

@ stentorian - thanks for the information: £100k. The lawyers at Burford will be experienced, and I see good experienced US lawyers can earn over $200k. But the cost of employment to the company could be almost double that, as all have full health cover.

I'm coming round to thinking Burford's top three aren't earning obscene amounts.

[stentorian] 31/7/2019 08:02

Page 5 of the slides from the H119 presentation 120 employees worldwide, 60 lawyers, 6 offices

As a metric newly qualified solicitors at Clifford Chance LLP are starting on £100k

[brexitplus] 31/7/2019 07:58

Jonwig

Agreed.

[galatea99] 31/7/2019 07:27

I've seen a figure of 120-125 mentioned elsewhere.

[jonwig] 31/7/2019 06:58

Good article, thanks. Seems to nail many of the detractor arguments.

I see they suggest we have about 120 employees, including 60 lawyers which is a bit more than I reckoned in #6880.

[galatea99] 31/7/2019 06:01

Article just published on "Seeking Alpha":

"Burford Capital: Great Business In A Growing Sector"

h

[3dwd] 30/7/2019 22:43

It's just the Woodford factor... sadly this happens...seen this before. It will be ok ..and Woodford needs to sell and move on .. or whatever...he is finished..

[winsome] 30/7/2019 18:59

To add to my post above, have any naysayers bothered to reconcile past realised gains with subsequent cash receipts? If you add up all net income (which includes unrealised gains) and cash receipts since 2013 you get the following:

Total income: $1169

Total Cash from litigation investments: $1027

This leaves a total amount of just $142m outstanding unrealised gains on investments made since 2013

If no unrealised gains had been converted to cash since 2013 then the figure would be $643m (55% of total income at the historic rate)

Or to put it another way - of the total $643m unrealised gains stated since 2013, $501m has been realised, with just $142m outstanding, which is not an issue.

In fact, the figures could be even better as cash receipts have been much higher taking into account receipts from the funds and other business but I don't know if any unrealised gains have been attributed to them.

[winsome] 30/7/2019 17:12

I can't quite believe many on here are suffering anxiety about short term share price movements that market makers and shorters love. You have 2 simple options:

1. If you are confident that BUR is a sound company with many high profile clients and major backing by a sovereign wealth fund, and profits will follow their exponential investments, then continue to hold and forget short term noise.

2. If you can't stand the way the market sometimes prices companies short term then get out. This is not the first time a company has been undervalued. Its how I've made my money - picking those that are.

And why join main market? Wouldn't they have to pay more tax and put Woodford on the board. Two very unappealing prospects, even though they haven't said so.

[alter ego] 30/7/2019 16:25

Buffetteer, precisely but if you want to shake out weak holders and make money from shorting a stock, you either need evidence of malpractice or you just invent multiple reasons that can be put out without too much substance to back them up. Then the world and his wife will agonise over every single point and do the job for you.

[buffetteer] 30/7/2019 16:17

Why the inane questions about raising funds. If you care to read the transcripts from the results ( & previous) you would know that the access to funds is massive. Just look st how much they have raised for private funds and from the new Sovereign wealth fund deal who have said they are keen to invest more . With 32% returns over many years access to funding is not the problem . In the short term the market is a voting machine- wonder where we’ve heard that apt phrase ???