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 6901 to 6923 of 7200 messages
Chat Pages: 288  287  286  285  284  283  282  281  280  279  278  277  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
13/6/2019
20:38
Citywire “Hargreaves Lansdown has dropped the Woodford Income Focus fund from its £562 million HL Multi-Manager High Income fund, as withdrawals from Neil Woodford's smaller fund hit £116 million in six days.”
brexitplus
13/6/2019
20:33
Trident5 The secret of investing is to do the opposite of minerve😁 8513;😁
brexitplus
13/6/2019
16:55
Kier has bounced up nicely straight after you sold out, Minerva? Lost your touch?
trident5
13/6/2019
15:50
Burford Special Brew
minerve 2
13/6/2019
14:52
Financial Times Article published at beginning of week is more insightful about what is dictating the share price than the Investors C. I suspect.Article starts by referencing Woodford woes and discusses major holdings. “Burford’;s accounts are as eye popping as it’s share price growth.Operating income leapt to $345m last year,according to S&P Global,10 times higher than it was 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 under the oversight of EY,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% of revenues in 2018.Most of the rest came from cases settling in Burfords favour. In fairness,Burfords accounting policies are conservative by the very racy standards of litigation funding.It has a good investment record.According to Jeffries analysts,it has been on the winning side in two thirds of cases and four fifths by value.”
steeplejack
10/6/2019
16:27
Investors Chronicle article on Woodford's travails: "Litigation finance specialist Burford Capital (BUR), which at the time of writing had not disclosed a decrease in the 9.5 per cent of its shares WIM owns, nonetheless saw its shares fall on the news of the Equity Income Fund suspension. However, there could be good reason for holding on to the Alternative Investment Market darling, whose market value has trebled in value over the past three years. In that time pre-tax profits have risen by around the same proportion, as management has demonstrated a canny ability for backing cases that have generated impressive returns, coming in at 85 per cent in 2018." Https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/shares/2019/06/10/woodford-s-share-fire-sale-hits-market/
galatea99
10/6/2019
15:29
Wonder if we have any involvement with the Grenfell suit since it's in the US they are probably best placed to provide the support.
dekle
10/6/2019
13:11
WC104 - I have no interest in prolonging this discussion, suffice to say that 'long term' is a relative concept and is age dependent.
slaccs
10/6/2019
12:29
You can make a little money by trading in and out Makes little sense in a growth company though where there is no mean reversion But you can make a ton of money by long term holding the right stick
williamcooper104
10/6/2019
11:48
jonwig - Totally disagree. Volatility is movement in both directions. There is a lot of movement between two exact prices. You are talking about a period of 8 months. I'm not a day trader but I very rarely hold a share for more than 6 months without a little buying and selling. How else am I going to make any money?
slaccs
10/6/2019
11:35
slaccs - volatility isn't movement. A share price which rises in a straight line from 100 to 500 has zero volatility. Look at the BUR chart: from Oct '18 to today the share price has hardly moved, but volatility has been high (zig-zagging about). If you're a short-term trader, maybe you welcome this sort of volatility. I guess most of us here aren't, and don't.
jonwig
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
Chat Pages: 288  287  286  285  284  283  282  281  280  279  278  277  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 05:45:22