Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[blah blah] 08/8/2019 21:04

The difference here is that shorters like Muddy Waters take their position first and THEN release their report. Long institutions don’t release reports at all and the brokers (who could release buy, sell or hold reports) are subject to very strict rules that prevent them discussing the content of their reports prior to publication.

The simple answer here is to tell shorters if they want to release a report they must do it before they go short; if they are convinced they will still make money. If they don’t want to release a report they can short whenever they like. That would be a level playing field for all.

[podium] 08/8/2019 21:03

Had fun trading this today. The biggest scam seems to be the shorting attack. No doubt the share will remain volatile, but the smaller shorters will be left behind once the big boys move on to their next target.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 08/8/2019 21:00

LOL! Do you think they should have put the report out & THEN built a short position?

littlepuppi7
8 Aug '19 - 20:48 - 8423 of 8425
0 1 0

He will be shutting himself now. Their actions will be right in the spotlight. The fact they put the report out after building their position does not look good.
..................................................

stoxx67
8 Aug '19 - 20:19 - 8416 of 8429
0 1 0

will now be interesting to see just what action Burford take, there are many investors both institutional and individual that the peasants at muddy waters have caused massive losses (on paper i grant you), this was not down to a company profit warning, there is no scandal, Burford have already shot down Muddy Water inaccuracies and fallacies.

so what action do Burford take now? how do they return value to affected shareholders, we were trading at £15 prior to the Muddy Water lies.

i would hope that Burford launch their own attack very soon, and whatever is reclaimed from MW for the defamation is offered to shareholders on record at 6 August, by way of special dividend.


Nothing will be reclaimed from MW, MW are protected by US law & are essentially bulletproof. The fact that BUR, as lawyered up as they are, still threaten legal action when they KNOW it will come to nought is in my eyes a red flag. It's a sop to PI shareholders in the hope it keeps them onside & directing their ire at MW & not BUR.

[chucko1] 08/8/2019 21:00

SK, to lie, one must be aware of the truth. In the case of Truthteller, I find that unlikely.

[littlepuppi7] 08/8/2019 20:59

The fact they admit they are targeting Woodford stocks raises even more questions and in my mind suggests they were very willing to basically create a misleading document. The more you consider this the more I think the outcome could be mw end up in a very unpleasant place. I think they have gone too far here.

[edmondj] 08/8/2019 20:52

MuddyWatersResearch
@muddywatersre
·
4h
$BUR should address balance sheet debt vs balance sheet equity - THAT is what’s relevant.


MuddyWatersResearch
@muddywatersre
·
5h
Question about $BUR carrying value of Petersen. Excuse for not answering: It’s “work product”. BS


MuddyWatersResearch
@muddywatersre
·
5h
On $BUR call now. We will have a full response of course. Molot’s presence is pointless, as he’s not addressing any of the points - just purporting to summarize our publicly avail report.


MuddyWatersResearch
@muddywatersre

13h
How you SHOULD account for litigation assets $BUR $IMFAU

(link: imf.com.au/newsroom/press…


Accounting treatment of Litigation Finance Assets

The accounting treatments adopted by IMF and some of its competitors vary materially.

IMF’s litigation funding assets, and those of investment vehicles managed or advised by IMF, are classified as intangible assets and therefore, in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards
(IFRS), are recognised at cost throughout the life of the investment and are subject to impairment testing.

IMF does not record any unrealised gains attributable to market value adjustments of its litigation assets during the life of the investment.

IMF recognises any gain on assets at the time of completion of an investment. Losses on investments are recognised at the earlier of either negative developments which impact potential recoveries via an asset impairment, or from a loss at trial.

IMF’s conservative and transparent approach removes potentially-artificial estimations of asset values and offers investors comfort in the integrity and stability of the reported results.

IMF prepares its accounts in accordance with the Corporations Act and complies with the Australian Accounting Standards and the IFRS.

[peanut100] 08/8/2019 20:51

https://youtu.be/mQLnmCzx4og

[littlepuppi7] 08/8/2019 20:48

He will be shutting himself now. Their actions will be right in the spotlight. The fact they put the report out after building their position does not look good. And they have gone up against a team of legal hawks. Could end very badly for them. I think they may try and just slink away from this, I cannot see them escalating it.

[sum493] 08/8/2019 20:47

Bond prices recovered which augurs well.

[epo001] 08/8/2019 20:47

@stoxx, That's 2 of us hoping for a special divi courtesy of MW. I tend to agree with your belief in recovery but always remember that the market can stay irrational longer than we can stay solvent.

MW seem to be saying that they believe that all Woodford investments are shaky and convinced themselves that BUR therefore were shaky. They are like 5-year olds who think you can point your toy gun and shout "bang! You're dead". They may have underestimated BUR's capacity to fight back and I hope they are shocked by the ferocity of any response.

But what is really needed is a BUR listing on a non-cowboy market. That will cause some of the genuine managerial issues that MW identified to be resolved.

[devalpha] 08/8/2019 20:40

I think they've put together a very good response to the MW attack in a short period of time. This is obviously easier if the allegations are generally bull. I also thought they handled the call well under the circumstances. As I said yesterday, I suspect Block's hubris will backfire on him this time. If you watch his performance on Bloomberg yesterday, it's bumbling and laughable, never mind factually incorrect. He makes money from a ,"scumball activity", as Charlie Munger would say.

[af004] 08/8/2019 20:36

JiL comes to mind here...

[ilostthelot] 08/8/2019 20:19

Thanks Devalpha. Any feed back from the conference call?

[stoxx67] 08/8/2019 20:19

will now be interesting to see just what action Burford take, there are many investors both institutional and individual that the peasants at muddy waters have caused massive losses (on paper i grant you), this was not down to a company profit warning, there is no scandal, Burford have already shot down Muddy Water inaccuracies and fallacies.

so what action do Burford take now? how do they return value to affected shareholders, we were trading at £15 prior to the Muddy Water lies.

i would hope that Burford launch their own attack very soon, and whatever is reclaimed from MW for the defamation is offered to shareholders on record at 6 August, by way of special dividend.

i've managed to buy a few more today, to add to an already decent holding, it may take a Year or so to get back to £15, should never have traded below it.

Now its time for the lawyers to launch their own attack, Death by a thousand lawsuits.

[devalpha] 08/8/2019 20:07

If you had been on the call, you'd have been aware that it carried on well after the market closed. Tomorrow is the time to judge the reaction.

[metis20] 08/8/2019 20:03

It does not look as if Muddy Water and TW checked out the cvs of the board and the CEO, CIO and CFO before slinging mud!

They have picked the wrong targets...









(I am back in after a long absence courtesy Muddy Water - too good an opportunity to miss IMO - and those stop losses help create such opportunities.)

[portugull] 08/8/2019 19:58

Game set and match to Burford.

If I had to trust my money to MW or Burford I know who I would choose.

Burford are a very professional Company, of 10 years standing, and I am not selling.

My thinking is very much in line with djderry.

I do however think that the next set of Accounts will contain info which came out today especially the point about "unwinding" when gain is finally realised and previous fair value is adjusted.

I am in for 3 to 5 years.

[daffyjones] 08/8/2019 19:57

200k loss?! Why did you have so much invested in one company? Especially one with such opaque accounting

[djderry] 08/8/2019 19:45

truthteller3,regarding your earlier post,I would prefer to concentrate on the company and on the veracity of the statements being made about it.I am no one's 'diciple'as you put it.As regards my investment here,I have indicated when I bought shares.At the moment they are showing a loss of over €200,000.Obviously I am bruised,it's real money.However,I am a long term investor and, although it has been stomach churning,I did not reduce my holding.In hindsight,I broke a key rule by the over concentration.However,my original thesis on the company remains intact.I have not crystallised any losses.My daily life will not change.It may affect decisions in other regards ( I may decide to spend longer in the day job!)but I'm in for the medium term.

[nerdofsteel] 08/8/2019 18:14

no one is interested in Quindell ffs

If all you can do is drag up old trading positions and things that happened 5 years ago you are wasting your time and others.

People have no interest in you.