Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[blusteradjuster] 08/8/2019 22:31

Bbm = froth isn’t a new claim.

Which one of the share price gang is karolina?

[showme01] 08/8/2019 22:29

MF, great real situation overview. That is the reality....how much could this cost rather than how much could we win? Lose £3m or gain £10m net and Burford get their £8m. Do they care if they can safe guard a potential £3m loss. The BIG difference that people don't understand until they understand this business model where there are only a few respectable companies that do litigation funding is that the litigation lawyers/funders understand the risk, the average medium sized company (£20m plus turnover) tend not to and play safe engaging no win no fee litigation funders

[williamcooper104] 08/8/2019 22:28

And TW big 4 partner note was effectively a clean bill of health (with normal caveats) So I lost money because TW and CG weren't sufficiently competently bearish :)

[minerve 2] 08/8/2019 22:27

They need to improve corporate governance. Arrogance has got in the way of them delivering it. A bit of humble pie wouldn't go a miss me thinks.

[williamcooper104] 08/8/2019 22:23

MW are only analyst to question the Fair Value less Cash Invested point that nobody on this board nor the company has defended Before MW the bears only made me more confident in my holding as they banged on about liquidity being drained (good thing) and GC part realised criticism was rubbish GC did however raise a number of governance points which I foolishly ignored - I focused on what was obviously wrong and not on the rest - which is what a lot of people are doing here with the MW note Bur hasn't addressed why their share price was so shaky that just one note caused it to tank so much - mainly from longs running rather than shorts piling in (from what we've seen so far) And that weakness is in large part down to the huge governance red flags

[tsmith2] 08/8/2019 22:23

Paul Scot said it's very likely muddywaters are going to end up in dock

[littlepuppi7] 08/8/2019 22:20

Thanks epic

Its starting then..

Could be big trouble ahead for muddy waters

[showme01] 08/8/2019 22:04

Lots of misunderstanding with this type of company and hardly a shocker as the concept is one that is hard to consolidate with another business type in the financial services sector. I know this type of business well, Burford Capital included. Basically these lawyers fully fund litigation cases that are close to no brainers but they work on a no win no fee but the fees are huge. Usually 20-50% of the settlement. Burford have a great reputation and tend to only look at the big cases, ie £10m plus payout. These companies only take on cases that they think there is a 85-90% chance of success and charge the client several 100% mark up on litigation costs that the client is not liable for if the case losses. So the financial model is hard to put in accounting firms as they are backing cases that will generate multiple returns on capital but they get the odd one wrong ( 10-15% ). Work out the maths. These shorters have created doubt within people and institutions that don't understand litigation funding criteria and risk. I do, hence buying in at these low levels. Why do companies engage the likes of Burford if the chances of litigation claims are so high? Fear of losing and lack of understanding the case. Similar to most AIM investors that lose money I'm afraid. We are all human after all :-)

[epicsurf] 08/8/2019 22:01

hxxps://inews.co.uk/news/business/burford-capital-legal-case-us-finance-house-muddy-waters/

[epicsurf] 08/8/2019 21:58

Burford Capital is considering a legal claim against the US finance house Muddy Waters that could run into “hundreds of millions of pounds” after the short-seller’s attack on the company this week, i can reveal.

People familiar with Burford’s plans have told i that it would focus any legal claim on the time between a tweet by Muddy Waters on Tuesday telling its followers to expect a “new short position” and the issuing of its report into Burford on Wednesday morning.

The tweet, posted at 1.30pm on Tuesday, read: “Muddy Waters is now in a blackout period until ­tomorrow 8am London time when we will ­announce a new short ­position on an accounting fiasco that’s ­potentially insolvent and possibly facing a ­liquidity crunch. Investors are bulled up about this company. We’re not.”

During the time between the tweet and Wednesday morning’s ­publication of the report from Muddy Waters, which is run by its founder Carson Block, Burford’s shares fell by 30 per cent, wiping £900m off the value of the group. The shares lost a further 46 per cent on Wednesday, after the report was published.

[3dwd] 08/8/2019 21:53

Agree .. I suspect u r right

[mad foetus] 08/8/2019 21:37

MW May get away with it because they are American. Then again, if anyone knew they were planning this raid and took a short position in advance, or if there is any hint of collusion among multiple parties to take a position, spread news and profit, that is likely to constitute illegal market manipulation and is covered by U.K. and European legislation. And as others have said, there are strict rules governing when regulated research providers can deal in shares. Given the attention being focused on Woodford by the commons select committee I would be surprised if this matter died down. If people want to contact the FCA or their local MP it wouldn't harm. The issue here is not shorting: it is market professionals acting in concert to manipulate markets. I've not reviewed the legislation in a while and do not know if the key players in this are connected. But the modus operandi is simple: go short, flood social media with stories that "rumours are swirling around a potential accounting scandal at X", then your associates issue a paper and you all close your shorts. If that is what has happened it is illegal. And it would be illegal if you did it on the long side with rumours of big contract wins. It's what the daily mirror journalists were jailed for

[littlepuppi7] 08/8/2019 21:35

Surge at the end on the djia free will be blue tomorrow. This will go up. Just a question of how much.

[gettingrichslow] 08/8/2019 21:35

It seems to me that MW probably ARE genuinely convinced that they've uncovered some big issues, but ACTUALLY they haven't at all. Clearly it'll never happen, but what this really needs is a live debate between Block and Bogart, Newsnight style. Within 10 minutes or so, I think it would become clear whether there is really anything amiss here. As it is with each party publishing papers it is almost impossible to resolve the debate.

[minerve 2] 08/8/2019 21:18

"Little-known fact among investors: it’s not the auditors who prepare the financial statements"


Little-known fact????

Idiot.

[henchard] 08/8/2019 21:16

Has Muddy Waters gotten a bit lazy and living off past glories?

At least with UK stocks.

Portia Patel and Justin Bates at Canaccord have been banging on about the core BUR issues for months, and the "new" stuff/details in the MW report seem to have been effectively dismissed by BUR. E.g. one SEC filing by that biotech firm with the same office address as Invesco is plainly a data entry error. MW trying to make something more of it was, to borrow a turn of phrase from MW itself, "egregiously misleading."

So, has MW just piggy-backed on Portia Patel's work and other UK bear research. I note: "Muddy Waters’ report comes less than two weeks after London-based ShadowFall Capital & Research disclosed a short position in Burford in a tweet July 25." (Bloomberg)

Ditto last year at IQE. Shadowfall issued a bear case report. "A few days later, short seller Muddy Waters increased its position to the disclosable threshold, before issuing research calling IQE an 'egregious accounting manipulator'." (Financial Times)

Has MW just re-hashed a lot of existing research on BUR, bulked it out with some fairly spurious cherry-picked details and inflammatory rhetoric, and used its clout (and the Woodford fiasco) to trash the share price?

As a supporter of shorting as an efficient means of regulating markets in the absence of effective official regulation, I'd hope MW has some serious adverse material on BUR that it's holding back, as without it, its credibility as a primary research house is looking iffy to me.

[lionheart69uk1] 08/8/2019 21:15

My prediction is that it won't be over 500p by close of business tomorrow. Anybody else willing to speak up?

[lionheart69uk1] 08/8/2019 21:11

Glad I didn't take your advice, ONJohn. What a plonker.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 08/8/2019 21:05

^^^ Nonsense.

Every day of the week brokers flood the market with BS buy notes & recommendations. These outnumber short sellers output by AT LEAST 100 to 1.