Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[williamcooper104] 09/8/2019 14:05

Brexitplus - most PE funds are fixed life - usually 5 years Most of those that are listed are evergreen - eg 3i - and in the 90s there was exactly the same debate about 3i's valuation

[williamcooper104] 09/8/2019 14:00

Sk - agree on future profitability given that Peterson is such an outsized win From chatting to litigators I wouldn't worry about the gambling point - they all cried about Burford not taking risk Any one claim is of course risky but a collection of them is much less so

[galatea99] 09/8/2019 14:00

littlepuppi7,

Yes, you're right that it is a waste of time and effort to even try to discuss anything sensibly here, that is if one doesn't automatically go along with the unthinking groupthink mob like yourself.

Enjoy!

[adnan17] 09/8/2019 13:54

Saltraider I bought Burford when it was £1.73 so I am trying to determine a fair value and when do I sell. I could sell now and still be in a huge profit, but is that fair value.

[diplomat65] 09/8/2019 13:53

IQE secured a £30m borrowing facility from HSBC at the start of the year in case it proved necessary - it hasn't. Following the Huawei debacle they secured additional facilities in case it proved necessary - it hasn't. Talk of insolvency suggests you are not following IQE's recent progress with new contract wins for their Mega-foundry as closely as you would have others believe. They were hit hard by MW last year but retain market confidence in their global lead on Compound Semi-conductors and the huge opportunity that 5G and 3D sensing represent.

[littlepuppi7] 09/8/2019 13:53

At the current price as far as negative view points are concerned the games are over. Some of these posts are comical. The valuation has a substantial increase coming and until this is complete just keep buying. The price on offer is still far too low. Just makes me laugh reading all these clown comments ... nobody is listening .... this will go down as one of the worse short attacks in history and probably end with muddy waters being insolvent after their activities become fully tested in a court. Sheer desperation on show now to try and talk this down.

[tutthetrader] 09/8/2019 13:53

SK definitely will be short. He shorted FFR and we would love to see him burn over there .The noose is coming for SK

[lomax99] 09/8/2019 13:52

Not the only one, some even may appear to be supportive...

[saltraider] 09/8/2019 13:52

The first assumption of anyone using this bulletin board must surely be that everyone else is talking their book.

[galatea99] 09/8/2019 13:51

Get lost, thickhead.

[adnan17] 09/8/2019 13:51

Lets look at it from a cleaner basis and one that is not open to as much accounting basis and that is CASH.

If I look at IMF's cash flows and look at the item "Proceeds from Litigation Funding" then you have the following (AUD 42m in 2014, AUD 103m in 2015, AUD 108m in 2016, AUD 116m in 2017 and AUD 95m in 2018). I then convert that into GBP to get (£24m in 2014, £58m in 2015, £61m in 2016, £65m in 2017, £54m in 2018).

If I look at IMF market cap it is AUD 665m which equates to GBP 376m. So that is a 7x multiple on 2018 cash flow and a 6.25x multiple on average cashflow multiples over the last 3 financial years.

Now if I look at Burford's cash flows and look at the line item classified as "Proceeds from Litigation investments" and "Proceeds from new initiative investments" (which is a relatively small number), I get the following amounts ($65.5m in 2014, $146.4m in 2015, $193.9m in 2016, $366.5m in 2017, $638.2m in 2018) and convert these to Sterling (£52.4m in 2014, £117m in 2015, £155m in 2016, £293m in 2017, £510.5m in 2018). If I apply a multiple of 7x to £510.5m we get a market capitalisation of £3.57bn.

And finally if there are 218.6m shares. Then the share price on Burford is £16.33

Now that I think about it this is probably the cleanest method. You cannot lie about cashflow as the auditors will have receipts and will have to verify against bank statements. I.e. money coming into the business. And it was great that the guy on the call yesterday said to articulate better the "Proceeds from litigation" in the cash flow statement

One could say that instead of applying a 7x multiple given that Burford is growing it should be 8x or even 9x. This would give a share price of £18.6 and £21.1

[knowing] 09/8/2019 13:51

Just look at this

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 13:51

Sweet K

Difference between Burford and PE is PE raises funds and then as investments are concluded the proceeds are returned to the investors, less fees. They also have a limited life.

Burford reinvests the proceeds thus compounding which leads to greater growth.

Just my opinion of course.

You really do sound like a MW disciple.

[littlepuppi7] 09/8/2019 13:49

Galatea you crack me up... the games over.

[goodbloke1] 09/8/2019 13:48

Not you. SK has a short in my opinion

[galatea99] 09/8/2019 13:44

goodbloke1,

If you're referring to me, then you're wrong.

[goodbloke1] 09/8/2019 13:41

This poster has obviously got a short on the stock lol!

[galatea99] 09/8/2019 13:40

I am asking about the country of origin of the SWF because I understand that the provision of funds from the SWF is to be in stages, Almost certainly with condtions attached and with determined circumstances and procedures to be present at each stage. Should the SWF be from Singapore or Norway, say, I would expect there to be rather clear conditions on the release of funds. Should it be a SWF from a Middle East source, I'd expect there to be rather less transparency. The provision of these funds is, imo, a key factor in Burford's growth plans. Does anyone have info on the origin of the SWF?

[sweet karolina2] 09/8/2019 13:38

"Sk - growth in terms of invested capital going out door and stepping up is real

The SWF didn’t commit that capital without high degree of confidence that it would be spent "

William 100% agree on both those points and it is also clear, because BUR keep coming back to debt and to a lesser extent equity markets for more cash as cash balances reduce year on year, cash coming in is being put back in. The question is is that really creating the exponential growth in profits and NAV that is being reported - does seem too good to be true, when essentially the underlying asset is so unpredictable it could be considered gambling.

[trident5] 09/8/2019 13:33

No - the Q came up in the call yesterday and they said the SWF didn't want it known.

[sweet karolina2] 09/8/2019 13:32

The big problem with the fair valuation method for legal cases is the outcome is so uncertain. MW produced a number of examples of actual BUR cases where things had gone wrong and there was either nothing in the rebuttal to contradict it or it was confirmed but with a glossy spin - the land they got rather than cash, the IPR that became worthless when the bloke died, the Russian divorcee who got her award but can't get her hands on the money. Managed to impound his super yacht and there is now a contingent liability against BUR for improperly impounding it. The Napo case booked as complete when not, when it did complete as a court room loss booked as even more of a gain, eventually by virtue of some highly questionable transactions BUR made a small profit but waited for years to write it down properly.

Yes you can guess what you might get if you win and then take a conservative view on that, but how do you account for all the risks that it could be a zero or worse actually a liability?

IMF don't do any of that and what we see is despite a good success rate of 90% and an average 1.5 times return profits (which are reliable) are around 10% of what BUR are reporting. Something does not add up and BUR actively prevent them being added up by anyone externally - auditors don't do the adding up they just take a view on what they are presented with, which is why there have been so many big 4 auditors implicated in the numerous high profile failures. Smaller auditors are no better it is just their failures are less high profile.

The podcast posted earlier by investors champion makes the point very well, either be transparent and open to public scrutiny, which means listing exactly what the cases are - no detail is required of the actual merits of the case because that is all in the public domain anyway, once you know where to go to get the filings. Or don't be a public company.

[galatea99] 09/8/2019 13:27

Has the country of origin of the SWF ever been made public?

[tsmith2] 09/8/2019 13:22

tea leaves man Zak was saying above £8.5 = up to £10He'll be right but not because of tea leaves