Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[mryl] 09/8/2019 17:29

clocktower, you can always find examples where the shorters were actually right, but in most cases they aren't, and are simply playing on fear for their own personal gains. What happened here is a perfect example and there are countless others.

[clocktower] 09/8/2019 17:24

mryl, Would you say that about those that posted warnings about CAKE?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 09/8/2019 17:22

brexitplus
9 Aug '19 - 17:18 - 8923 of 8926
0 0 0

Bbm

You are so very predictable.

Often prescient & often correct too.

HTH

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:21

Have a good weekend too Sogoesit.

[henchard] 09/8/2019 17:21

mammyoko,

"I qualified at PwC 30-odd years ago and have prepared statutory accounts for several complex FTSE 100 companies. I know a set of fraudulent accounts when I see them."

A couple of questions if I may:

(1) Presumably, to be able to say you know a set of fraudulent accounts when you see them, you must actually have encountered fraudulent accounts? Could you add a bit of colour?

(2) Why do you think so many experienced auditors, including Big 4, have failed to recognise a set of fraudulent accounts when they see them?

[mryl] 09/8/2019 17:20

Excellent day of trading today, hopefully more of the same next week to get closer to or even overcome the £10,00 mark. Fair value easily north of £13.
I do hope Burford sues MW, I despise the shorters and their dishonesty. Why do shorters always have to be liars and/or scumbags?

[sogoesit] 09/8/2019 17:19

A few folks here are worrying/concerned about cases that fail, their disclosure, the likelihood of bankruptcy and whether returns, compared to other companies are unreasonably high.
Obviously, in so doing they have misunderstood the business of litigation and the business model, imv.

These are the issues:-
Asymmetrical Risk/Reward
Downside Risk
Optionality

These are ALL skewed.
In favour of Litigation Financers!!!

More prosaically:
Risk (costs) are limited to the downside. Reward (recoveries) unlimited (relatively) to the upside.
Downside risk is measureable. Upside reward not necessarily.
Optionality available in screening and exit.

Example for downside risk and measureability:-
Where cases have been built and executed in vintages with over 50% concluded the cost per case varies between $2.78m and $7.98m on average.
The cumulative average runs at about $5.5m to $6m and for 2015 was $5.92m.

So, is this business better or worse than a casino?
And what is the likelihood of such a business model going bankrupt and why?

Good weekend!

[clocktower] 09/8/2019 17:19

No I was not talking about Burford brexitplus. I was referring to cases where charges have been laid in the past.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:18

Bbm

You are so very predictable.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:17

Clocktower

Methinks you are wrong. Are you suggesting Burford is committing fraud, in writing?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 09/8/2019 17:16

Maybe it's not 100% clear they were utter lies.

I look forward to MW's rebuttal. If you think they published their work yesterday not already anticipating all the points in the the BUR rebuttal, the legal implications & dangers & more, including things neither you collectively or I have thought of, you are a fool. Wouldn't be a bit surprised if they are keeping their powder dry watching with morbid glee as fools rush in raising the share price so they can rinse them once again. Personally, if it were me I'd save the juiciest bits for the forthcoming rebuttal of BUR's rebuttal & really clean up.

Mugs buying now are playing pass the parcel with a live grenade IMO.

We'll soon find out.

[clocktower] 09/8/2019 17:14

LOL brexitplus - Just look at the Big Fours record and I suggest it proves beyond all doubt that they have serious questions to answer, so do not talk about accountants as though the are qualified to see fraud when its in their face - just look how much they have been fined for being incompetent.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:14

Stoxx

Agreed. It’s bluff.

[stoxx67] 09/8/2019 17:12

one suspects the opposite of the spokesman's remarks for Muddy waters, in that rather than "opening up" burford , Muddy Waters Capital may be "closed down" after damages.

i can not think what they (MWC) would possibly say now, risk/reward is no longer on their side, and if they keep quiet then Burford has the last word, which they will anyway.

its catch22 for MWC and you have to say they deserve all that is coming to them.

[pal44] 09/8/2019 17:11

I cant figure out how a company can not defend itself from utter lies . GLA

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:08

Clocktower

Do senior judges understand anything in the real world?!!! You only had to watch them in their little ivory towers during the Brexit case brought by Miller. And the result was already known based on who paid their salaries - that really was crooked.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 17:06

From the i

“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.

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.

Burford hit back against the Muddy Waters claims, ­saying they were a “false and misleading” attack. It also accused Muddy Waters of “throwing in [the head of the suspended Equity Income Fund] Neil Woodford’s name for headline value”.

A source close to Burford said: “The company is certainly considering legal action against Muddy Waters on the ground that the tweet and following report created a false ­market. Such a claim could ­certainly be in the realm of hundreds of ­millions of pounds as innocent ­shareholders have been severely impacted by ­comments from Muddy Waters.”

A spokeswoman for Muddy Waters said: “We have no concerns about the outcome of a lawsuit, and it obviously occurred to us that a litigation finance firm would sue. If they do, we look forward to opening them up in discovery.”

[clocktower] 09/8/2019 17:03

"He's a lawyer and I have never come across a lawyer who properly understands a set of accounts. The skillsets are simply too different."

So it seems to me your saying that senior judges have no understanding of accounts.

[winsome] 09/8/2019 17:02

Investor Champion podcast was interesting and some good points, although it came out before rebuttal. But again some ignorance is shown about the litigation world. BUR simply is not in a position to start talking about their individual cases. As I've said before over the years here, I've been through a class action suit and had it settle before court and gained an indepth knowledge of how it works (in the UK anyway). That's why I bought into BUR.

1. A barrister will never give you more than 75% odds that you'll win your case. But if its close to that you have a strong case.

2. However, its almost inevitable that a case will settle before going to court and that strict NDA's will apply. 95% of strong(ish) claims never reach court. It follows that BUR has a very good chance of recoveries in nearly all its investments. Its not nearly as utterly unpredictable as many think. Its the timing that's impossible.

3. It can be damaging in many cases for both sides to shout about their planned court action, and certainly to speculate about their prospects.

BUR simply cannot talk about the vast majority of their work and they try to make up for that with very detailed reporting. How they choose to report is another matter.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 16:59

SK2. Wouldn’t expect anything less. MW now in the firing line. Tables turned. Wouldn’t want to be in their office. Need to defend themselves.

[brexitplus] 09/8/2019 16:55

Sapper, that will be fun - ambulance chasers!!!

[mammyoko] 09/8/2019 16:53

Block may come back on Monday but he needs to come up with something other than innuendo, misrepresentation and rehashing of previously known concerns if he is going to have any further impact on the share price. He's already been caught out trying to claim that BUR has liquidity issues when they clearly do not. He would need to prove fraud on a material scale to have any significant impact with a second bite of the cherry. There simply isn't any evidence of this at the moment. Anything less than providing hard evidence of fraud with his second attack will just create a huge yawn. BUR management methodically rebutted all the rather trivial points in the first document and carefully side-stepped the key questions - how much is Peterson valued at and how much is it really worth? The lapdog analysts went away satisfied with the responses (but with no better understanding of the double-entry in the cashflow statement than they had before. Block doesn't have the personal firepower to make much of an impact on the current share price and his thesis, that there has been widespread manipulation of the profits, is unsupported by the piffling examples he cites. Yes, he has muddied the waters for some but he is a very long way from producing anything resembling a killer blow.

In a former life, I wrote research reports on targets for private equity firms. Believe me, Block's efforts show a basic lack of understanding of how financial accounts work. I qualified at PwC 30-odd years ago and have prepared statutory accounts for several complex FTSE 100 companies. I know a set of fraudulent accounts when I see them. Burford's don't have any of the attributes of fraudulent accounts. The reason Block can get away with this is because, frankly, analysts' understanding of how financial accounts work is not much better than his. I suspect that none of yesterday's questioners at Burford's teleconference have ever had to prepare a proper set of consolidated financial accounts in their lives. . It was quite evident to me from the questions that there were whole sections of Burford's cashflow statement that the questioners hadn't the faintest clue as to what the double-entry was. Nor has Block. He's a lawyer and I have never come across a lawyer who properly understands a set of accounts. The skillsets are simply too different.

So, unless Block has some decent financial accountants on his team - ones who can actually prepare a set of accounts and who can explain how the double-entry for a cashflow works and how precisely he believes it has been manipulated - he will continue to chuck meaningless accusations about with nothing to support them. At the moment, there is absolutely no evidence that he has any accounting ability at all in his team.