Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[psychochomper] 10/8/2019 13:53

Adnan, they (those speaking on the case for BUR) were correct. Tell me any other company which reconciles its cash to profits in granular detail? By that I mean asset by asset, or product by product. It can be done, but would be an absurdity in terms of detail. It’s only being asked now in order to positively disprove fraud or whatever the MW allegation really is. They don’t need to do this. Whoever does not believe them, just sell your shares as they cannot be for you.

[topvest] 10/8/2019 13:50

Net assets divided by the number of shares and then converted to £ and rounded up.

[adnan17] 10/8/2019 13:36

mammyoko, there was one question on the call where the person asked about the cashflow statement and reconciliations. In addition he did for further notes to be produced on the Cashflow statement in particular regarding "Proceeds from litigation" and "Funding of litigation". Furthermore the questioner did say that this company should only really be for qualified investors and those that can understand the complex set of accounts.

But seems people that ask these difficult questions are then mocked.

[psychochomper] 10/8/2019 13:36

Good for MW, I say. BUR is a stock which has basically doubled the past two years with dubious principal shareholders, questionable corporate governance and a high degree of faith in its valuation models. Who created the “false” market? Them (MW)? No, they just gave the idiotic PIs an invitation to do so which they accepted hook, line and sinker. No one HAD to sell, did they? And if you were one of them - why? Didn’t you do your homework before buying? Were you over-exposed? Do you have leverage?

Well, tough on you if you fall into either of those three categories. Because there have been many opportunities to buy at bargain prices which a number here have availed of. You are only bleating because you had exhausted your capacity to do so.

I think it unlikely that MW will be on the wrong end of a market manipulation charge. They will have thought through what they were doing, although the 54 minute delay (if that is what it was) may point to other uncertainties. As it should, because the sweeping knocking of mark to market accounting is weak. Problems occur when you DO NOT mark to market and use accrual accounting, subject to the mark to market model being fit for purpose. This is where MW’s thesis should have been more weighty. What is the model, and its parameters, assumptions, the experienced outcomes? It is only by demonstrating the requirement for a significant model change that their argument is strong. They appear to have puffed up a pretty slight argument in that respect with other stuff that was easy to refute (as they did).

But back to accounting; in this investment class, there is significant risk whichever way you wish to account, and that is why the rapid rise in this company's stock price was an easy target, especially when MW assessed the class of idiots and gamblers involved. They even mentioned Woodford by name - they knew which buttons to press, didn’t they?

[goodbloke1] 10/8/2019 13:30

Exactly my thoughts.

[charlesjames1] 10/8/2019 13:29

Sweet Karolina. You sound desperate. You are now rambling. The ramblings I might say are those of someone sweating over the weekend. It’s quite comical. Why else spend all weekend with streams of text. Off out for the day. Have a good day all.

[williamcooper104] 10/8/2019 13:25

Topvest How do you get to your NAV of £6

[goodbloke1] 10/8/2019 13:19

SK it’s old news.The market has spoken and the share has started recovering strongly from its low after the strong rebuttal.you can forget Gotham to save you from your short! You seem to be trying to convince yourself and sound very worried!

[topvest] 10/8/2019 13:17

What do people think Burford is actually worth with NAV at a little less than £6?

My view, for what its worth, is that anything much above £10 is overvalued and anything below £5 is undervalued. Its primarily an investment company, but could justify a premium because of the assembled investment management team.

I have no position. For the record I sold half of my holding at £2.80, 1/4 at £8 and 1/4 at £11 having purchased at about £1.20.

[charlesjames1] 10/8/2019 13:16

And that’s all opinion. I would say that they should draw it out and I think they will. It’s not BUR that’s the issue, it’s the knock on effect of other companies and pension funds that have also taken a hit on what I see as unsubstantiated claims. I have seen absolutely no shrewd of evidence to the contrary yet.

[sweet karolina2] 10/8/2019 13:16

What has happened to BUR is that the sell side analyst industry has been playing "I can see clearly now .... gonna be a bright sunshiny day" at full volume for ages, but the dark clouds have been gathering largely ignored, the rumbles of thunder have also been ignored, then came the rumour of lightning strike and some start to panic, BUR hastily tried to rig lightning protection which did not work and actually made the situation worse for those who trusted it.

Lightning is gonna strike the same place twice with Gotham wading in, but many are back to playing "I can see clearly now" at full volume. Oh dear the consequences are rather obvious, but there is nothing you can do about it over the weekend.

[sweet karolina2] 10/8/2019 13:07

"If it’s a long drawn out short campaign then a share buy back is nuts"

BUR seems to be determined to make it into a long drawn out campaign with is really stupid legal threats. They seem to want to keep it on the main news / front page of finance section, whereas what they really need to do is make it all tomorrow's chip wrapping paper.

Not only would a legal case keep the debate raging for ages for BUR to lose or have to settle would be calamitous for their reputation.

MW has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. They have done this plenty of times before and other companies had done the same. As Block says nearly all make the legal treats but later drop them. BUR are likely to force themselves into a senseless game of Chicken which has a best outcome for BUR of a total head on collision, but most likely will see an embarrassing climb down after most of the damage has already been done.

[the ghost who walks] 10/8/2019 13:03

How would you feel if the report said the stock was 100% undervalued also based on some random analysis. Would that require "action" also?

[sweet karolina2] 10/8/2019 12:58

Great podcast spot on and everyone should listen from about 9 Mins in:

[goodbloke1] 10/8/2019 12:57

I think people have heard it all now and more then impressed with the strong impressive and dispassionate rebuttal given the share more then doubled from it's low point! it's a bit like telling the same story over and over again.It becomes boring and loses its effect!

[goodbloke1] 10/8/2019 12:53

This is the Burford board not the Brexit board!

[charlesjames1] 10/8/2019 12:53

Gotham City. Oh yeah. We did some research over the last few months. Of course you did. Just on the bandwagon so people don’t forget them. Best their report is bulletproof. Good luck rushing it out by Sunday.

[williamcooper104] 10/8/2019 12:52

If it's a long drawn out short campaign then a share buy back is nuts if it then leads to a rescue rights issue (remember lots of REITs doing this in early 2007)Bur should prioritise investing in growth

[showme01] 10/8/2019 12:52

This is going to be a bit of a rollercoaster imo. I am glad a closed most positions yesterday as I can see a volatile few days ahead if Gotham have got their teeth into something where there is no short position held by them. I still believe in the model but value is hard. Just listened to the Cube Investments podcast and the concern for me is that directors have not bought any volume since the early £1/£2 days but have made sales in the tens of millions. They have not bought back anywhere near that amount, They are very wealthy people so why not if they believe the company is so poorly valued currently. I still have some held in my SIPP. Lets see what is in this report.

[topvest] 10/8/2019 12:50

Net asset value is below £6 a share and so a share buy-back would not, in my view, appear to be very sensible use of funds that will be needed anyway to fund growth (with the share price where it is).
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Muddy Waters appear to have raised some good questions around the quality of earnings (along with some spurious suggestions), but I agree that shorter activity needs better regulation as it’s not right that they should make such a massive profit by such means without giving Burford the chance to issue their rebuttal at the same time. Action needs to be taken.

[williamcooper104] 10/8/2019 12:49

Don't understand why Gotham is providing drink for the short party but refusing to partake

[5chipper] 10/8/2019 12:48

Best one...

Muddy Waters rates American Tower Corporation (NYSE: AMT) shares a Strong Sell. In this latest report Muddy Waters highlights how:

We rate American Tower Corp. (NYSE: AMT) a Strong Sell and value it at $44.57 per share, representing downside of 40%...

Sp today = $222 + 500%