Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[rostam60] 11/8/2019 11:40

mf, what you also need to consider is that if investors don't sell on a rumour or rumour of a rumour, MW will be out business shorter than mounting a short attack.

[tsmith2] 11/8/2019 11:18

It would be cat amongst pigeons

[mad foetus] 11/8/2019 10:30

Again,blah blah has it 100% rightIf you heard a rumour that TW was going to publish a rumour that MW might be short on ABC and might publish an attack on ABC, what would you do? And would you answer be any different if you knew for a fact, in advance, whether the attack was based on fact or falsehood?The answer is that most people would sell and wait for the "smoke" to clear. So a rumour of a rumour of a potential short has the ability to move the market. Clearly that needs to be addressed or there will be a total loss of confidence in the fairness of the market.

[winsome] 11/8/2019 10:29

MF, I agree with you. I've emailed BUR with those points plus a few more. I will get a reply as BUR do reply to those people who are interesting in asking questions rather than issuing innuendo and speculation.

I think their first priority will be to bring forward their already hinted at plans to dual list in US. Announce soon that they will look to do this in H1 2020. Then board additions and even change of auditor may automatically go in conjunction with that. I've also asked them to present more info in cash receipts and talk in general more about these huge cash receipts in relation to previous unrealised gains. The bears won't even talk about the $1.5bn cash receipts - the one bloody thing that can't be lied about.

[mad foetus] 11/8/2019 10:21

What they need to do:1) move to main market2) add Bogart to board and refresh it generally3) space FY and H1 reports 6 months apart so there isn't a silence between July and March4) add quarterly updates5) get an independent CFO - this May be harsh on EOC but is a matter of optics6) give IFRS and concluded matter reporting together and give them equal prominence in headlines7) publish fund performance and give insight on when waterfall fees might flow8) more directors buys, given the amount of the sales last year

[minerve 2] 11/8/2019 10:19

At the end-of-the day, the real rate of return of this company is a function of new case growth by value and case success rate. The increases in case numbers will probably coincide with a general lowering of the average case value and and a most likely fall in the case success rate. The forward success rate will best be determined by a lawyer, not an accountant. How the carrying value is calculated to some extent is secondary to the formula applied on the forward success rate.

Gotham and MW will not have anywhere near an idea of the forward success rate than Bur.

How one marks carrying value to some extent is therefore irrelevant only in so far as the confidence needed in raising capital.

Because these carrying values are so much open to debate - it is an art, not a science - I would advise if you are interested in Burford to buy at a low PE against current future forward earnings consensus and leave it like that, rather than adding tranches incrementally over time. If you do that you are to some extent mitigating the carrying value risk.

[winsome] 11/8/2019 10:07

If Gotham supposedly spent 'many months' researching Burford last year they clearly came up with nothing worth shouting about. Or they would have done a short on the stock when it was over 2000p?

Presumably they are jumping on the coat tails of MW now with a rehashed report with more innuendo and Shareprophets will sensationalise it.

Would be hypocritical of them not to go after MANO as well. Same levels of unrealised gains but on cases that involve squeezing money out of insolvent people. On an eye watering PE. But, no, They only want to bash Woodford.

[haveapunt1] 11/8/2019 09:59

Share buy back won’t achieve anything, they can buy back max 10%, add that to the cost to do that, they would be better off using it for growth. The damage is done and taking 10% off the market at say £9 imo isn’t the answer and costly
Share buy back would take significant cash

[molatovkid] 11/8/2019 09:39

We are being manipulated by American chancers.

Don't let them do it.

[goodbloke1] 11/8/2019 09:38

What Burford needs to do now is start their share buyback and screw the shorters in the stock. That will send a clear message!

[sidjameslaugh] 11/8/2019 09:35

What you mean besides the fact it’s a public listed company and you can do that anyway.

[bolmen] 11/8/2019 09:34

In Muddy Water's report is nothing new. True, write-downs could be possible. However, just 0.2% of all write-ups have ever turned into a loss. But more importantly, the litigation finance market has grown more than 300% in 2012-18 and is still in an early stage (2% penetration rate). If Burford raised its current net debt/EBITDA ratio from 0.8x to 1.5x, sales could grow by additional $800m. My target DCF price of $20 (using 8% WACC)is placing Burford on 10.7x 2020PE and 0.3x 2020 PEG ratio. Assuming a sustainable 20% ROE and 8.0% WACC and $8.4 book value, I get s target NAV of $28.5.

[5chipper] 11/8/2019 09:32

"Despite its criticisms of Burford, Gotham is set to say that if the litigation funder is as strong as it claims, the public scrutiny will help it to improve its practices."

[goodbloke1] 11/8/2019 09:12

To not issue his 'research 'a year ago doesn't exactly inspire confidence that the report out today can be taken seriously in my view.

[goodbloke1] 11/8/2019 08:54

As I said, the doubts and the accusations are in the price in my opinion and the way the media are portraying the company is if it’s not a viable business without the ability to generate large profits.Its interesting that high profile brokers still see incredible value at over 20 quid a share.A multiple of what it is now!

[p@] 11/8/2019 08:53

Anyone know the capital value of those 4 bonds shown above ? 2022 ,2024, 2025, 2026.

[hawkind] 11/8/2019 08:46

CEO and CFO looks dodgy that they are also married that meant to say. They are not dodgy persa

[hawkind] 11/8/2019 08:44

It will be a rehash without doubt, but hopefully they will not be able to support the original report with extra info and pick holes in the rebuttal by Burford. The issue is not what they repeat but if it demonstrates clear truths in the original MW report. CEO and CFO does look dodgy and the fact they have gone through a few CFO's over the years. Is tthere any wrong doing, why did they leave. This leaves it open for BUR to state where they have seen misleading accounting on case fair value profits BUR have acted with removing the CFO.

[hawkind] 11/8/2019 08:36

I hope your right, but with other short sellers apparently jumping on board tbe bandwagon, is it a case of there is no smoke without fire? I hope not, as I have always looked at my Burford as a sure thing on an investment front. Would be a shame if there is something in MW reports but hopefully it's just malicious attacks. I think tomorrows share price reaction will tell us a lot either way.

[brexitplus] 11/8/2019 08:36

With all this useless pontificating, perhaps someone would like to itemise what any potential Gotham report will say.