Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[yidarmytom] 13/8/2019 15:50

it will go up, down or stay the same I think ;o-)

[growthinvestor2001] 13/8/2019 15:43

please stop with the price predictions - you are all just guessing - like a bunch of kids...

[millennial] 13/8/2019 15:41

15 pounds coming Hahahahahahaha

[1corrado] 13/8/2019 15:40

850p at the close.....................

[tsmith2] 13/8/2019 15:37

830 about to be punched through, string buying interest

[sbb1x] 13/8/2019 15:36

830 resistance - 780 support?

[sbb1x] 13/8/2019 15:35

Like printing money trading this.

[sbb1x] 13/8/2019 15:34

830 close to that 850 target

[tsmith2] 13/8/2019 15:30

Which i believe we will see

[tsmith2] 13/8/2019 15:30

Strength into finish would be a bullish signal

[1oughton] 13/8/2019 15:27

Usually means they got stock to go

[inthemix] 13/8/2019 15:26

Keep getting tipped this, so I've finally invested gla.

[sweet karolina2] 13/8/2019 15:23

sogoesit,

"SK2, your thesis on flawed modelling is, I would hazard, a tautology.
It is meaningless and applies generally not just specifically."

All models are wrong some models are useful means no model completely accurately reflects reality. Take a model boat it can be very detailed and you can have a lot of fun with it on a pond, but it can't get you across the Atlantic.

Thus you need to fully understand the model and its limitations and only use it for what it can be used for. Some models are so flawed they are useless. What you are trying to do would be useless as it would mislead you far more than it guides you.

[1corrado] 13/8/2019 15:23

as predicted 800p and now 900p.

[stentorian] 13/8/2019 15:17

Move over Edward Woodward, Christopher Bogart is the Equalizer. I wonder if he owns a Jag?

More seriously, Burford's 120 lawyers don't even have to do the real work. The solicitor that knows the case and the client are paid by Burford to do all the grunt work. Burford maintain a watching brief and vice-like grip over the decisions. This means they can turnover lots of cases by having specialists in each area - Patent infringement, copyright etc.

[williamcooper104] 13/8/2019 15:15

Thanks for posting - good article

[tsmith2] 13/8/2019 15:13

This here:It's unhelpful that Muddy Waters declared a company with more than $400 million of cash and equivalents to be "arguably insolvent." Comparing Burford's accounting to Enron seemed calculated to encourage shareholders to sell first and ask questions later.I think muddywaters will feel the heat

[sogoesit] 13/8/2019 15:12

Exactly, stentorian, this “intellectual property” is what skews the upside reward even more asymmetrically and is evident in its history.

[tsmith2] 13/8/2019 15:03

short squeeze starting

[sogoesit] 13/8/2019 14:58

SK2, your thesis on flawed modelling is, I would hazard, a tautology.
It is meaningless and applies generally not just specifically.

[sweet karolina2] 13/8/2019 14:53

winsome,

I think you have hit the nail on the head "you want to show your company is growing those assets and potential profits". The fudging of the Napo case in 2013 actually coincided with what would have been a really bad year, even in the way BUR was accounting (Profit under $3m -would have been a loss and NAV would have fallen not grown). BUR booked some totally unjustifiable figure as a concluded case (if it was as BUR claimed from some other interim recovery why did it all disappear when finally rectified in H1 2019?) and when the case was lost in 2014 booked an even higher one before finally being reversed when there was enough other stuff to make it not noticeable. The other key thing that happened in 2014 was the first bond issue, which would not have happened if BUR has reported a loss and a reduction in NAV. So absolutely the pressure was intense back then to make things look good.

As Napo is not an entirely isolated incident, the fear is that the other cases MW has found and BUR have not convincingly answered could be the tip of the iceberg, especially now reporting is by cohort only.

It is an absolute certainty that the errors that are embedded in a flawed modelling technique, which is not appropriate for the data set, then extrapolated forward could give a very misleading and inaccurate impression and arguably that is why BUR does things the way it does and why it is so vital that the right steps are taken to restore credibility in the accounts.

[sogoesit] 13/8/2019 14:42

SK2, no, you are incorrect about the reason I cut-off at 2015.
I am only interested in vintages that have historic majority concluded cases.
Cases take upwards of 2 years to conclude as you would know. Unresolved cases would be statistically invalid... obviously.

(I am really happy you are fully qualified to evaluate models, too. It means your critical input to my ideas is all the more valuable. Which statistical modelling theorem would you propose I use for the DCF modelling idea?)