Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 08:42

Yes tw had a breakdown several years ago
Mental illness is a major contributing factor to his behaviour which is why he is weaving baskets in Greece

[blusteradjuster] 15/8/2019 08:36

Another marathon shift for Shareprophet-Karolina2 coming up today.

If you can’t be here to read it all, let me summarise.

Napo, napo, napo, napo, napo, napo, napo, napo...

[monte1] 15/8/2019 08:36

Noted growthinvestor2001 - can you kindly advise when you are going to add some much needed ‘value’

tia

[growthinvestor2001] 15/8/2019 08:33

I really can’t be bothered with this board now. Sk is posting huge posts faster than you can actually research and then type them with no typing errors etc- obviously all pre prepared or a team in action.

And then there are the idiots who keep posting ‘going up’, ‘going red’ etc as if we are not capable of seeing the price movement ourselves without their minute by minute commentary.

What a shame - board ruined.

[sweet karolina2] 15/8/2019 08:29

There are 4 basic credible hypotheses for BUR

A Not a fraud - all companies make mistakes and accountants are often too clever for their own good when they try to present a clear and comprehensive picture of something quite complex and only succeed in confusing where they are trying to illuminate.

B With disappointing results in 2013 and the pressure of needing to issue bonds in 2014, BUR crossed the line with Napo, but this was a one off and whilst not good and leaves BUR open to attack, it does not change the fundamental business proposition.

C Having crossed the line in 2013 and with the pressure remaining to keep reporting increased profits year on year and half on half, more fraud has been necessary and, whilst they want to unwind it, they can't without restating all accounts.

D The whole thing was set up to commit fraud from the outset and early adoption of BUR's version of IFRS 9 was key to enabling this.

If you then put all the known red and green flags you can think of against each hypothesis and weight them appropriately, it should enable you to determine which you think is most credible.

Personally, in my honestly held opinion, C comes out as most credible followed by B then D.

Key red and green flags for C:

Red

The governance issues, which BUR do not seem to be prepared to actually do anything about. Of particular concern is Miriam leaving in 2014 the way she did, the Hogwarts defence against the dark arts professoresque procession of CFOs ending with Liz, who has been with the company the whole time.

Accounting issues, in particular how profits increase every year, but the company still needs to raise more and more cash.

The number of different credible commentators who have been raising these issues well before MW and other new commentators like Investors Champion who have done their own analysis (the IMF Vs BUR analysis is excellent) and are drawing similar conclusions.

Green

Reasonably credible (have a reputation to lose) commentators like Jefferies still supportive and believing.

[1corrado] 15/8/2019 08:28

red coming soon.......................

[mad foetus] 15/8/2019 08:20

Volumes much lower. Will be good to see us slipping down the IG board of popular shares, still at the top. I suspect more director buys may come once volumes are subdued.

[monte1] 15/8/2019 08:19

#10769

Oo-err missus.

[hawkind] 15/8/2019 08:19

I hope your very focking patient, because you will be waiting a very long time!

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 08:19

bully for you. chipado1
meanwhile that bloke is porking ur wife

[1corrado] 15/8/2019 08:18

waiting patiently 750 and below my target if not never mind you win some and you loose some.

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 08:18

to which you might reply, stop squeezing so hard , monte1

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 08:17

its going blue

[monte1] 15/8/2019 08:14

Noted ONJohn - I didn’t realise that you were a user.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 08:09

shooting up

[blah blah] 15/8/2019 08:05

Ok - have filtered sk. If no-one engages then maybe we can avoid the non-stop bore.

[wardy333] 15/8/2019 08:03

Where the City Boys going to put this today?

[scotty666] 15/8/2019 07:57

Someone else with sense.

[onjohn] 15/8/2019 07:56

sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)


sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)



sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)



sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)


sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)


sweet karolina215 Aug '19 - 07:55 - 10760 of 10760 (Filtered)

[1corrado] 15/8/2019 07:56

perhaps 725.....................

[sweet karolina2] 15/8/2019 07:55

"Let he who has not sinned..."

But the best cyber security people are the former hackers.

I do write the occasional article for Share Prophets, but do not get paid like the regular writers (I do not ask or expect to be paid).

Here is the article I did on BUR yesterday.



Was a "red line " crossed? Look at it from the perspective of Bondholders who bought bonds in 2014.

Then look at the case found by adnan - well done. Read the information that is provided which tells you the nature of the case (an arbitration demand, not a damages claim filed in court and settled out of court), look at the outcome (full details kept confidential, but costs and fees awarded against Napo) and ask: Was BUR really entitled to $15.8m as its cut of this settlement?



The other thing that is really interesting is the amount booked as "total investment", which we are led to believe covers both Glenmark and Salix was $7.4m when supposedly Glenmark (IMHO bogus) recovery was booked in 2013 and still $7.4m in 2014 when the extra $5.5m Salix case LOSS recovery was supposedly booked. Elsewhere in the MW report BUR are accused of being selective about the investment costs they book on partial recoveries (Napo was never marked as a partial in 2013). BUR's response to that MW accusation was excellent - when you sell 50 of your 200 shares you don't book the cost of the 200. So why did they with the Napo cases? (if we still believe it was indeed 2 cases the first being the very cheap arbitration LOSS and the second being the very expensive Supreme Court Order, appeal of Supreme Court Order and then Jury Trial LOSS).

Doing the research to find the corroborating evidence is key and adnan has shown how it can be done with a bit of imagination and effort, however the really key step is to ask the right questions of the evidence in order to do the critical analysis and draw credible conclusions.

Yes johnrxx there are always 2 sides and it is only by doing the hard yards that you can decide for yourself what is most credible and what to dismiss / weight less highly. When you filter out all the share price commentary, the personal attacks etc then there has been some very good discussion on here, which should help you make your call, always remembering that you do not need to own every share and there are plenty more pebbles on the beach. But I do get that if you invested the time and effort into researching before you bought a pebble, it is hard to break that attachment and start the process again on another one. However all shares need to be kept under continual review and when the situation changes you have to consider if that changes your investment decision. People like Tracey Poor are stuck in every dog and fraud because she just cannot do that.

[tracy_moore] 15/8/2019 07:45

The filter is the freedom for others to shut the trolls out. In real life I wouldn't sit and listen to the likes of sk and clUNTon1 for longer than 30 seconds.

[yidarmytom] 15/8/2019 07:44

no it won't "go below 700p"

[1corrado] 15/8/2019 07:37

will it go to below 700p that would be lovely for me to make few more quids but would consider to buy 10000 at 725 as well.