Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 07:16

mf,

Fully agree it would help to report both ways.

Chief concern is scope for subjectivity in valuing likely case outcomes which goes against Burford's initial warning in its 2009 prospectus, how the outcome of litigation can be highly unpredictable.

[busmancan] 16/8/2019 07:14

EJ, Which two listed litigation financiers have declared mark-to-market lacks integrity? IMF Bentham did not say that in their press release. Of course, they did highlight the advantages of their model. This is what they said:"There are fundamental differences between IMF Bentham and other funders. Our investors understand and value this and our investor base now includes some of the largest, most sophisticated institutional investors in the world." says CEO and MD, Andrew Saker.Accounting Treatment of Litigation Finance AssetsThe accounting treatments adopted by IMF and some of its competitors vary materially.IMF's litigation funding assets, and those of investment vehicles managed or advised by IMF, are classified as intangible assets and therefore, in accordance with the International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), are recognized at cost throughout the life of the investment and are subject to impairment testing. IMF does not record any unrealized gains attributable to market value adjustments of its litigation assets during the life of the investment. IMF recognizes any gain on assets at the time of completion of an investment. Losses on investments are recognized at the earlier of either negative developments which impact potential recoveries via an asset impairment, or from a loss at trial. IMF's conservative and transparent approach removes potentially-artificial estimations of asset values and offers investors comfort in the integrity and stability of the reported results.

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 07:10

Can someone explain why, if mark to market is so bad, it has pretty accurately reflected the results that followed and there haven't been any significant write downs? I agree that in future it would be simpler if BUR reported both it's mark to market results and, separately, it's concluded cases. Though even then, as they move to portfolio funding, that isn't exactly straightforward. Or as we have seen with Napo, they start funding one matter and end up funding a cross-collateralised PF with a single client: even now we can't agree on how that should be accounted for.They aren't selling beans here. If they were they wouldn't be growing at this rate and if it was easy everyone would be doing it.

[dudishes] 16/8/2019 06:50

G'day,

Accusations naturally arise with losers:-

Nigel Sommerville (shareprophets 2ND chief) did refer to BUR, but frankly, in a timid way, but it was mentioned on SP, a thought maybe?

Tim - Never did, but since referred to him, sits on the fence (HE IS UNSURE), but he is honest with his broadcasts. Clearly not followed, but as always, will comment, its news, share site, must be done.

SK - Has been invited to post a few blogs on TW's site. Most certainly not TW, his spelling is far better, no offence to Tim, many intelligent men have issues with spelling. Sk is not Tim or Nigel, fact. me neither, but I do support the site.

My position closed now, but why does it not return to £16?

Kilman issue, is that another panic move?

The current point is whether overstated, that is the challenge for BUR.

cheers

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 06:48

Fair points to a degree but it would be interesting to get different auditor views on Burford's accounting.

Obviously oil & gas firms are valued on a proven also probable reserves basis, especially in a takeover situation, however two other listed litigation financiers have declared mark-to-market lacks integrity. From about 2014 onwards I found it harder to be sure of underlying value given Burford's rapid expansion.

[busmancan] 16/8/2019 06:43

C'mon now EJ, show us the goods. Do you not believe EY is a competent auditor? How has Ernst & Young's auditor independence been impaired? It makes sense to rotate audit partners, not audit firms.

[yidarmytom] 16/8/2019 06:38

The Times are still whinging, still bashing the Company to high heaven

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 06:30

DAFAD,

No but I am interested how the debate plays out as to the accounting concerns especially, given they ring with my own a year or two ago (since being bullish from the 2009 flotation).

Risk/reward appears broadly on the upside assuming future results deliver. I'd be satisfied on that also if/when a genuine new FD and auditors have been appointed and settled in. Thus an interesting test of governance issues also; e.g. whether 'connected persons' and lack of auditor/ned rotation are a red flag.

[busmancan] 16/8/2019 06:23

Interesting MW analysis. I don't believe John Lazar was on the call, was he? Funny, you would think the experts with MW could at least correctly identify Jonathan Molot?

[tracy_moore] 16/8/2019 06:22

Why let facts get in the way of an agenda, they didn't before .

[dafad] 16/8/2019 06:20

Are you short EJ

Muddy Waters Capital LLC remains short Burford Capital Ltd.

Third party behavioral analysis strongly indicates that Burford’s management was deceptive in their written and verbal responses to our initial report. Muddy Waters engaged Qverity to analyze management’s statements in the August 8, 2019 response statement and ensuing call for deception. Qverity provides behavioral analysis, and is founded and staffed by former United States Central Intelligence Agency experts in detecting deception. Its principals authored the books “Spy the Lie” and “Get the Truth”. We have attached the Qverity report. Note that the report was prepared prior to Burford’s announcement about CFO and board changes.

[dafad] 16/8/2019 06:19

Pity you forgot to add the last sentence

Note that the report was prepared prior to Burford’s announcement about CFO and board changes

[dafad] 16/8/2019 06:18

Edmond j-it seems the article is already out of date,laughable

Note that the report was prepared prior to Burford’s announcement about CFO and board changes

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 06:09

Anyone for Punch and Judy at 6am?


Behavioral Analysis of Burford’s Response Indicates Significant Deception (BUR LN)



In this report, QVerity conducted a comprehensive behavioral analysis of Burford’s written
response, as well as their commentary and responses to investor’s questions about the Muddy
Waters report. The responses from Burford management contain a significant volume and
density of deceptive behavior across all of the issues identified in the Muddy Waters
report.

[purplepelmets] 16/8/2019 05:53

Incestual relationships in the boardroom make for a disastrous share chart. Lucky Howard Marshall didnt appoint Anna Nicole onto his board of directors!

[devalpha] 16/8/2019 05:49

Henchard, like Burford I will take your comments on board.

[devalpha] 16/8/2019 05:43

Good post lucky mouse. Making the link and evidence are the key. I don't doubt for one minute there's furious activity going on to make the link and uncover the evidence. It won't be easy, but if anyone can it'll be Burford.

[theaviator] 16/8/2019 01:34

Cut Tom some slack. He does his best and can't get em all right.Not in anymore but well done lads and ladies.

[williamcooper104] 16/8/2019 00:11

One thing they should absolutely not do is get a corporate credit rating

[williamcooper104] 16/8/2019 00:08

The rights issue was backed by a different fund run by a different fund manager than the Invesco one that held the Burford position Fund managers do not usually take one for the team :)

[sweet karolina2] 16/8/2019 00:00

"I think the jury remains out on the $15.8m booked from Napo (with all the implications if BUR can't account for it)."

I am not sure it is a Jury issue. Either there is another case and the details will be provided - why would BUR not provide sufficient detail? Or there is not. I agree until there is confirmation either way we cannot and I have not stated categorically either way. If I was going to make an investing decision, my investing decision would be to preserve my capital.