Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[brexitplus] 16/8/2019 07:57

Forget governance.

The key point, which MW with SK2’s help keep trying to deflect, is was MW involved in market manipulation, either alone or “in concert” with others. Everything else is peripheral.

My opinion is yes.

Burford needs to attack on this front aggressively.

[gettingrichslow] 16/8/2019 07:55

Muddy waters are in big trouble now. They got carried away.

[sogoesit] 16/8/2019 07:55

Post 11123:
MW haven’t got the capability or expertise to evaluate GE.
Real analysis requires numbers not innuendo.
MW are bit players given away by their language and behaviour, whether right or wrong due to skill, luck or herding pressure.

Furthermore, individuals that rely on “expertiseR21;, with many qualifications, haven’t read NN Taleb’s views about Fat Tony.

[tsmith2] 16/8/2019 07:53

In this instance it would have saved muddywaters embarrassment..

[gettingrichslow] 16/8/2019 07:53

The open will be very interesting.

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 07:51

The GE defence has been interesting: they have said what sort of person issues a 150 page dossier on a company without speaking to the company first? It is a fair question. I think it is something the regulators need to look at. All detailed reports published in respect of listed companies should be given to the company in question in advance so they can clarify any mistakes (whether bullish or bearish - you wouldn't want a paper that claimed contracts had been signed which didn't exist). And perhaps in return prevent companies being able to get an injunction against the publication of such papers and beef up their remedies if the paper is untrue.But it is hard for people to say they are trying to uncover truth when they don't seek the company's side of the story.

[sidny1] 16/8/2019 07:50

Jeffries gives a buy at 2400

[tsmith2] 16/8/2019 07:46

Anyone sense a big up day?

[yidarmytom] 16/8/2019 07:40

They should just move on to GE, which is a much bigger fish to fry, unless they haven't got the balls

[blusteradjuster] 16/8/2019 07:37

Well, they said the CFO messing replacing.

Now s that’s done, the next phase of the hustle will be to discredit the new CFO or suggest that the move was an act of panic.

It’s not even remotely sophisticated.

[3dwd] 16/8/2019 07:35

I would suspect that burford have only just started ...they have kept level headed...they really should now focus on running the business again..

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 07:34

What price would American investors put on a business that is the global leader in a nascent industry growing at 40%p.a.? Usually you would say a P/E of 50-100. It's why we should have been listed there 2 years ago. If we had been I reckon the share price would be north of £100 by now and access to capital wouldn't be any problem.I also think, given the personnel involved, that the possibility of Bridgewater taking a stake here isn't fanciful.

[lomax99] 16/8/2019 07:32

Outsiders can't, however most of those with an agenda couldn't care less. An alternative with others involves capitalising expenses and treating them as assets, not at all subjective - another target for mischievous shorters?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 07:31

Burford tries to calm storm by replacing CEO’s wife as finance chief

[amt] 16/8/2019 07:30

Hope they pursue any wrongdoing

[amt] 16/8/2019 07:29

Yes coukd be that all MW will have done is made a lot of money for the Directors if the share price continues to recover. They are already in profit.

[winsome] 16/8/2019 07:25

sk, you know I cannot provide Viceroy report as it is confidential. But as we stand we have 3 infamous short sellers. Viceroy and Gotham found nothing worth shorting about (like that one?). MW cut and pasted from Viceroy's Capitec report which was totally discredited. Now MW report is largely discredited.

Those are the indisputable facts. Now MW are reduced to youtube videos on behavioural analysis. Talking about fig leaves, guardrails and trueing up. What sort of garbled language is that?

[amt] 16/8/2019 07:23

It's obvious that Burford directors are totally confident in their accounting treatment and business model. They will have to let external auditors go over their business with a fine toothcomb for a nasdaq or main market listing. The Directors have bought enormous amounts of shares. How can outsiders know that much about the business without direct access to the finacials.

[galatea99] 16/8/2019 07:20

"Burford needs to do better than this"

"How time flies in litigation finance. It was only a week ago that Burford Capital was batting away Muddy Waters’s “short attack” as “false and misleading”, while declaring: “Burford’s governance is robust and serves the business well.”

Well, look at it now: Elizabeth O’Connell, the chief financial officer, is being replaced with “immediate effect”; one of the four non-execs, David Lowe, is off; ditto the chairman, Sir Peter Middleton; the chief executive Christopher Bogart is finally joining the board; and the group is upgrading its Aim quote, via either a US dual listing or a move to the main market.

So, is this the shake-up to “buttress confidence” in Burford’s accounting and governance? Don’t be daft. It’s just the sort of cosmetic job you’d expect…"

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 07:19

I do think that BUR has provided an exceptional level of information though. You can download a case by case summary of every investment made, the commitment, amount paid, award etc. In the end, the level of profit they are making is rising by 40% pa while the percentage of that profit due to unrealized amounts is remaining stable to slightly down (from 54 to 49% over the last couple of years, from memory). That being the case, can we all agree that the realised profits that BUR is making are growing at a rate of at least 40% pa?

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 07:18

Good-day all...

[edmondj] 16/8/2019 07:18

busman,

They have said their approach provides investors with the highest level of integrity (i.e. by implication...)

[tsmith2] 16/8/2019 07:18

Weasel words by EJ