Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 10:25

dg,

Did you see my bits about confirmation bias & cult members?

[gettingrichslow] 16/8/2019 10:24

Is it even possible to answer a flurry of accusations without being persuasive, evasive, defensive, offensive, aggressive or too passive? I think not.

[dgdg1] 16/8/2019 10:23

No, about the governance issues they said clearly that they don't agree with them but will do them as that is what shareholders want. As for the listing they were already looking at doing a US listing, and have speeded up that decision and announcement as it has become ever more clear this is important to shareholders. Not hard to understand, and absolutely no reason to believe there are accounting irregulaties, just because MW says so.

[ozzmosiz] 16/8/2019 10:22

daffyjones, anothjer shareprophets twit, off you go to the filter bin

[gettingrichslow] 16/8/2019 10:19

dgdg, as you say it has become farcical and an embarrassment frankly for these boiler room posters with ‘no position’.

Bbms is the latest one to start random accusations based on square root of diddly squat! Get a life!!

[daffyjones] 16/8/2019 10:18

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.

Perhaps the most inadvertently revealing statement in the response was John Lazar’s comment that he read the report “knowing there was no smoking gun.” He appears to be attempting to communicate that he read the report, knowing that none of it is accurate and they didn’t do anything wrong. What he instead conveys with this unintended message is that he was told in advance there wasn’t a “smoking gun,” or in other words, concrete evidence of what they’re doing.

The deceptive behavior detailed in this report were identified in Burford’s responses and fell primarily into three categories of deceptive behavior. These included, but were not limited to, evasion, aggression, and persuasion.

Evasion behavior consists of linguistic acts of concealment. For example, failure to answer the question posed or actually deny an allegation of wrongdoing.

Aggression behavior is typically used by a deceptive person to psychologically influence and pressure the questioner or source of an allegation to either back-off or rethink their strategy.

Finally, persuasion behavior is defined as those types of statements used for the purpose of convincing someone of their truthfulness versus conveying the information requested.

[galatea99] 16/8/2019 10:16

MF, #11182:

So lawyers only appear to be perhaps displaying "“aggression, evasion and persuasion" to put their arguments across, not because they just might not be telling the whole and unvarnished truth but simply because they are just skilled words practicioners, better than the rest of us in the use of language?

Oh, got it now, silly me!

(Desperate stuff!)

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 10:13

SCotty,

Who is condemning them? I'm pointing out that contrary to the everything is awesome view of most cult (for that is what many here are shaping up to become) members, there were problems with the way BUR operated, MW pointed these out saying the co. valuation was wrong & now it seems BUR, after denying MW's points & issuing the usual robust rebuttal seen in these scenarios, agree with them!

MW (& SK) are doggedly sticking to their view that there are accountancy issues going on here which may even be fraudulent. I wonder how long before BUR agrees with that view & says they'll restate?

[blah blah] 16/8/2019 10:09

dgdg1 - I thought exactly the same thing - are you supposed to respond in a monotone 'I deny that accusation'? The whole report was a posh version of Jeremy Kyle, pretty desperate stuff imo.

[scotty666] 16/8/2019 10:01

So you / shorters bleat and moan they need to take action to address concerns, then when they do taking shareholder views on board albeit reluctantly then condemn them for doing so. Funny.

[dgdg1] 16/8/2019 10:01

I like this part: "If this were not true, they would be motivated and able to articulate that they didn’t do this. However, they don’t say that. Instead, they attack the claim as, “simply false,” a failure to deny. They also feel the need to accompany the false denial with the convincing statement, “and further, it makes no sense commercially,” to bolster its credibility" Hello? Is saying something is "simply false" a failure to deny? Are they normal?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 09:58

11192

Uh huh. OK.

[dgdg1] 16/8/2019 09:58

I've read the Qverity report and I literally laughed. It's a mixture of claims which have already been proven wrong (like that Burford won't really do a new listing or make governance changes) and absurd interpretations of how they should have responded, complaints about them being agressive, and attempts at some financial analysis which they are not even qualified to do. I would love someone to do an equivalent analysis on Muddy Waters, surely no signs of agresiveness or persuasion there? And what about the numerous falsehoods already shown to be in Muddy Waters report and which they haven't even apologised for, what does that show about MW credibility?

[yidarmytom] 16/8/2019 09:57

The previous CFO is still with the Company, so not been "fired" has she ffs

[kpo115] 16/8/2019 09:57

Perhaps we should ask sweeetkarolina2/bbmsionlypostafter/Henchard to take the QVerity test on behalf of their "organisation".

Would they pass?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 09:56

Really? I must have misunderstood what BUR said.

"Burford's Chief Financial Officer

Concern has been raised about the fact that Burford's CEO and Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") are married. We believe that concern is unjustified given Burford's control structure and ignores Burford's finance and accounting structure.

Nevertheless, it is clear that investors would prefer an alternative CFO, and thus Burford announces that, with immediate effect, Jim Kilman will take on the role of CFO to buttress confidence in Burford's financial disclosures and to guide the Company through the change in its listing discussed above."

[yidarmytom] 16/8/2019 09:53

"fired on the spot" LOL

[yidarmytom] 16/8/2019 09:52

They changed the CEO, she wasn't "fired" ffs

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 09:48

If there was nothing wrong with BUR why only yesterday did they make all those changes, including firing the CFO on the spot?



Why, if all was good, did they try to placate their critics with all their plans for new listings, bond ratings etc?

[scotty666] 16/8/2019 09:47

That’s because the bears after days of bluster which was also blatant & funny are hiding away in their cave.

I am sure normal service will resume soon for you bbm before you get bored on the “sidelinesR21; with nothing better to do

Have a good day

[podium] 16/8/2019 09:45

That works both ways. If you can't see that perhaps your own confirmation bias is stronger than most. You don't just lap up what somebody with an already declared interest is feeding you, and that includes a shorting gang who already have used deception and manipulation to make money (quite ironic given their latest.. or maybe not).

[bbmsionlypostafter] 16/8/2019 09:42

The confirmation bias amongst bulls & long traders here is so blatant & actulaly pretty funny.

[podium] 16/8/2019 09:42

It lacks context. I wonder if MW pay Qverity by means of a cut in the proceeds of their short. I wonder if put to them as fact whether they would be evasive or aggressive. ;)

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 09:37

I'm surprised nobody has made the obvious point that of course Bogart is going to give some negative impressions on a measuring "honesty" test. He is a lawyer, so his responses are going to be measured, precise, and lacking in ordinary phrasing. All of those will be red flags to a behavioural analyst, who wants to see quick, personal answers. Just by virtue of thinking up a coherent response to a complex question he will look "evasive". What is he supposed to do? Shout out "that's a lie, come here and I'll smash your face in?"