Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[ozzmosiz] 16/8/2019 18:39

Karolina, are you not drunk yet? Probably started at 7am. Careful not to ruin any relationships

[eentweedrie] 16/8/2019 18:29

you need tp get out and get yourself a boyfriend lovey

[eentweedrie] 16/8/2019 18:29

blah blah blahmethinks the lady doth protest too much

[sparusty] 16/8/2019 18:12

Pages and pages of sheer drivel from SK.

Maybe look into Muddy being arguably insolvent after their court case.

[winsome] 16/8/2019 17:59

inki, more credence than a shark short seller that doesn't understand what 'insolvency' means.

Now, no one can dispute that

[trident5] 16/8/2019 17:56

Does he add credence to another bond issue or an equity raise - isn't that where his skill set lies?

Could you elaborate on the "adding credence to governance"?

[inki] 16/8/2019 17:53

The new CFO , is not a part time employee. He was an advisor, partly due to other business commitments. As an ex Morgan Stanley banker (vice chairman) and other roles, he adds credence again to governance. sesames

[anothercoffee] 16/8/2019 17:38

Good points, well made. Good weekend.

[mad foetus] 16/8/2019 17:28

I think that the best thing would be for everyone to shut up. MW have made their case, BUR has made its case, some changes have been suggested now let's wait and see what happens. A base for the share price will have to be rebuilt, and I expect the share price to hang around in the £7-9 range for a while. I can't see it falling below £6 or above £10 for some time. There will no doubt be more changes announced: perhaps a move to quarterly updates, perhaps a formal publication of the accounts showing only completed matters, who knows.
But there will be institutional investors looking at BUR and if they decide that the story is intact, they will start to invest, slowly. The big issue here is whether it should be priced on the profits it produces or the NAV. I think the former, and if income can continue to increase by 40% p.a., it will be hard to argue otherwise. But from now on, news and institutions will drive things forward.
It may be that Woodford's liquidation could coincide with a US listing, which could provide the liquidity that would need. There will, however, be intense pressure to get the share price up to higher levels before that happens.
Good weekend all, don't waste too much time here, it won't make any difference.

[hawkind] 16/8/2019 17:27

Some advise, dont look at the share price if you are worried for two weeks today, and filter SK and other trolls, and do not reply or unfiltered no matter how curious you maybe and the share price will recover.These people feed on keeping you engaged in debate. There is no debate, if you feel concerned at anytime re-read tbe companies rebuttal RNS and RNS which was issued yesterday 15th August 2019.Do not reply to the trolls, that's what they thrive on.

[hawkind] 16/8/2019 17:20

Sk I could not give a fock about your view as you are clearly short, and that is obvious.

[williamcooper104] 16/8/2019 17:14

The Jeremy Kyle short sellers latest efforts have been largely derided - but yet the stock still tanks - that's not a good sign

[hawkind] 16/8/2019 17:14

bbmsion yet another clown. If it tanks, I will be throwing everything I have into it. So bring it on.....

[winsome] 16/8/2019 17:09

sk, I'm not 100% sure your amateur sleuthing has uncovered the full facts. However, I'm 100% sure the US regulator will be aware of the MW report and will look at the NAPO issue. I'm also 100% sure BUR know that they will and that they would be refused a listing if the Regulator wasn't happy. And I'm 100% sure BUR know their credibility will be totally shot if they fail to list in US or LSE main market.

As for BUR providing more detail in a further RNS, they could provide the most honest and exonerating explanation but would MW and Shareprophets (a) thank them so much for clearing up the misunderstanding or (b) call them liars again?

So unless you think BUR are lying about dual listing then I'd suggest you are misleading yourself on the NAPO issue. You won't see my point of view. Only time will tell.

[henchard] 16/8/2019 17:05

It's interesting to compare the independent auditor's report of FY 2013 (the time of the dubious looking Napo booking) and the latest of FY 2018.

FY 2013: 1 page (p. 20), signed off by "Ernst & Young LLP, Guernsey"

FY 2018: 9 pages (pp. 56-64), signed off by "Ernst & Young LLP, London"

The 2018 report is actually quite impressive with the steps taken by the auditors to assess various risks, including "Incorrect valuation of investments and new initiatives investments." (pp. 58-59)

The 2013 audit report by the Guernsey branch was less impressive (although so were the first ones by London in 2015 and 2016. The watershed for a much expanded report was 2017).

2013:

2018: