Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 17:50

Sk - you don't necessarily have a public record of every litigated settlement A private settlement reached after a Letter Before Action wouldn't create any public record It's entirely possible that something dodgy has happened with regards to Napo but equally it could all be above board We cannot know Goes to highlight that this is a complex business and governance is super important

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 17:46

Plus an average of annual ROE is always going to be higher than IRR

[sweet karolina2] 17/8/2019 17:45

Spar,

I have explained what I am doing and why enough times, you can believe what you like and state your false beliefs as many times as you like, it won't make them suddenly become true. If you think I am in some way offended or deterred by the responses I get, then that is yet another sad mistake you and others are making.

The level of optimism and confirmation bias on this board tells me many of you are heading for a very rude awakening when reality strikes. Hopefully you will be able to learn the lessons and emerge as better investors, but I fear many will just blame those who warned, rather than looking for answers in the mirror.

[sparusty] 17/8/2019 17:38

As opposed to the blatant slapping off of the company from day one by SK.

The sheer weight of posts by SK suggest someone either shorting or with a paid agenda.
Nobody spends entire days posting warnings on a board out of the goodness of their own heart.
I am fairly sure there are a few more also.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 17/8/2019 17:30

TBH if I held BUR the Napo question is one I definitely wouldn't want raised. The answer could result in a restatement of accounts & a 50-75% drop in the share price.

But if you guys keep up the ad hominem attacks on SK & don't let up talking about how TW is behind all of this then I'm sure you'll be alright. Those are the important things here.

[sparusty] 17/8/2019 17:29

SK thanks for the reply.

One more question... Are you on a retainer from Muddy. Or are you not allowed to disclose it.

[gettingrichslow] 17/8/2019 17:09

Now she is trying to be persuasive, another no-no...that’s a full house now!

[sweet karolina2] 17/8/2019 17:04

Spar,

All the info needed on Glenmark is already in the public domain in Glemark's filings and later Jaguar filings. If there is another case, then there will be a public record of it just as there are plenty adnan has been able to find on Glenmark (such a shame his optimism and confirmation bias prevent him from drawing the correct conclusions from them but he seems determined to learn the hard way). For BUR to be entitled to $18.5m, an award of damages of over $50m would have to have been made and that would show up in company filings, even if the fine details of the Settlement are not publicly available.

[gettingrichslow] 17/8/2019 17:03

Dear oh dear, SweetK is being defensive, evasive and aggressive, all at once!!!

What would those ex-CIA people make of that reaction???

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 16:58

Buffetteer - 1.75x over a few years is high 20 IRR The point is that we do not get to invest at book value - so our return on invested equity cannot be 32 percent The argument about warranting a high PE is only right to the extent that you can increase earnings from the same capital base - Burford could be 10 times the size of what it is now in 10 years time - but that doesn't mean that our returns will be 10x I admit that they could scale up the fund management side of the current capital base and that would give something extra in earnings But then again the historic ROE are also based on Petterson and while I've no doubt that we will see other many multiple return claims I'm sceptical that they are going to turn 18m into 1bn - and certainly wouldn't put that into any base case return

[sparusty] 17/8/2019 16:57

It is fairly normal for a lot of these cases to have agreements on what cannot be disclosed.
Could be you are never going to hear anything from anyone.

[luckymouse] 17/8/2019 16:41

what did those CIA experts with 30yrs experience say again about overly aggressive defensive deflective responses? Can't quite remember...

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 16:41

Lol, very pathetic argument, and resorting to swearing. Tut tut, not very ladylike. Where are your manners?. Well let me send you the following link, it may help

hxxps://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111212006268/en/Napo-Terminates-Glenmark-Pharmaceuticals-Failure-Commercially-Develop

So let me repeat the question and please answer in order to facilitate a mature grown up discussion. Very simply, please can you answer why did Napo terminate the contract?

[buffetteer] 17/8/2019 16:37

William Cooper
You suggest an IRR of 12% but that does not seem in any way correct when we know the ROE is 32% & has remained so consistently . The fact that we have a new industry which is growing very quickly and BUR is the premier player who is able to take a large share of the market means that it is eminently sensible to fast-track their growth with external capital .Since the returns are so high surely the business deserves a premium rating more akin to a high growth stock than a pedestrian ex-growth company ?

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 16:26

Wonder what returns would look like if you bought the bonds and put the yield into call options Returns would clearly be less than owning equity outright - but whatever happens the bonds are highly unlikely to actually take a credit loss

[trident5] 17/8/2019 16:19

All letters to AIM Regulation go straight in the bin.

[williamcooper104] 17/8/2019 16:18

If current NAV is £6 (big if) then if we assume that the current balance sheet pays out over 2 years making a c15 percent return pa (the Fair Value marks will have an assumed embedded return in them) The then returned capital is roughly equal to the currrent share price range (c£8.4) - then assume that the proceeds are reinvested for 3 years making 1.75x - (upper end of what IMF have done but fair given carry on sov money and leverage) 1.75x over 5 years is c12% IRR - I think there's lower risk ways of getting that level of return Although I would still be a buyer as part of a portfolio given genuinely low correlation - but a would not be confident in having a super large position The absolute size of the business and earnings could of course grow massively - but only via increasing equity (which would not increase the above returns) or debt (which would but would of course also add extra risk)

[luckymouse] 17/8/2019 16:14

He Sheriffed the sh*t out of Rivington Street Holdings (RIVP) - it went bust

[yidarmytom] 17/8/2019 16:07

if there is one person that AIM Regulation will ignore it is the Sheriff of AIM, your letter will go straight in the file marked BIN sk

[adnan17] 17/8/2019 16:02

SK could you just answer the following question?

Why did Napo cancel the original agreement?

[sweet karolina2] 17/8/2019 13:56

"Napo got something to. I.e. Glenmark was forced to purchase supplies from Napo."

One last time.

Napo cancelled the agreement.

Glenmark demanded arbitration.

The arbitration reinstated the agreement Napo cancelled. The royalties were as per the original agreement. Glenmark could go elsewhere and pay a royalty to Napo as per the original agreement, so most definitely were not forced to buy from Napo. Glenmark were awarded costs and fees of $2.5m, which Napo agreed to pay though a 50% reduction in royalties (Napo was broke and could not afford to write a cheque there and then). As it turned out no royalties were ever received by Napo, so Napo has not paid Glenmark.

So if BUR still did have an entitlement to $15.8m on the basis of that result, then that is 6 times the costs owed to Glenmark.

Don't worry if you still can't see it, all those not blinkered by optimism and confirmation bias can and will, if BUR try to claim that Glenmark was the case that they booked $15.8m against as completed (no further litigation risk) in 2013.