Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 09:27

Because the shorters will never accept defeat. They will say they don't believe what Burford has said, or why did they only say it now and not before, and anyway what about thier other arguments which they will regurgitate (like why didn't Burford thank Miriam Connole when she left), or they will make some new ones.

[adnan17] 19/8/2019 09:26

MW logic - "Omg panic panic Burford sold a portion of the Petersen claim for $100m in cash just before end of reporting period and they only invested $7m. Omg Omg. Alarm bells should be ringing".

Erm what??? You invested $7m, you got $100m. Round of applause please.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 19/8/2019 09:26

What's it like being stupid?

[winsome] 19/8/2019 09:26

bbms, here you go again, changing the subject. The point I've been raising is that you guys are reporting first and asking questions later under the guise of 'journalism'. You cannot defend that, can you?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 19/8/2019 09:23

Burford could destroy the shorters, discredit & shut up MW, TW, SK & Uncle Tom Cobley, send the shareprice rocketing & leave nearly all of this behind (maybe insider dealing aside) by simply clearing up the Napo question with a 10 word statement.

Why do you think they are not doing that?

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 09:18

Since SK is mainly dealing in conjecture without any evidence of what was agreed between Burford and Napo, here's a bit of my own conjecture. It's interesting that the Glenmark agreement was dated 29.12.2013, just inside 2013 and not on a date that you would expect lawyers to being working hard on, especially given that the interim award had been made in 8.2012 and the partial final award in 9.2013 - so one could speculate that this is more understandable if the settlement DID result in an entitlement for Burford, and Burford were pushing for it to be done before the end of the year so it would help their numbers - and no, there's nothing unusual or dishonest about such a manoeuvre - companies do similar things the whole time eg trying to increase cash at balance sheet date. It might sound unimpressive or no-doubt below the high ethical standards of MW and people like SK, but it is perfectly normal, understandable and legal. And yes, one of the sales of the Petersen claim was on 30.12 and it is quite possible they had a similar motivation then - i.e. to prove that the claim had increased in value and generate fair value gains. You can criticise this all you like but the fact is it is above board.

[winsome] 19/8/2019 09:17

bbms, you prove my point. A sarcastic reply than than giving one of substance or credibility. thank you.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 19/8/2019 09:14

winsome
19 Aug '19 - 08:50 - 11563 of 11571

sk, that letter was only sent at the weekend and won't be received until today,

Quite. The very idea that BUR management will have worked over the weekend when faced with a crisis such as this is ludicrous. I imagine they will roll into work around 10ish this a.m & cast an eye over it & their other emails while quaffing their first coffee & croissant of the morning.

[winsome] 19/8/2019 09:14

Hawkind, my predictions that BUR would announce board changes and US listing before end of Sept came true early. Here's another one... Barring any unforseen calamitous events they'll be bought over by private equity long before a US listing. Why?

1. Given US/GBP exchange rate UK companies are generally cheap.

2. Private equity are tripping over themselves to get into this business, even if BUR's ROIC were much lower than they are today.

3. The bulk of BUR's business which is now in their funds is already regulated by the US SEC.

4. The vast majority of shares are owned by 8 institutional shareholders who are in huge profit as they have been in since day one. Bogart and Molot would be kept on as they are pretty much indispensible. So they won't fight off any reasonable approach.

5. 'Potentially' private equity would build this into an investment bank type business and refloat it on 6 years time on the NYSE.

Mad Foetus was first to suggest this months ago and I agree. A few years ago BUR hadn't reach critical mass for PE interest but now I think they have. The smart money will see trough this recent short attack for what it is.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 19/8/2019 09:09

adnan17
11565

....I have however, presented to them my full analysis/opinion of how I viewed the Settlement Agreement, which has been discussed at length on this site, and the fact that the $2.5m was linked to payment of royalty fees. I have also provided them links to all my sources.

I'm confident they'll give it serious consideration.

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 09:05

Thank you for saying so, that's appreciated

[dgdg1] 19/8/2019 09:03

To whoever thinks Burford invented the Napo settlement of 2013, my question is - why would they do that? After all they are lawyers and they know the consequences of being caught are serious, and they are not stupid. Would it really be worth it just to help secure more funding at a better rate? More to the point, if they wanted to inflate profits it's a stupid way of doing it, because if they get caught they have no answer. Much easier to just inflate fair values, which MW would have us believe they do the whole time anyway - that way they always can answer that the fair values used on the balance sheet were their genuinely held opinion. As for MW's claim that without this settlemnt ROIC of the 2010 vintage would have been reduced from 53% to 2.9%, this is not true. Since the Salix part if the Napo investment had not completed they would have excluded the investment from the calculations (as it was unconcluded), so the 7.4m investment wouldn't be counted. So the ROIC of the 2010 vintage would have been 34.7%. Similarly the profits would not have been $15m lower without the "fraud", firstly because the Salix matter was still outstanding, and secondly because the Napo investment (vis-a-vis the Glenmark matter) wouldn't have been carried at $15m in the first place, given that the arbitration result (assuming we count it as a loss for Napo) had already been made in 2012 (unless you want to claim that false accounting was used then as well, but I thought the whole idea was they they started faking it now because of the pressure to raise funds?)

[winsome] 19/8/2019 09:02

Thanks Adnan17. Let's remember BUR were the first to bring MW report to the FRC, assuming they would investigate everything in the MW report in relation to the market manipulation. In any event, IMO, this NAPO issue doesn't have any legs. The shorters are poking away at BUR with blunter and blunter sticks.

Its just a bit annoying they claim to be 'journalists' but ask questions only after reporting. Very one sided and exposes their real intentions. Hypocritical to say the least.

[hawkind] 19/8/2019 09:01

I feel no pain on this one. If share price does go down, I am in absolute joy for the gift it has given me to make even more money in 3-6 months time.

[onjohn] 19/8/2019 08:54

hold tight endure pain

[adnan17] 19/8/2019 08:53

I have contacted Burford Capital, The Nomad Macquarie, AIM and FRC (like Tom). In it I have asked for a response to Tom's question to be published as a RNS and not shared solely with me as I do not want any non-public information

I have however, presented to them my full analysis/opinion of how I viewed the Settlement Agreement, which has been discussed at length on this site, and the fact that the $2.5m was linked to payment of royalty fees. I have also provided them links to all my sources.

[gettingrichslow] 19/8/2019 08:50

Runs the business day to day (obviously)

[trident5] 19/8/2019 08:47

If O'Connell is Chief Strategy Officer what does the CEO actually do?

[adnan17] 19/8/2019 08:46

Dgdg - fantastic analysis.

[sweet karolina2] 19/8/2019 08:43

"fail to contact BUR in person to ask for their side of the story."

What is this then?



The Napo matter is highly material. The question being asked is a clarification of an RNS therefore the answer should be in an RNS.

Have you or anyone else asked the company for and answer? They are "listening" to shareholders you know?

I bet dozens of e-mails have been received on this subject. It is not going to go away until the company provides a satisfactory and credible answer. The key question at the moment is why has BUR not done so?

Is BUR pleading the 5th: I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might incriminate me"?

[ozzmosiz] 19/8/2019 08:42

1oughton filtered

[1oughton] 19/8/2019 08:41

600's coming

[1corrado] 19/8/2019 08:39

I smell a rat 750 is coming soon..................