Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[chimers] 20/8/2019 12:24

Company wont exist by then.

[gettingrichslow] 20/8/2019 12:18

Chimers, yes you were right. Now can you tell me what the share price will be in 2025 please? Thank you.

[yidarmytom] 20/8/2019 11:09

1corrado20 Aug '19 - 07:39 - 11741 of 11752
0 0 1
Will open red and stay red for the day.

Thankyou for the update Tom
Regards
Tom

[trident5] 20/8/2019 10:06

How do they keep it in the triangle, LM? Sheepdogs?

[luckymouse] 20/8/2019 09:47

Its technical - he's just being a d*ck - if the hourly triangle breaks below 775 the share price may dip again - if it breaks up above 865 it will prob run to 1000 then 1200 on a measured move - they are worried of that so trying to keep it in the triangle and force it down - if it breaks up they have to cover basically. Just TA.

[tsmith2] 20/8/2019 08:47

Yesterday afternoon set tone hopefully will continue and close into strength

[wardy333] 20/8/2019 08:38

Good recovery here today..

[3dwd] 20/8/2019 08:25

The pound is so cheap for the USA. ..pe would take that on board as well ..

[nobbygnome] 20/8/2019 08:13

>> 1corrado

Great call....

[mhassanriaz] 20/8/2019 08:10

Blue is the new Red. Deep blue Ocean.

[3dwd] 20/8/2019 08:09

Agree ..would make sense

[mad foetus] 20/8/2019 07:43

And on Argentina, this still has a long way to play imo. Burford always said that an early resolution wasn't likely, and I think that if the Argentine elections brought in the Peronists the chances of them giving up the case and saying "you'll never get the money" are minimal. I'm sure they will continue to fight it. But the main asset that was stolen: the Vaca Muerta gas field - still exists.

[1corrado] 20/8/2019 07:39

Will open red and stay red for the day.

[mad foetus] 20/8/2019 07:39

I think there are 2 key issues and in some ways the second negates the first. The first is whether to value BUR as an investment fund or a normal company, or in other words to apply a P/NAV (+ premium or - discount) or P/E valuation. You can argue that both ways. As fees start coming in from underlying funds then clearly the fund manager side of the business will become a larger portion but at the moment those fees are pretty negligible in the scheme of things. The second is can the rate of growth continue? Without new sources of capital growth of 40% a year will be hard to achieve, but if profits are growing at that sort of rate, that is significant. The key issue For some investors may be at what point that growth gets translated into dividends. And of course whether it can carry on and if so for how long.

[sweet karolina2] 20/8/2019 07:35

Why is there still no answer from BUR on the "other Napo matter"?

BUR knows the question has been asked by a number of people, including shareholders. If there is a credible explanation why has it not just given it and cleared the matter up?

[winsome] 20/8/2019 07:31

40 institutions clambering over Petersen case shows the scale of interest in LIT funding, in case anyone doubted the recent hype about the industry. I wonder how many will be circling BUR and pondering a bid before they get to list on NYSE. Barring any difficulties with an audit of their accounts, they are far more likely to take an offer from private equity than a float on NYSE, IMO.

[edmondj] 20/8/2019 07:26

Some good points made above, for thought on valuation matters, let's hope this can continue instead of long/short acrimony!

[1corrado] 20/8/2019 07:01

Will now buy below 750.

[luckymouse] 19/8/2019 23:49

Well - the entire fin services mkt is built on subtle hidden navery of one sort or another truth be told - not many straight batters - every inst trying to sell a product or svc to everyone else with an underperforming twist or hidden fee disguised behind posh sounding words.
Did they need to sort out the governance - yes sure - but HFT'd down to a fraction of the price with a magicians trick - no - thats just mean really

[williamcooper104] 19/8/2019 23:25

Yep you pay the CDS then you're covered on the reference bond The reference bond will not be the same thing as the Peterson credit - but it's a good proxy (though if you tired to hedge it it mightn't work - basis risk) The CDS market is murky - Blackstone not so long ago were buying CDSs then offering loans to the CDS covered company so long as they defaulted on their bonds

[luckymouse] 19/8/2019 22:46

Sure - but if you pay the CDS price in your size that distressed debt is covered no? (for the bond)

And its esoteric - ARG gov may want to just stall one thing for pedantic political reasons
Although granted there isn't much else to benchmark credit risk against

Ironically its a statistical exercise in credit - the same thing BUR have been accused of - pricing there eggs in house before they are hatched lol. But they have them nevertheless & they will produce a lot of eggs. The question is have they overestimated the egg forecast, relied too heavily on one super chicken, & is the person who promised to pay for the super chicken eggs going to pay. And is that payment insurable? (bespoke swap?). If it's not insurable then it has to be marked down I think is your point? probably correct

Some shorts here are also trying to imply & hang their hat on one chicken, several years ago, failed to lay its forecast eggs, and a bit of egg swapping may have taken place to compensate.

It all seems to me like both sides (yes both) are trying a bit too hard frankly to count scrambled eggs lol!

[williamcooper104] 19/8/2019 22:44

LuckyMouse The Peterson claim has little pure litigation risk left in it so it's basically just a relatively illiquid sov bond The CDS is just a good measure for the pure credit risk rather than rates/currency that each bond might have No question the Peterson claim is worth less after the sov spread blow out Of course Bur could still make a full recovery but right now it's a distressed debt