Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[blueteam] 22/8/2019 08:04

could head back to £6 as the bottom.

[millennial] 22/8/2019 08:03

43p target

[millennial] 22/8/2019 08:01

Next results will stink

The auditors likely to turn the nut and disallow what may have gone heretofore

[winsome] 22/8/2019 07:54

No doubt the man who has been mired in his own financial scandal and admits to have faced multiple threats of legal action and injunctions will jump on the coat tails of the FT and do a bearcast on it later. Pot Kettle Black.

This is the reality of the business BUR are in and they admitted themselves that they are subjected to the occasional attempted 'shakedown'

[gettingrichslow] 22/8/2019 07:51

So boring from SweetK again. Droning on again. Go out! Meet some friends. Get a job? Have some fun or something, please!!

[sweet karolina2] 22/8/2019 07:36

And BUR are still "pleading the 5th (I refuse to answer that question on the grounds it might incriminate me" over the Napo / Glenmark matter.

3 agreements for marketing of its useless drug, none of which has made any money (3rd one was China - somehow Napo managed to not have a case brought / bring a case over that one). Glenmark case found Napo had breached the agreement and awarded $2.5m costs and fees to Glenmark. Napo sues Salix for $150m and Salix win - Salix did not breach. BUR books $15.8 for the first loss, another $5.5m for the second loss and converts that to $30m of Napo debt, with CFO Miriam Connole leaving in unusual circumstances shortly after the debt conversion. Common BUR / Napo shareholder INVESCO also has questions to answer.

How much more dirt is going to come out?

Pretty clear to me why BUR are ducking the question over Glenmark.

[chimers] 22/8/2019 07:22

Get yer popcorn guys the show has been revived!!

[chimers] 22/8/2019 07:21

BARFord
Down she goes.
Plop.
Or Thud perhaps.
No smoke without some KY.

[winsome] 22/8/2019 07:15

This is old news from a good few months back. FT way behind the curve or just trying to stir things up. Again, the bears will claim guilty until proven innocent.

[albert zog] 22/8/2019 07:11

It does feel as tho there is an agenda here

Having said that, BURF makes itself an easy target

[edmondj] 22/8/2019 07:08

FT seems to have quite an agenda against Burford:

- Lex column has argued the sector will get too competitive to sustain current returns.

- FT Alphaville argued against the stock on grounds of gap between profit and cash flow without respecting it's an investment company i.e. reinvesting.

- Fascination with Carson Block and the bear raid.

- Now this.

I remain quite wary on Burford but the accumulated coverage starts to look like bias in a similar way The Guardian and BBC news prioritise items that typically appeal to a liberal-left perspective (e.g. inequality, LGBT, feminism).

[saltraider] 22/8/2019 06:51

Nothing to it ... just stirring things up :-)

[purplepelmets] 22/8/2019 06:49

Rotten companies, like fishes, stink from the head down

[lomax99] 22/8/2019 06:45

More fake news!

[tracy_moore] 22/8/2019 06:14

HAHA , wishful thinking albert zog. You'll have been watching to much pornhub or that other filth site for a certain type.

[williamcooper104] 22/8/2019 00:07

Totally agree - it cannot be a model of clarity as a public company Which is all the more reason why it's corporate governance needs to be beyond reproach

[henchard] 21/8/2019 23:02

mad,

"The accounts are a model of clarity"

I disagree. BUR's problem is the conflict between keeping its shareholders fully informed and giving away information to competitors and the opposition in active cases it's funding.

If it were a private company, with a few cornerstone shareholders it could tell those shareholders everything. As a listed company, it's communication with shareholders is in the public domain.

Due to the fact its communication with its shareholders is public, and the adverse impact of revealing too much information to competitors/opposing parties in litigation, it simply cannot be a "model of clarity" in the way it could if it were a private company.

I think it can do better than it has done on disclosure without compromising itself, but as a public company and given the nature of the business, it's really never going to be as transparent as many other businesses are able to be.

That's just how it is. Investors can take it or leave it ... but not on the basis of it being a "model of clarity".

[mad foetus] 21/8/2019 22:23

Agree river man. The most frustrating thing about the whole episode is that of all the companies I know, none makes such an effort to be transparent as BUR. Bogart himself says he pays no attention to unrealised gains as they are meaningless really: all he cares about is how much money is coming back and how quickly can he get it to work again. In the end, if they carry on growing income and profits by 30-40% pa then the stock market will recognise that BUR is a massive capital generator. It is frustrating but typical that it may take a US listing for the markets to do that. Seeing so many PIs and newspapers take the line that you should sell because the accounts are difficult to understand has been profoundly depressing. The accounts are a model of clarity imo, it is just British negativism at its worst.

[riverman77] 21/8/2019 22:18

Yes they have been extremely proactive in trying to defend the business - detailed rebuttal, conference call, directors buys, market manipulation claims and most recently proposed governance changes/US listing.

Despite this the stock is still down some 40% since the attack. I think there's a point where you do too much and end up looking weak. I think the best thing now is for the company to just to focus on running the business, and certainly don't respond to any further nonsense.

[scubadiverr] 21/8/2019 21:56

What makes you believe that?

[topvest] 21/8/2019 21:25

Is it just me thinking this or do the Burford board seem to watch the share price a little too closely and react accordingly?