Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[ozzmosiz] 22/8/2019 15:24

Up she goes, hope no one was mugged this morning

[tsmith2] 22/8/2019 15:10

He's like Augustgloop on the SHG board

[yidarmytom] 22/8/2019 15:10

I thought you said it was gonna go bust?

[yidarmytom] 22/8/2019 14:58

I agree, and here he says the share price will RISE eg. GO UP eg. INCREASE lol

1corrado22 Aug '19 - 14:12 - 11972 of 11975
0 0 0
nonsense 2400p buy recommendation they are dreamer perhaps min 10 years time in the meantime will be lucky to see 900p in the medium term.

[westham64] 22/8/2019 14:50

Whichever way the wind seems to blow blows 1Corrado is always right (after the event) with his observations. A total and utter fanny.

[dgdg1] 22/8/2019 14:49

SK, all explained in Burford's rebuttal and my previous posts, no need to regurgitate, can't believe you haven't seen the answers there if you cared to look

[yidarmytom] 22/8/2019 14:41

1corrado22 Aug '19 - 14:12 - 11972 of 11973

Glad you agree this is going up corrado, good to know you are Long on this!
Regards
Tom

[trident5] 22/8/2019 14:40

'In particular, Roberts highlighted how the underlying business was better understood by those who interacted directly with Burford, including its customers, lawyers and the judiciary - than by most equity or debt investors."

Shareholders don't understand the business.

But non-shareholders do understand the business and don't hold.

Is he advocating selling?

[sweet karolina2] 22/8/2019 14:27

dgdg,

I have produced stacks of evidence of wrongdoing at Burford, you choose to ignore it. Merz are scum, the same sort of scum that BUR funds, the irony is quite delicious in many ways.

BUR can duck the questions which shareholders, TW and I have asked, however it will all come out in discovery, if not before.

The facts are:

Napo lost Glenmark - You can spin it all you like, but be aware that Jaguar are accomplices in the cover up. If it is so clear BUR were entitled to $15.8m from Glenmark, why has BUR not answered the questions put to it?

BUR booked $15.8m as a completed case in 2013 accounts when it already knew Salix had been lost.

BUR conducted a bond issue based on results which would have been materially very different had Napo been written down to ZERO as it should have been.

Napo took on a $30m debt to BUR in Oct 2014 - Why how can that make any sense at all?

Miriam Connole left in unusual circumstances shortly after.

BUR booked another $5.5m against Napo cases in 2014 accounts.

[1corrado] 22/8/2019 14:12

nonsense 2400p buy recommendation they are dreamer perhaps min 10 years time in the meantime will be lucky to see 900p in the medium term.

[yidarmytom] 22/8/2019 14:04

Analysts at Jefferies reiterated their 'buy' recommendation and 2,400.0p target price for the shares of the litigation finance specialist, telling clients that the company remained the long-term leader in that "large, under-penetrated" market, further highlighting the "attractive, uncorrelated" returns on offer.
According to analyst Julian Roberts, the Burford Capital's reporting of returns statistics was "accurate" and he had no concerns around the company's liquidity.

Roberts did welcome the recent governance changes announced by the firm, calling them "overdue", and said that more could be done on the disclosure front in order to rebuild investor confidence.

Nonetheless, he said that, despite the recent increase in the company's cost of capital, the business was "unchanged" and did not require any additional capital.

"We think the operational business and its prospects are unchanged from three weeks ago," he said.

Indeed, the analyst said his estimates were "nearly unchanged" and welcomed Burford's plans to pursue a listing in the States.

"We continue to see 2020 as an inflection year when balance sheet recoveries could overtake deployments (as was the case in H1 2019)."

In particular, Roberts highlighted how the underlying business was better understood by those who interacted directly with Burford, including its customers, lawyers and the judiciary - than by most equity or debt investors.

The last point is very true, a point I will be discussing in my next Shareprophets piece.

[1corrado] 22/8/2019 13:49

volume is low and looking forward for the next pull back to let say 750 if I can get lucky.

[monte1] 22/8/2019 13:30

#11968

WGAF?

[dgdg1] 22/8/2019 13:21

Merz is just using the MW report to make a claim against Burford, so there is nothing new there if you dispute MW claims. As for SK, I'm not interested in what authorities do or don't do, I am interested in evidence and you have not produced any evidence of wrongdoing at Burford, however many times you make the same allegations. I have to say I am not going to carry on indefinitely answering this nonsense. Some people have an agenda and are not interested in facts, so just a note to all that if I don't bother to answer things from now it's probably because it's not worth answering and I don't have unlimited time to answer idiotic posts.

[dudishes] 22/8/2019 13:08

Merz v Burford - SEC rules "Omitting Facts"

dg, you are somewhat behind the times. Currently of course, the share price should spell it out for you.

cheers

[sweet karolina2] 22/8/2019 13:05

Innocent until proven guilty eh dgdg, very noble. I take it you consider Rob Terry to be innocent and would be delighted to put your money into his Quob Park venture - surely the authorities would have stopped him by now if there was anything dodgy about him or his latest scam.

[dgdg1] 22/8/2019 12:56

Maybe, what does that prove?

[bbmsionlypostafter] 22/8/2019 12:52

dg,

Didn't somebody already go through the whole palaver & walk away?

[dgdg1] 22/8/2019 12:44

Obviously anyone wanting to do a takeover would do due diligence and would get all the answers

[dgdg1] 22/8/2019 12:42

Yes absolutely, there are publicly available documents on the Novoship matter and have been for months (just check on Google), and clearly the FT hasn't just decieded by itself to do some research on Burford, obviously some shorters have told the FT about it in order to create a splash

[meanwhile] 22/8/2019 12:22

Yes, but not better than a dish of good british gravy.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 22/8/2019 12:09

riverman77
22 Aug '19 - 11:53 - 11956 of 11957

....This will get taken out by PE at some point

Nobody will touch this until BUR supplies an answer to the Name That Case question. Why would they? They won't know what they're buying.

[luckymouse] 22/8/2019 11:56

That Novoship story could be interpreted as them just using a litigation hedge ie they are being sued by a powerful billionaire (hard to beat) so to cover themselves probabilistically they're suing someone else - in this case their advisors - also adds pressure on the advisors to come up with something - pretty rough tactic if the case.