Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[sweet karolina2] 27/8/2019 17:25

Still no RNS from BUR telling the market about all the people suing it and still no answer on the Glenmark case.

Accounting Fraud and Securities Fraud have no statue of limitations. All music to the ears of those suing BUR IMHO.

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 16:16

Out at 753 - 28pts. Easy money at the moment, but reaction?

Price remains halved for LTIs.

Suspicious.

cheers

[littlepuppi7] 27/8/2019 16:10

Srb surging. Keep your eyes on the gold stocks chaps.

[wardy333] 27/8/2019 15:53

Amazing how these A/Ts can move this big percentages in a day.

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 15:29

Winsome - fair point.

Since 1245, I'm short ~ 781p

Not seen the brief on SP, just watching Bond performance.

[edmondj] 27/8/2019 13:45

MW likely posturing: as if their tail remains up high than are retreating with it between their legs.

Since they substantially closed their short, they'd cast their verdict on the upshot of their critique for market price.

The whole episode being pretty disruptive though, for investors seeking conviction ideas. Only modest recovery so far.

Time will tell.

[winsome] 27/8/2019 13:24

Well, MW clearly lacks credibility now. How does share price react? Upwards.

Reminds me of the Viceroy attack on Capitec as I've posted on here before about. Viceroy were put in their place by the SA Reserve Bank. It didn't stop Viceroy bringing out a 2nd report on Capitec a few months later. But, guess what, Capitec's share price actually finished the day up.

sk very quiet today. Must be so disappointed his little pet proj didn't help his short position.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 13:11

900P+ BY FRIDAY.

[meanwhile] 27/8/2019 13:08

£3 by Christmas, solely based on my own position and desired outcome.

[daftweejock] 27/8/2019 12:53

Corrado we all know your predictions are solely based on your own position and desired outcome. You kept going about 750p when you wanted back in so more than a pinch of salt can be taken with anything you say.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 12:45

800P BY THE CLOSE.

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 12:44

SP was £16, now £7, maybe you wise guys can explain all to the bond holders, that were misinformed?

[tsmith2] 27/8/2019 11:30

Great work!

[monte1] 27/8/2019 11:29

Never mind MEANWHILE - ye can warm yersen’ back up with a nice boat of steaming hot gravy.

[meanwhile] 27/8/2019 11:24

So I was filtered by OzzMosiz at around 10.31 today.

At that precise time, I wondered where the cold chill down my spine had come from.

[mbdx7em21] 27/8/2019 11:23

dgdg - ditto here.

[adnan17] 27/8/2019 10:59

dgdg - great analysis. I wholly agree.

Hindsight is always a wonderful thing. However, Burford assessed Napo at the end of 2013 and that is what matters. Not what happened in 2014/2015/2016.

It is the equivalent of a bank granting a loan secured against a commercial property in 2013. The bank booking profits in 2013. But then the loan defaulting in 2014 and the property being worthless. How would the bank have been able to know that? There is no crystal ball.

[ozzmosiz] 27/8/2019 10:31

Minerve, erm I mean MEANWHILE....filtered

[zeus19] 27/8/2019 10:28

£13 by Christmas

[meanwhile] 27/8/2019 10:25

£3 by Christmas.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 10:19

800p coming soon............and 900p by friday at least perhaps even 1000p if we are lucky with a positive RNS.

[dgdg1] 27/8/2019 09:26

So clearly MW are feeling pressure from the discovery of the Glenmark case which they admit they didn't know about but insist "no don't be silly", we weren't wrong. So they are the ones starting to look defensive. And they are not even denying now that there was an entitlement. They admit that "Like skilled trial lawyers, BUR stops just short of actually lying." which seems a departure from their original claim. The claim now is only that "It seems likely that BUR’s supposed “entitlement” was in the form of a debt Napo owed BUR, which would have been of questionable value at best to Burford. While we do not know Napo’s financial condition as of the end of 2013, just three years later, it had only generated $391,000 in LTM revenue and had negative book value of -$58.9 million. It would strain credulity to claim that at the end of 2013, Napo had looked like a solid credit to BUR." So they admit they don't know what the financial condition was in 2013 but try to argue that the entitlement must have been of "questionable value" because if you look at Napo's financial condition three years later it didn't look good. Hmmmm. In any case, Burford has clearly stated many times that the figures on concluded cases only imply that there is no litigation risk, whereas there is always the risk an entitlement might not actually be capable of being collected. But in fact ultimately Burford DID manage to collect in the form of a shareholding in Jaguar. So now the whole claim of MW is that it was supposedly obvious that this shareholding would end up being worth less, and the proof is that the share price went down after the shares were received (and that therefore they are still supposedly right to say that the entitlement never had a chance of being collected). So MW's claims now look incredibly tenuous, but they desperately insist that "BUR is not worthy of an AIM listing, let alone a U.S. one", without any further reasoning. Desperate.

[ozzmosiz] 27/8/2019 09:04

It was this idiot:

nobilis
27 Aug '19 - 07:32 - 12157 of 12181
0 0 2
Can see burford falling sub 600 on this news