Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 22:19

Wiiiamc104, you are probably correct. Response from MD, seeks but does not prove. BUR response, silent, as one would expect. Guess I must use a stop loss again, as these lawyers are a peskey lot!

Trigger maybe @ 760. stop loss 900.

Sounds good to me.

[sweet karolina2] 27/8/2019 22:12

dud,

Shorting is a short term game, as we have seen with many others, they can linger on for a long time before they go to zero and can have quite painful spikes for a shorter on leverage. MW has significantly reduced its short to well below notifiable, it could be upping it below notifiable or may even close out entirely. MW will continue its campaign regardless, as being proved right again, no matter how long it takes, is important for maintaining its scary reputation, which in turn gives it the ability to move markets.

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 21:57

Dudishes - think most of the short fun has been had Unlike a pure operating business with leverage and goodwill on balance sheet where you can short to zero - Bur had got a strong asset floor - albeit it could trade at a discount to that value - so the return risk profile from here on seems (IMO) skewed for the short

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 21:40

At the same time £7.50 is not £16! Somehow, the hype has to be justified, £16, £7,50 or Zero? As you know, debt rules, we know the debt, or do we? No clarification on wins, apart from forecasted.

Oh dear, short again tomorrow.

If I beat long termers, no joy, but if I beat a fraud, job bloody well done.

cheers

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 21:34

tt - Proof is

[time_traveller] 27/8/2019 21:30

As Burford said, "arguably" is generally not a valid get out clause.

[dudishes] 27/8/2019 21:27

How do you reconcile the buy note at £20+ quid? Is that a fact or fiction? Should one not hound out or sue for the false pretences? MW picked up on a fault in the accounts, a quoted profit for 2013, which drew in bonds galore, was incorrectly stated, it should have read: Loss. False pretences.

Why should not we, as a united army, delve or question accounts, that are somewhat questionable, Big 4 are easing out of AIM, have you not noticed? One wonders why?

£16 coming on £7, sort of spells a damn good question.

As for Woodford, who is he?

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 21:23

If you are a shorter of repute then yes you get one or two free hits (likewise if certain high repute investors buy something it will go up in value) But if you repeadtly fail then you will not be listened to So they do need to be able to show that they are more often right than wrong

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 21:20

Pump and dump is as illegal as trash n dash In that knowingly spreading misinformation to help your position is illegal But, I don't think that what MW actually did - albeit they came very close to it with the "arguably insolvent" comment - with the "arguably" caveat probably being just enough to avoid legal liability (though that's frustrating as if it didn't break the letter of law we all know it trashed the spirit)

[williamcooper104] 27/8/2019 21:11

What I am struggling with is 1 - the claim that Bur didn't have any sort of litigation win 2 - the claim that Bur then received equity in a company which was not really worth much as it share-price subsequently collapsed and that a debt previously recognised in Burs books ought to have been treated as impaired These two alleged crimes would appear to be contradictory - Bur could be guilty of one but not both??

[blah blah] 27/8/2019 20:34

SK

Yes I do have a problem with anyone who promotes a company knowing they are going to sell into any price strength they are able to generate. Whether you like it or not, analyst buy notes with price targets above the current price are not in that category. The analyst who writes that is not rewarded directly if the price climbs, they are rewarded (or otherwise) by the track record of the performance of their recommendations. If they are wrong consistently, at best they won't be listened to, at worst they will be out of a job. They are not allowed to own shares in the companies they write about. Whereas shorters are directly profiting from the fear and uncertainty they create. If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

It's pointless suing people like MW because they are based in the US and its pointless suing you because you have no money, and any court case would take years to resolve by which time the world has moved on and the damage is done.

[devalpha] 27/8/2019 20:33

I sense a steadily increasing level of desperation in the most recent MW comms.Although I'm as frustrated as any Burford owner over this affair, I'm also fascinated to see how this develops and ultimately ends.Judgement definitely improves with experience, and although this doesn't mean you'll make every call correctly, it does mean you'll get more right than wrong providing you've done the work. The fact that MW are repeatedly regurgitating their adverse views on a case from 2011-2013 fills me with a degree of confidence, and highlights for me at least, a sense of increasing desperation.Judgement from experience gives me the sense that Block is running more than a little scared now....increasingly so as the days go by. It's as if he's firing whatever shots he can in advance of something significant coming soon from Burford. Something very significant I suspect that he knows is coming. The only question is.....when? I know that may seem a little vague, but I'm sharing my genuine thoughts here based on the increasingly obscure releases from Block. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong.The best any investor can do is draw on their own experience when faced with a little adversity, and make their own independent decision on the best course of action without influence from the crowd. You have to have courage in your convictions, whatever they may be. Finally, as is sadly the norm in the market, the majority are focused on the day to day price quotations rather than the longer term underlying value. A wise man once said that in the short term, the market's a voting machine, but a weighing machine in the longer term. This also applies to individual stocks, and once the short term voting's over in the Burford v Block bout, I believe Burford will emerge as the heavyweight with Block being ultimately reduced to the feather.Good luck to all long term holders and anyone with a genuine interest here.Time will tell...........

[sweet karolina2] 27/8/2019 20:26

Blah,

Do you have a problem with people who pump shares so the price rises so they can sell? Happens all the time and is called pump and dump. Do you have a problem with companies that release jazzed up news so Pis buy in while bucket shops forward sell into a placing? Do you have a problem with the excessive over promotion of companies eg continuing to publish buy notes with target prices of £24 when the share price has fallen by almost half to £8 in the past few months?

I do as that is what causes most PIs to lose the most money. If those things did not happen and companies were honest and played by the rules, would shorters be able to find targets for smash and grab raids? If shorters tried to do smash and grab raids on good honest companies would they work? No they would not. The only reason why MW can release reports that crash share prices is because they have a reputation for being right. Even under US law they would be successfully sued for just making up lies to profit from them. BUR has not even threatened to sue MW for libel. Why not? Because BUR fears discovery and would then lose badly.

[riverman77] 27/8/2019 20:26

Blah blah - that is a good summary of this extremely dodgy practice. Can't believe it is legal to take a short position and then spread blatantly false and misleading rumours to crash the stock price. What I find particularly irritating is that, as others have pointed out, the mainstream press all seem to be on MW's side (FT, Times, IC), no doubt wanting to keep the story running.

[blah blah] 27/8/2019 20:01

I've got no problem with shorting or people who go short. I do have a problem with people who go short, then release a report to persuade others to short, whereupon they exit with a risk free profit. Their strategy is to make multiple accusations amd innuendo, particularly around accounting which is so complex these days, and inviting the target to respond, then moving the goalposts if they get a response. So much so, that as winsome says you cannot win by responding, so they then say 'silence means we were right' or as sk keeps harping on 'pleading the 5th'.

Often these shorters say that their notes are the equivalent of buy notes from analysts. That is completely false - the authors of those notes and the firms they work for rarely have a position (other than a trivial market making one). The MWs are rigging the game in their favour and it's about time something was done about it.

[winsome] 27/8/2019 19:16

According to Investopedia MW is potentially guilty of Short & Distort, consisting of securities fraud and market manipulation.

sk, maybe you'll be right. Next few months will tell. The market doesn't care about this anywhere near as much as you do. I still think BUR are too smart to call in the FCA before anyone else did, then also volunteer themselves to full scrutiny of the SEC for the purposes of NYSE listing, if there was something serious to hide. They know both regulators would ask questions on every point of the MW report as part of their audits.

Can see why they wish not to get into slanging match with shorters about NAPO. Last week they were under pressure to (a) hastily hire an external CFO without proper due diligence or (b) appoint internal temporary CFO while they search for a permanent one. They quite rightly announced (b) and got ripped apart by shorters for it. They cannot win.

[blah blah] 27/8/2019 19:05

so in other words it's a non event, just like your constant drivel on here. Any serious investor knew that anyway, but thanks for catching up.

[winsome] 27/8/2019 19:03

For those interested in the stock drop lawsuits threatened against BUR, I skimmed through the following long article...

hxxps://www.ropesgray.com/en/newsroom/alerts/2017/04/Video-Life-Sciences-Quarterly-Preparing-for-and-managing-a-stock-drop

The gist is:

- 1 in 20 listed co's in 2016 faced such lawsuits. Mainly because the share price fell by >5%

- multiple lawyers file in the hope of gaining most shareholders as clients so their firm becomes lead claimant

- the lawyers don't care why they are suing initially, whether fraud or otherwise. They agree on their theory later.

- most of these suits fail at 1st hurdle. There is a pretty high bar to clear.

- 99% of time the market doesn't react to news that a stock drop lawsuit is filed. Market only reacts if SEC or similar notifies of an official investigation.

Whether any lawsuits proceed against BUR depends on next few months of RNS from BUR.

[sweet karolina2] 27/8/2019 18:51

I bemoan PIs who passively volunteer to be victims, but those still trying to convince themselves and others this is just a storm in a teacup over one case that happened years ago are actively volunteering to be victims. I have no sympathy for them at all.

[1corrado] 27/8/2019 18:20

A bit of a disappointment.

[porsche1945] 27/8/2019 17:51

With Stobart the other day you wonder really if Aim is anywhere to put more than a few grand as the odd punt, these look like sliding back down the shixxa, they are listed on there for a reason, less oversight, theres enough dodgy rubbish in the ftse 100 still, the LSE will list anything, enrc a ftse 100 company which wiped its shareholders out from 10.50 a share (kazakstan, what could go wrong) so this aim stuff quite worrying....alot uninvestable.....prob best to stick to Shell and Microsoft.

[meanwhile] 27/8/2019 17:50

Why would a sane person invest in this lot?
I suppose a gambler might do it in the same way as they might back a greyhound for one race if they knew it had been given some short term stimulant.