Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[trident5] 02/9/2019 10:37

Where will the £15m come from.

As I understand it Napo did not have much in the way of liquid assets and the court rulings did not award them cash.

If that's the case Burford would only receive £15m from Napo's future earnings.

Napo is not allowed to recognise its future earnings. But Burford is?

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 10:31

They are not accounting for future profits.

1. All they are doing is stating the case has concluded, so what is our entitlement?

2. Our entitlement is £30m. we will book it in as £15m. What is wrong with that?

[trident5] 02/9/2019 10:18

Adnan,

simple question - pre acquisition of publicity quoted shares in Napo were Burford accounting for Napo's future profits (by writing up their investment) when Napo could not do so for obvious reasons?

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 10:13

Trident - As I said if you invest in Standard Life Aberdeen, they will have a lot of illiquid assets. Same thing here. You have illiquid assets in Napo and you put a sensible price on it

"However, Burford was mindful of the risk associated with Napo’s ability to execute on its business plan,
despite having a valuable FDA-approved drug, and even though Burford’s entitlement had become
unconditional Burford nonetheless discounted substantially both the receivable value and the concluded
case value as at 31 December 2013, to 50% of Burford’s minimum entitlement."

The main take away is there was no fraud. Maybe there was some question marks about valuation but not fraud. Valuing anything difficult is difficult. But does not constitute fraud.

Plus they confirm there have been only 3 cases where they have taken non-cash items. Rest of the time it is cash.

Shorters have made a mountain out of a mole hill.

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 10:08

Think market maybe more interested in worsening Argentinian situation It's a good retort on MW Enron accounting - but still much to be done rather than just said on governance

[trident5] 02/9/2019 10:05

Adnan
don't they admit to writing the investment up before acquiring publicly quoted shares?

Didn't Napo have negligible liquid assets?

So, wasn't the earlier write ups in Burford based on Napo's future earnings?

Was Napo allowed to account for its future earnings?


Seems like BS Alice in wonderland accounting. What am I missing?

[daftweejock] 02/9/2019 10:01

Its ok Chimers, embrace the change you so desire. Id hug you myself, but dont fancy that stiff little acorn of yours rubbing against my leg. Chimers seems insecure. Pray for Chimers.

[chimers] 02/9/2019 09:59

Not from you, he doesn't!! I,m a minority (straight white male) so stop persecuting me

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 09:58

I think the main thing to take away from the RNS are as follows:

1. There was no fraud

2. There was conservative accounting in place

3. Which asset manager does not value their equity portfolio. If you invest in Schroders, Standard Life Aberdeen, or any big asset manager then you are investing in their share portfolio. Some of the shares are liquid, some are liquid, but they are valued at every reporting period.

Hence, nothing to see here.

Sit back, relax and wait till the US listing.

Shame that another good company listed in the UK will leave the UK following moronic investors dumping their shares. Americans investors are gonna lap this up.

[trident5] 02/9/2019 09:57

How can the market like it?

[hawkind] 02/9/2019 09:56

Market doesn't seem to like it! Strange as seems comprehensive

[trident5] 02/9/2019 09:56

Isn't this like Burford recognising Napo's future earnings in its accounts but Napo not being able to do the same?

[daftweejock] 02/9/2019 09:56

Chimers needs a hugPray for Chimers

[chimers] 02/9/2019 09:55

Seems to be falling....oh dear how unexpected!!

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 09:54

Not really - they could have put the full equity mark on the shares though their P&L and no auditor would have questioned it Shows that they absolutely did not ramp values

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 09:52

Not the end - there's always a short case But does seem (hopefully) to be the end of the more extreme Enron acquisitions It's a good detailed response

[daftweejock] 02/9/2019 09:44

Chimers doesnt like being wrong Chimers feels angry and childish when wrongChimers thinks his patter is funny Chimers doesnt realise the only person who thinks this is ChimersChimers loves to refer to himself in the third person Chimers is lonely, but Chimers doesnt understand why. Pray for Chimers

[trident5] 02/9/2019 09:44

Brownie - I read it as admitting significant write ups based on positive legal outcomes but on a company without a means of paying unless future earnings could be generated.

Unless I'm missing something in translation it demonstrates that accounting for gains was not conservative.

[stentorian] 02/9/2019 09:42

TANK? More like a plane, it is taking off!

[brownie69] 02/9/2019 09:39

The conclusion to todays Napo update issued by the company.
So, after seven pages of detailed explanation, we trust the answer is now clear: we accounted for Napo
appropriately and conservatively; we made no effort to inflate its value; Invesco had nothing to do with
our position; and even if one thinks we should have adjusted the concluded investment table earlier, there
was no meaningful impact from not doing so.
What Napo is more than anything else is a good example of how doggedly and diligently we work
investments for the benefit of our investors. Our focus on principal protection and risk led to a funding
contract that produced a return despite uneven litigation outcomes and subsequent cashless settlements
for Napo. Multiple restructurings allowed us to improve our position still further. While the equity
performance has been disappointing, we nonetheless turned a healthy cash profit of 27% ROIC and own
shares that may one day recover some value.

They could have just said the shorters are full of hot air and wrong.

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 09:38

It might be heeded for £5 - but that's nothing to do with voodoo charts