Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[monte1] 02/9/2019 13:22

#12604

Grow up ffs.

[djderry] 02/9/2019 13:18

With today's company announcement,it is patently obvious that Burford acted ethically at all times ,putting shareholders interests first and last,while taking the most conservative approach to its accounts .That any posters would continue to argue shows either a genuine lack of basic understanding or,more likely,a deliberate attempt to be obtuse,a 'flat-earther',if you wish.Burford should not spend another moment on this matter.Hand the litigation of the bear raid falsehoods and proven market manipulation over to it's law firms.In time,these events will be seen in their true light; a smokescreen created by those intent on undermining a hugely successful company ( on any metric you care to mention),in the hope of scaring long term investors.We stand against you,saying clearly that your falsehoods are transparent.Having not sold a single share,we continue to buy at these ludicrous levels.

[ozzmosiz] 02/9/2019 13:16

mountain.....molehill.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 12:19

yidarmyTom - exactly. And that is the manner GSK appear to do it. Hence, I am not sure what all the fuss is about.

Any asset that is not cash is based upon a set of assumptions. If those assumptions change then so does the valuation of the asset. So we can only rely on the assumptions as at 2013 in order to determine the value of burford's claim.

[yidarmytom] 02/9/2019 12:16

They will probably value the drug on a DCF basis, estimating the value of the investment based on its future cash flows & revenue projections

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 12:08

Trident - my last post was not directed at you. It was directed at Galatea99 who commented that investors didn't understand Burford's business.

To answer your question, I haven't seen Napo's accounts. Where did you get your facts on Napo's accounts? Was that just heresay or speculation? Or just wild accusations?

Nevertheless thinking out the box, I would have assumed that valuing a FDA approved drug would be done in a similar manner to what the other major pharmaceutical companies do (to me that is common sense). Hence my reason for assessing how major pharmaceutical companies conduct their accounting.

[galatea99] 02/9/2019 12:06

Yes, her Pygmalion has gone rogue.

[stentorian] 02/9/2019 12:01

Tracy_Moore agreed Galatea has reverted to an ivory statue again.

[tracy_moore] 02/9/2019 11:49

galatea99. what is your username on LSE just out of interest, or did you just plagiarise your last post. I'll understand if you don't answer as you are no longer invested here and will have moved onto a stock you actually hold, lol.

[trident5] 02/9/2019 11:47

Blah blah - I was just trying to understand whether Burford's valuation of Napo was significantly in excess of Napo's valuation of itself prior to its shares being listed.

What I don't know is Napo's accounts (but I thought from previous comments on here that they didn't have much in the way of liquid assets nor a significant write up on their drug developments) - hence my questions. So far, unanswered (but at least we know GSK's drug valuations now)

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 11:47

But Burford have always stated that their return depends on Complex litigation. So what part of "Complex" did investors not understand. In addition, they stated that recoveries could take a while.

But majority of recoveries are in cash so don't take long once the litigation has closed. The below is their response to short attack.

"Burford has explained many times before that while most of its investments resolve for cash, some involve other kinds of consideration. While we do not routinely disclose this information, we can say at present that we have virtually no such non-cash recoveries awaiting monetisation (i.e., less than $1 million), and only around 4% of our litigation finance investment recoveries are represented by investments that have yet to pay in full."

I'm still trying to find something that shorters have claimed Burford have hidden and which Burford hid.

1. The claims about fair value have been around for years. If you don't agree with it then don't invest.
2. Few cases may settle in non-cash items, which may take longer to recover. they have been open about that too. And in the Napo case they did eventually get $8m in cash. So more than they invested.

I think the issue is what Burford is doing is investing in complex litigation. And majority of people like myself don't understand simple litigation never mind complex litigation. Hence, as someone said on a Burford call, this share is not for simple investors. It should only be for sophisticated large investors.

[scubadiverr] 02/9/2019 11:44

No. Very happy to be here and look forward to the future

[galatea99] 02/9/2019 11:37

That RNS reads more like a draft defence to questioning by market regulators than something intended to reassure investors. Now that the veil is parting somewhat, investors may well be shaking their heads in amazement that they actually are (or, as in my case, were) invested in this kind of thing.

[blah blah] 02/9/2019 11:34

trident5 - are you the new sweetkarolina given sk has now served its usefulness and been shown up? You claim you don't know anything, you're just asking questions but the reality is you are trying to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[trident5] 02/9/2019 11:21

Okay - but you've looked at this in more depth than me and I was just asking how Napo accounted for its drug.

I'm assuming that the answer is considerably more conservatively than Burford - but I may be wrong.

If not - it's real Alice in Wonderland stuff.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 11:16

GSK is very important and shows you have missed the point. Because Napo are developing a drug. And have the rights to sell a drug.

Should you not then look at GSK/AstraZeneca and understand how they account for drugs that are in development but have FDA approval. Do GSK value them at zero? Should that not be a good starting point? Looks like Burford claim depended upon the sale of a FDA approved drug. So first thing I would ask is how do the big pharmaceutical companies account for something similar? Follow them. They set the standards.

"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."

[trident5] 02/9/2019 10:58

OzzMosiz - who said anything about fraud?

Adnan - what was the value of Napo's intangibles pre 2017? (And what has GSK got to do with this?)

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 10:57

Trident - so you would value it at zero? So if someone wanted to come and buy those rights off you would you sell it for zero? If not then what price would you sell it at? So if I came and offered you £1 for it would you sell it to me?

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 10:54

The two below quotes are from GSK who have £16bn of intangible assets. Looks like it is all just hot air? Maybe it should also be written down to zero. Lot of the rights relate to products still in development. Honestly, the shorters are just clutching at straws, the whole pharmaceutical industry would see massive writedownss in asset values. There is accounting standards on how you value drugs both developed and process of being developed.


"As at 31 December 2018, the Group held £16,156 million of
intangible assets (including licences, patents, trademarks and
brand names, but excluding goodwill and computer software).
The recoverable value of these intangible assets relies on certain
assumptions and estimates of future trading performance which
impact the valuation."

"Licences, patents, etc. includes a large number of acquired licences, patents, know-how agreements and marketing rights, which are either
marketed or in use, or still in development"

[ozzmosiz] 02/9/2019 10:49

trident - how does Burford being owed money and accounting for it constitute fraud?

[trident5] 02/9/2019 10:45

If the assets are yet to exist I'd account for them with a big fat round number.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 10:40

Let me through the question back at you:

If you own a company and are entitled to assets how would you account for it.

Remember the company accounts are not supposed to conservative for the sake of being conservative. It must show true and fair values based upon fair assumptions known at that specific time. We can all be conservative for the sake of being conservative. All assets can be valued down to zero. But in this case Burford did eventually walk away with over $8m cash return on its assets.

So at 2013 how would you have accounted for an asset that was worth $30m and you walked away with $8m in 2017? Allocated it a zero is unfair too.

Do you ever invest in pharmaceutical companies? How do you think they value their massive Goodwill on their balance sheet? How do you think they value their intangible assets on their balance sheets? Have you previously raised issues in relation to that. Have you questioned GSK, AstraZeneca's accounting policy about how they make asset valuations on future drugs that have not reached market?

Honestly, shorters are clutching at straws.