Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 16:03

I can see someone like Warren Buffet investing in this. Maybe take out Woodford's holdings.

It suits Buffet's style:

1. Buy unloved stocks
2. Be greedy when everyone else is scared.
3. Invest in companies where management has a high level of ownership
4. Buy companies that have good margins (operating margins).

[dgdg1] 02/9/2019 15:44

bbms - investing is all about working out whether or not you agree with the "market" - if the market would always be right on the fair price there would be no point in doing you own analysis, of course what I wrote may be wrong but this is how it seems to me. I would be interested in hearing actual counterarguments to what I wrote

[yidarmytom] 02/9/2019 15:43

No, they are not responsible for the content but are responsible for advising their Client on AIM Rules and Regs etc

[george stobbart] 02/9/2019 15:42

Share trading halting could come any hour with this scam

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 15:41

Dgdg - I wouldn't waste my time even trying to get that question answered. Gets very petty and silly.

TW is still saying Burford lost in their point 4. How deluded can TW be, very very disappointing that they don't seem to understand.

In order to make a profit Burford don't need to WIN. Did TW read the full report. Very misleading comment from TW.

Will they be writing to the regulators to withdraw their complaint? Perhaps they should as surely regulators have better things to investigate.

[dgdg1] 02/9/2019 15:36

Adnan, precisely. And by the way re the nomad issue, I also find it almost hair-splitting. If the nomad would be responsible for the content of an RNS I would have thought they would also be responsible for whatever the RNS links to. Does anyone have any specific knowledge about this?

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 15:33

William - thanks for that. most of my portfolio is US so am used to investing in US stocks and have completed W1B form. I'm actually potentially looking to exit my last couple of UK stocks leading up to Brexit. Possibly beginning of October.

My question was more if I own Burford shares which are listed on AIM and they de-list, then do I need to sell my shares (as you cannot own unlisted shares in a SIPP/ISA) and then re-buy when it is on the US stock exchange. Was trying to understand the process.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 02/9/2019 15:32

Share price reaction tells you the market not happy with BUR's RNS as an adequate explanation of what went down.

More pain incoming for the zealots.

(dgdg, use paragraphs pls.)

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 15:26

You can hold US shares in SIPP and ISA (about 70 percent of my portfolio) You need to do a W1B form to get dividends received without withholding tax (can be done on line takes 5 mins) HL will allow you to buy most US stocks (so long as they use CREST to settle which most but not all stocks use) No clue as to what happens if they delist - I held vodaphone when it spun off US operations for US stock and just received US stock - didn't need to do anything So hopefully would structure the de-listing as a spin off and won't get hit with bid/ask spread - but worst case it's just a bid/ask cost

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 15:24

Dgdg - thanks for that. Next TW will find a spelling mistake and maybe claim it makes the whole statement from Burford null and void.

There are no convincing some people. Some people will always believe the Earth is flat.

[dgdg1] 02/9/2019 15:15

TW/Shareprophets has put out a "bearcast" where he argues that Burford's reponse is no good because 1. The RNS merely links to the full statement such that the nomad's name isn't on the actual RNS statement (apparently a "massive red flag") 2. Burford don't say clearly what triggered the entitlement 3. The entitlement should have been fully provided against as Napo couldn't pay it at the time instead of valuing it at 50% of the actual debt 4. There might be other cases where the client "lost" and yet Burford still booked a profit. I would argue respectively that 1. Can't see the major issue. Burford's accounts are also published in the same way, with the RNS including a link to the full document. Also, the initial rebuttal of MW was published in full in the RNS and it also stated that there was another matter that resulted in an entitlement for Burford, so if the nomad was happy to have put his name to it there then what's the issue? Also, it seems absurd to argue that the nomad deliberately wanted to avoid putting his name to it because he didn't trust the statement - obviously nomads are not meant to be forensic accountants and it's not their job to fully check the details of every statement and (as far as I know) they are not responsible for them either. So this seems a big red herring, unless I am missing something. 2. Burford do say clearly that improving the company's position in arbitration could trigger the entitlement (even without a cash payout - TW seems to ignore this) and that the arbitration granted significant rights to Napo. I have also pointed out previously that in the final settlement it is clear that Napo received extra rights vis-a-vis Glenmark over when Glenmark could withdraw from the agreement. It seems quite understandable that Burford would have worded the agreement cleverly to make sure they got a payout for any kind of win on anything. In fact the filing from Jaguar (the link has been posted on these pages previously) states that Burford get paid if there is a win in "any part" of the litigation or abitration. So I can't see what the issue is here. 3. I can't see how TW can take it is an obvious fact that it should have been fully provided for. Even MW admit that they don't know what Napo's financial position was in 2013 so how does TW claim to have this detailed information? And ultimately of course Burford was shown to be right in that they did receive something, so how can TW be so sure that there was nothing in 2013 to indicate that they could ever pay out? It's telling that in one of his recent free bearcasts he said that it's in his nature to be bearish about everything and that may go towards his attitude on this i.e. he would have been inclined to be negative in 2013 and assume there wouldn't ultimately be a payout. But that is just his own emotional make-up, it's not how a neutral observer has to look at it. 4. Yes there might be other similar cases, but on the basis that there is nothing wrong here then there is nothing wrong in the other cases either. So all in all it just seems ridiculous for the bears to keep chasing this issue.

[5chipper] 02/9/2019 15:08

Burford also notes that it plans to provide a further presentation on other accounting and disclosure matters and will inform investors via RNS when that presentation is available.

Something to hopefully look fwd to

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 15:01

QRUZ - good to know. I was trying to investigate what would happen to my UK shares which are in my SIPP and ISA. Would I have to sell and then re-buy. Was trying to get my head around the logistics.

[qruz] 02/9/2019 14:49

Adnan I do agree with what you say especially part 1 which is why I'm evaluating coming back in here.

I've owned companies before that had a dual list for this reason then went full US, they normally create an ADR match then replicate the shares over from UK to USA and delist. I had it before owning GWP (GW Pharma) now GWPH in USA.

I see from the notes that this won't be in the place till 2020 Q1, that's a solid 6 months + away. Guess I'm worried what could happen in between now and then.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 14:39

QRUZ - some interesting points raised:

1. For me the US market is very deep. The volume of money is immense. How easy would it be for the americans to invest in a £1.5bn company. If they believe in the business model they could easily lap it up.

2. Over time I would expect Burford to de-list from the UK completely. Hence all UK funds (institutional guys) would be forced sellers. burford could only do that once it was established in the US and you had a few big institutional funds ready to pick up the amounts sold by UK investors.

Hence, 24 months from now this will be a very different company, with a different investor list and Woodford out.

[qruz] 02/9/2019 14:30

Thanks for the good reads BB, dj and adnan. I guess I look at BUR now as a former holder who quite frankly had no idea how it really worked under the hood (Like most others), Can money be made here going forward?

The question comes back to what is the real value of BUR that the market agrees? as to make money here it needs to be valued at more than today. AND how can it show it's worth more in the future.

If people such as HL are selling out because they don't understand then lets face it not many others do? A movement over to a US Listing could help to get it out of the fickle UK market and into the real capitalist world.

What about Woody? if his fund continues to tank I can see EVERYONE pulling out at XMAS and the whole fund basically being sold, what happens to BUR in that event?

I guess I now like the idea that I can buy at a similar level that the CEO + CIO have.

[george stobbart] 02/9/2019 14:29

Don't tell me what to do. Leave me alone.

[ozzmosiz] 02/9/2019 14:27

From another thread - filter time for this MF!!!

george stobbart - 23 Aug 2019 - 13:03:31 - 137 of 152 Eddie Stobart Logistics PLC - ESL
Anyone knows when this ponzi scheme starts trading again to take our money out and start dumping shares?

This ponzi scam is heading to 10p and delisting

[george stobbart] 02/9/2019 14:21

Is this Ponzi scheme going complete bust? When is the delisting date?

[ozzmosiz] 02/9/2019 13:50

Highs were £20. Potentially double top could be tested

[no pah king] 02/9/2019 13:40

Lows was 410p something, potentially double bottom could be tested.

[ozzmosiz] 02/9/2019 13:37

wardy, probably when you least expect it.

[wardy333] 02/9/2019 13:31

Market still putting downward pressure on here, has to turn at some point, hard to say what will do it or when.

[darius12] 02/9/2019 13:27

it seems volume traded today is relatively low?