Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[henchard] 03/9/2019 09:49

The full Epicenter v Burford court papers are linked to in the article. You can just dismiss SP's interpretation if you wish, and read the court papers for yourself.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 03/9/2019 09:47

Ozzy, seen this one yet?

[yidarmytom] 03/9/2019 09:43

Today's Liberium note address all MW claims, the associated BUR rebuttals and then provides detailed comments and assessment. It's clear that whilst MW did have some fair criticisms the pudding has been way over-egged.

I would ignore anything that idiot Tom W says or anything on his frankly nauseating little website.

[henchard] 03/9/2019 09:29

Interesting article and court papers. Another insight into how BUR operates.

"Boom! Very awkward indeed: Burford Client Epicenter sues it for $200m – more questions on revenue recognition and ethics leap out"

Epicenter gives a very different account of events to Burford's.

[ana2014] 03/9/2019 09:18

S/P Bearcast???

[tsmith2] 03/9/2019 08:17

I like chart, going up imo

[wardy333] 03/9/2019 08:16

Same pattern developing here, up early doors slowly A/T sells force it lower.

[1corrado] 03/9/2019 08:10

strong opening but will it stay??????????????????

[1corrado] 03/9/2019 07:54

well what to day will bring an up date frankly I have no longer an idea.......but long term probably 1000p by end of year.

[3dwd] 03/9/2019 07:40

BURFORD CAPITAL (BUR); Questions raised by Muddy Waters on Burford Capital have been "sufficiently answered," Liberum says in a note reiterating its buy rating and street-high price target of 2,600p

[blusteradjuster] 03/9/2019 06:40

Definitely highlights the seeming futility of engaging with the likes of share price and MW.

They have no interest in being convinced - FUD is their friend.

So each time BUR clarify, they’ll either nitpick or move the goalposts.

[ronchong] 03/9/2019 03:40

Not sure why everyone on this board is so fixated on the daily share price of Bur. Ben Graham once said "In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine." Over the short term, the market is driven by sentiments and current sentiments for burford are not great.There appears to also be more at play here & it is not hard to understand why given its nature of business. If you look at the volume data for burford for the past week, the data shows sell orders that are multiples higher than the average day volume near the close on the day of 27/08, 28/08, 30/08, 02/09 artificially keeping the closing price low even tho most of muddy waters claims have been dismissed. Burford is bound to have made some enemies along the way & it should not be surprising that someone is taking the chance to bring them down.

The shorts have brought up some compelling arguments and gave all of us interesting insights into Burford operations. However so far, it seems like none of them has held up and I would like to thank them for the long overdue changes they have effected.

For the longs that have done their due diligence, this gives you an opportunity to obtain part ownership at in a wonderful business for only 1.5x the book value. For anyone that has ever been to a litigation finance conference, you would know how highly respected Burford is, even by their closest competitors. Specialty Fin thrives on superior underwriting and It is telling when none of the other litigation funders have not come out to capitalize on this but cleared burford of any wrongdoings (LCM). Sure, Argentina is a wild card but the last remembered, bonds were still trading even at the very worst, a 70% discount to par when Argentina defaulted. At 30% ROE compounded, Burford is a steal at the current price and like all longs would, I have never been happier for a price like this. Continue taking the long term view and filter out the noise & trolls on this board. You will be a lot wiser and richer in 10 years time.

Ron

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 22:43

It is a payout for Napo to sell the drugs. They sell the drugs they get cash. Napo terminated the contract. Napo took the decision. Glenmark sued. Napo could have just said they would reinstate the contact. Instead napo countersued as it believed it was being ripped off.

And Burfords initial payout was dependent on napo implementing its business plan and selling the drugs.

Amazing how you guys twist everything. Making it out as if burford shafted Napo.

The naysayers will always find something. Pretty pathetic. Napo and burford are two sophisticated entities entering into a mature commercial agreement.

[henchard] 02/9/2019 22:34

adnan

Around 10 years ago, I was screwed over by a large company for around £1m. I did not have the money to afford the legal fees. But lets say Burford had come along and said "hey i will pay your legal fees of £100k, but will take 40% of the winnings"

That's not analogous to the Napo-Glenmark arbitration in which BUR was funding the defendant (Napo), which had illegally terminated a contract with Glenmark.

The court reinstated the contract, with some aspects potentially more favourable to Napo, and apparently that entitled BUR to a big payout from Napo. Not a cash payout, but, in the prevailing circumstances of Napo's penury, an entitlement to years and years of Napo's theoretical future profits on Crofelemer.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 22:18

Napo got what it wanted too. It got rights to sell the drug.
Argentina case is progressing.
Volkswagen case is progressing.

So what is the alternative when a big corporation screws you. Like i got screwed many years ago. Just walk away as paying for legal fees would have bankrupted me.

This way somebody else pays the legal fees and takes a cut. Not sure what is wrong with that.

[trident5] 02/9/2019 22:07

Adnan - Burford got it's money back and a little more in Napo and has yet to win back any money from Petersen for the little guys.

[adnan17] 02/9/2019 22:04

Why do you keep comparing burford to companies that went bankrupt.

Why not compare it to companies that have done something new or revolutionary: Apple, Microsoft, McDonald's, Moody's. have these companies been fraudulent or have they just captured the market?

[henchard] 02/9/2019 21:39

I'm trying to remember a company where the asymmetric returns BUR appears to offer haven't been too good to be true.

I remember a gambling company a good many years ago that was posting some big quarterly wins from its sports book, but claimed its controls and systems - "we're just very good at what we do" - meant its downside risk was limited. It made a massive loss one quarter and went bust.

Sub-prime lender Cattles was another, where its asymmetric returns looked too good to be true, and it turned out there was fraud in the company.

Maybe BUR's exceptional. Certainly, the deal it offered Napo seems to have been along the lines of: "if we don't fund your litigation you go out of business; if we do fund it and you get anything at all - and we mean anything, a dollar, whatever, you're in hock to us for 10s of $m."

Maybe asymmetric returns are possible if there are companies stupid/desperate enough to enter into such an agreement.

[qruz] 02/9/2019 21:17

Rar, I think you just need to go with your gut, sometimes you find yourself searching the Internet & BB's to read posts that fit your criteria and deepdown belief rather than making a sensible judgement, the posts people seek are to just to give reassurance, which can equally turn out to be bad as your blind sighted from the get go.

Either average down and wait it out or sell and try and recover else where, only problem with the first one is you have capital sat there treading water, which could be making money else where, all comes down to risk management and opportunity - Know that Risk is Subjective not Two Dimensional - Anton Kreil

[williamcooper104] 02/9/2019 21:08

Doubt it's going anywhere near zero - shorters scream about zero if they think that MW didn't There's real assets on the balance sheet - I think Peterson is worth less but it's not zero and there's no evidence of fraud Bad corporate governance - absolutely - but not fraud All equity investments are risky of course and I've almost always stuck by the rule of deciding in advance what loss I'm going to take and then selling out when my loses get to that point

[podgyted] 02/9/2019 20:58

The next RNS will frighten the market even more.

The one today lifted the bonnet a bit more on the BUR business model and I think it unnerved people.

They dealt with one case today and I don't know what anyone else thought but that was not what I thought I was investing in 2 years ago. Too complex - should be in the hands of PE - anyone thinking a US listing will change this is deluding themselves.

For those looking forward to more explanation from BUR I would say be careful for what you wish - I can envisage this having more negative impact on the share price rather than good.

Simple this is not, and with every RNS the cpmplexity is laid bare. End of the Cinderella phase.

[devalpha] 02/9/2019 20:46

I suspect the market's just waiting for the next RNS.