Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[sparusty] 07/9/2019 23:20

Yawn... boring fart... Get yourself a life ffs

[sweet karolina2] 07/9/2019 22:52

Businesses that get sued by their clients are not good investments.

The Epicentre case is a great advert for BUR. Forced into a take it or leave it deal by their lawyers, who then rack up their fees massively, but Epicentre pays off most of it. Finally the case is won, which means they owe BUR amounts loan sharks would be ashamed of, but the settlement is land and not cash. Thanks to further BUR greed, Epicentre end up going bankrupt.

[bbmsionlypostafter] 07/9/2019 18:56

So then, to summarise & save time, you made a very shrewd decision in investing in BUR Jan 2017 & it's still a brilliant decision.

HTH.

[yidarmytom] 07/9/2019 16:31

That fat ugly bloke who shorted Northern Rock has been quiet on Burford too

[gettingrichslow] 07/9/2019 13:36

bbms, it may be at the moment, but let’s see where it’s at in 6 months from now. My bet is it will be at around £11-£12. And a year from now my bet is it will be back at £15-£16. Only time will tell, but as the fear subsides I reckon this will start to rise on a fairly consistent upwards trajectory.

[winsome] 07/9/2019 11:29

Now Axiom lit finance has also been taken over by PE as of yesterday. Shorters beware!

[henchard] 07/9/2019 00:46

Sparusty, no I just follow the Buffett philosophy of looking rigorously at the downside risk before even considering the upside potential. I actually think BUR has a number of attractions. If I'd written it off as a candidate for investment, I wouldn't be spending time and energy kicking the tyres and testing the bull case as I am.
[edit: dev, didn't see your post before I posted this but it may satisfy your curiosity as well as sparusty's]

[devalpha] 07/9/2019 00:38

Henchard, I think you could enhance your credibility here quickly by sharing your position...are you an owner? Are you spreadbetting long or short? The other alternative is that you have no position. If that's the case then surely you'd be better off spending your time researching and better understanding what you do have an interest in? Life's too short. It's not clear to me or I suspect anyone what your position is, so some clarity would enhance your credibility.Long and short debate is welcome here if the participants have a position. Posting with no position is puzzling at best.

[sparusty] 07/9/2019 00:10

But you continue to peddle the same things like you are working for Muddy Waters.

[henchard] 07/9/2019 00:03

Sparusty, I've never said 236m is pin money or that BUR is arguably insolvent. I agree with you it would be fucxing laughable if someone said that.

[henchard] 06/9/2019 23:56

gettingrichslow,

A small example, just 2 days ago, correcting (with evidence) winsome's wrongful assertion that epicenter had dropped its 200m claim against BUR months ago. (post 12762)

[sparusty] 06/9/2019 23:51

236 million pin money eh.

That must be why they are "arguably insolvent"
Its fucxing laughable really

[henchard] 06/9/2019 23:43

dj

"$236 million dollars have been generated so far"

Thanks, I see what you mean by your earlier "has banked hundreds of millions."

[gettingrichslow] 06/9/2019 23:40

“I've put up a good amount of time-intensive original research on companies over the years”

Really? Like what exactly? Your last 50 posts don’t suggest that!

[djderry] 06/9/2019 23:31

I'm really getting tired of this.$236 million dollars have been generated so far and there hasn't even been a court decision!!!!! Burford still has over 60% of the remainder of the claim as well as the entirety of the smaller parallel claim.Can you please do your own research?

[henchard] 06/9/2019 23:28

gettingrichslow,

You can't have read much of my posting history, as I've put up a good amount of time-intensive original research on companies over the years. In between banter and responding to goons like you who are unable to play the ball so try and play the man.

[henchard] 06/9/2019 23:14

dj,

My first question was in response to your:

"the Petersen matter is/has been an enormous success.Burford has banked hundreds of millions for a seventeen million dollar investment.Cold hard cash."

I asked if you could point me to where I can find the hundreds of millions in cold hard cash from the Petersen case in the accounts/reports?

Thank you for your reply:

"Burford have sold tranches of the Petersen matter to 40 institutional investors while still holding over 60% of the original claim,whilst adding to their interest in a parallel claim.This was all published in the media,at the time of the last sale.It could surely not have escaped your attention?"

I was aware of the last sale of $100m and have found media references to an earlier $40m sale, but haven't been able to find the "hundreds of millions" you said has been banked from the case.

I'd appreciate it if you could point me to a source/sources for the 100s of millions.

[sparusty] 06/9/2019 23:03

Missing nothing.... spot on.

[gettingrichslow] 06/9/2019 22:58

Henchard, from time to time I like to read the posting history of posters on here that seem to suddenly come to the fore. I’ve just read yours. My conclusions are as follows:
1. You’re not very bright
2. You seem to jump on any bandwagon you can find
3. You make no original points, you just repeat others’ points, just not as eloquently!

Am I wrong? What am I missing?

[djderry] 06/9/2019 22:44

Ok,Mr.Henchard,I've unfiltered you for a moment.If you are asking these questions in a genuine manner,then it is almost,as with most of the comments from the bear side,quite incredible.Burford have sold tranches of the Petersen matter to 40 institutional investors while still holding over 60% of the original claim,whilst adding to their interest in a parallel claim.This was all published in the media,at the time of the last sale.It could surely not have escaped your attention? Your questions regarding Burford's due diligence are equally incredible.Their expertise is shown in their returns,98% ROIC on completed cases.This is not a debate.This is cold hard cash.This 'can you show me where'..is more obfuscation,hoping,I suspect,to sow seeds of doubt among those who,like you,it seems,have next to no knowledge of the company.I would be embarrassed if I were invested with so little insight.With almost ten years of data to mine ,I would say that's 'deep',with over 1100 ,that ,by the way ,is eleven hundred ,in case you are unclear,eleven hundred separate litigation matters in the portfolio,that's comprehensively the deepest,broadest,non-correlated portfolio (by matter,type,jurisdiction,judge, geography,etc.)Any other questions?