Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[thecrunk] 15/9/2019 14:43

Market cap is currently only 20% higher than its June net asset value.



Market Cap to FYE 2018 earnings is 5.7, if It trades at the same ratio of FYE 2019 earnings (no reason it should not) then its current market cap should be around 2.5 billion or 11 GBP a share.



Last PE ratio was 10. FYE 2019 earnings expected to be 450m giving a price per share of 45 GBP if it is to stay trading at a PE of 10. At a PE of 5 its share price should be 22.5 GBP



All points to MASSIVLEY UNDERVALUED – load up while you can this is an excellent entry point.

[yidarmytom] 15/9/2019 11:28

agreed grs

Anyway, newsflow this week, investor meetings this week and £10 this week, oh and short squeeze this week

[gettingrichslow] 15/9/2019 09:13

The FT didn’t used to be like that - but in last few years they’ve lost the plot.

[yidarmytom] 15/9/2019 08:24

That's typical of FT, they are ardent #Remainers too

[djderry] 14/9/2019 20:46

I posted on the FT Aphaville site earlier,expressing similar views to those I've posted on here,adding two innocuous points,or so I thought.One was that some ' phantom' market manipulator has inputted the sale of millions of shares and then,before execution of the trades,had withdrawn the orders so as to depress the price,saying 'talk about muddying the waters!'(I thought ,privately,this was a rather clever pun.) I also opined that should 'any reputable journalist give credence to such a shoddy ,self-serving so-called report made me very sad.'When I looked back later,my post had been deleted.Was it not fair comment?

[yidarmytom] 14/9/2019 14:56

This is a great company and a gift at the current price, based on fundamentals and their market leading position in what is a fledgling but rapidly growing industry
Best
Tom W
x

[scubadiverr] 14/9/2019 08:53

https://t.co/dZXIa7QxH9?ssr=trueI think it can be explained, and the linked document above will go someway towards this. If not already take a read of this report published on Tuesday. They go into great detail rebuffing the short attack, highlighting its selective use of information to create the panic caused, as evidenced by the now highly undervalued SP, from weaker less rational and less informed holders fleeing from fear. Board changes where not deemed as beneficial from the board but init iated as part of a wide range of measures to appease holders and unleash further value. In addition the reading this I would also recommend a read the numerous RNS's to see how professionally and how comprehensively the company have addressed the points raised, and intend to implement changes to reassure and become stronger following the poorly researched short attack that was designed to effectively steal from long term holders.

[bristol97] 14/9/2019 06:44

Well I didn't understand any of your post dudishes

[dudishes] 14/9/2019 05:31

Je suis Charlie!

[dudishes] 14/9/2019 05:26

As a mostly dedicated shorter, at 8.50, I'm on a sticky wicket! If bounced out at 9.30, job done for positive thinkers. A battle won by you, the positive thinkers.

There is a down side, why £8-9 not £15-16? Why the radical board changes?

nobody to date, can explain that.

Jonwig, the loser throws TW into the mix, perfect!

Everybody, including me no doubt, Tim?

Although on a visit to London, I reside in France. I believe TW is resident in Wales and Greece.

I am you know who!

[borg45] 14/9/2019 00:18

Burns unit currently dealing with sweet K and other crispy shorters hahaha

[borg45] 14/9/2019 00:14

What a khunt you are hahaha

[williamcooper104] 13/9/2019 23:37

As for the black Swann legal risk and other listed companies Looked at Morrison's today - and they've a very good chance of having to pay out £1bn in equal pay claims

[williamcooper104] 13/9/2019 23:35

I'm not sure if it's earnings or NAV - but that's a problem when the share price is £18/3x NAV Right now it doesn't really matter as you are getting NAV plus the sort of premium a successful investment trust would be valued at And if you think it's an investment trust then you have to value it on fair value - what investment trust publishes NAV at cost

[gettingrichslow] 13/9/2019 23:06

They’ve all gone underground. Where the hell has SweetK retreated to?? She bored us rigid with a pompous post every 3 or 4 minutes (literally) for days on end in early August. Then as each of her ever more ludicrous claims floundered she retreated to the point where now she is completely AWOL!

[devalpha] 13/9/2019 23:00

djderry, they'll get what they deserve. Justice will be served. Just give it time.

[henchard] 13/9/2019 22:30

No position as yet Dev

I'm very attracted by BUR's market leadership and the non-cyclical nature of the industry

But I haven't yet figured out (to my own satisfaction) how to measure the intrinsic value of the business - assets or earnings multiple - and how much of a discount to intrinsic value I'd want as a margin of safety.

I'm happy to admit it may turn out I've missed this particular boat but I don't invest in any enterprise unless I'm confident in my own mind that I have a good handle on its intrinsic value.

I may get there yet, but I'm not there right now.

[luckymouse] 13/9/2019 22:27

Interesting comments on MW & the questionable quality of this attack

[devalpha] 13/9/2019 22:00

Have you taken a position here Henchard?

[daijavu] 13/9/2019 21:58

It is not HL it is what the stock market does if a stock is particularly volatile in the closing auction. It often happens.

[henchard] 13/9/2019 21:52

Devalpha,

I got a reply from Henchard I think, although not 100% on this, along the lines of, noo...how many times have I heard the Kipling quote when a share plummets and then ultimately goes bust.”

Yes that was me, but you don't do full justice to my hyperbolic tone: "Develpha, noooo! You've just destroyed my cheery disposition. Don't you know every company that's ever been unmasked as a fraud/POS has had those Kipling lines unleashed by some Advfn poster as a last line of defence. You've only gone and put the final nail in the coffin."

And to put that hyperbolic post into context, my next questioned "Has Muddy Waters gotten a bit lazy and living off past glories?" I berated MW for some "egregiously misleading" analysis and concluded: "Has MW just re-hashed a lot of existing research on BUR, bulked it out with some fairly spurious cherry-picked details and inflammatory rhetoric, and used its clout (and the Woodford fiasco) to trash the share price?"

I'd have thought folk could differentiate. The first post had a strong element of tongue in cheek and the second was a serious criticism of MW.

[rar100] 13/9/2019 21:40

I don't think BUR are angels, MW had some points, Bur imho should sue MW especially if share manipulation proven.
Hope they act fast in all areas and avoid bad press (who are not their allies at all).
And do quarterly updates