We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Burford Capital Limited | LSE:BUR | London | Ordinary Share | GG00BMGYLN96 | ORD NPV (DI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13.00 | 1.07% | 1,226.00 | 1,226.00 | 1,228.00 | 1,235.00 | 1,201.00 | 1,201.00 | 98,278 | 16:35:12 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Unit Inv Tr, Closed-end Mgmt | 1.39B | 610.52M | 2.7883 | 4.40 | 2.69B |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
10/12/2019 20:05 | Devalpha IC is an FT publication. | stentorian | |
10/12/2019 19:59 | You make some good points stockvalue.I would go further....the musings, predictions and opinions of all analysts and financial journalists should simply be ignored.They don't mean anything. All that matters in the long run is factual business performance. That's what will determine the correct share price given time.Factual reporting on business performance is too hard for most financial journalists.The sensational story is easy, and doesn't require much research. Share price currently going up....great business....going down...dog.....MW short.....must be a dog.The IC in particular was a great supporter of Burford until the MW short, then they reversed course overnight.Why?The share price went down... the calibre of their analysis was basically that if the price crashes it must be a dog respite it being an ardent supporter previously.It's all nonsense.Look at the available facts and form your own opinion whatever that may be.Ignore everything else.Good luck to all long term holders and anyone with a genuine interest.What's really | devalpha | |
10/12/2019 18:02 | GRS - really it just boiled down to an observation that sometimes papers can't publish all they know. You're entirely entitled to think otherwise. | trident5 | |
10/12/2019 17:43 | trident5 seems to be good at making statements he can’t back up with any evidence or fact! Have you thought about becoming a politician trident? | gettingrichslow | |
10/12/2019 17:29 | I'm glad most 2 year olds don't speak like Chimers | bristol97 | |
10/12/2019 17:13 | @trident5 I knew you could not give a real world example, that's why i asked. | stockvalue | |
10/12/2019 16:57 | I can't remember the detail now Stockvalue, but just recall a journalist at the Sunday Times, I think, making it clear that sometimes readers need to read between the lines of some stories especially when papers revisit certain subjects. | trident5 | |
10/12/2019 16:53 | @trident5 Could you please provide just one real world example for your Thesis? | stockvalue | |
10/12/2019 16:46 | Winsome - my point was that sometimes the press bangs on about something because they know more than they can print. | trident5 | |
10/12/2019 16:46 | Onup- chimers whatever you view why is your language like 2 year olds ? | onup | |
10/12/2019 16:44 | MM trash the price to let someone pick up 200000 shares at 7-44 crooks | borg45 | |
10/12/2019 16:41 | trident - poor comparison. I'm no genius at investing but from day one of the woodford empire I always thought he'd never beat the market with the billions he had to allocate and that he would have to start speculating to generate higher returns from what was otherwise a proxy tracker fund. Turned out to be a real basket case from many directions. | winsome | |
10/12/2019 16:36 | Winsome - the FT reported a lot on Woodford too, and looked what happened there. | trident5 | |
10/12/2019 16:32 | Oh and by the by ...the FT has a phone number...HELL YEAH so was I!!! So it seems even a "person" can "phone" them. Whatever next... | chimers | |
10/12/2019 16:27 | Seems for a while now that the FT have been working against BUR with someone else with a grudge or a short position. Hardly neutral, are they? And the most recent article about Petersen was a comprehensive mud fling at the Petersen case, as if written by a 3rd party and provided to the journalist. Then MW move in for the kill. It ignores a lot of the actual facts recently stated by Bogart. I'd like the FT to confirm where they get all their stuff (stuff being the right word). | winsome | |
10/12/2019 16:27 | Related party transaction? | trident5 | |
10/12/2019 16:26 | But with the two sources of equity being under common management? And not seen as being worthy of disclosure? If true, this would add to the concerns over governance. Add seriously to those concerns. | galatea99 | |
10/12/2019 16:26 | I would have thought that an "own fund" would be a related party under the terms of IFRS - and therefore such a sale should have been disclosed as a related party disclosure, had it occurred? | kirkie001 | |
10/12/2019 16:17 | Own fund means different equity - so still a third party sale | williamcooper104 | |
10/12/2019 16:10 | How does the buy out actually work if the offer is lower than the price you bought are you forced to sell ? | borg45 | |
10/12/2019 16:03 | ‘... even if they have, I can’t see it being a major issue’ You jest - surely? | monte1 |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions