Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[williamcooper104] 23/3/2021 17:11

Up a pound on announcement in the morning and then in the afternoon down a pound

[rar100] 23/3/2021 16:48

Well it ain't been that exciting really .....

SP Target - The results will be fantastic, folk falling over themselves to buy in after reading, so by mid afternoon, £8.50, end of day 10.00, next day £12 by 9am then the moon as you rightly predict

[stock surfer] 23/3/2021 16:36

Been a very quiet few days on this thread! Where’s everyone gone! Burford to the moon!

[stock surfer] 23/3/2021 16:35

Ok - results tomorrow. share price Target?

[djderry] 20/3/2021 12:33

It's a fairly strange article insofar as it relates to Burford.It's critical of Burford's fair value accounting,( without being explicit) on the basis that Burford's auditors/legal advisors increase the carrying value of cases ' because they can.'
No,they do so, firstly because they are required under IFRS rules to value them ( as fairly as is possible).
Saying they do so 'because they can' suggests it's arbitrary and subjective.
This is not the case,FV adjustments only take place when a judicial (or other) milestone is reached,or a judgement is delivered ,an appeal is rejected/accepted etc.
Outside auditors also examine a sample.
Of course,as always ,the proof is in the pudding.And here again,it gets stranger and stranger.The author seems to praise one of the other companies for writing down a good portion of its FV increases,as if this were laudable?
And then they fail to mention that Burford has almost never had to do so,has been extremely conservative ( as shown by subsequent realisations) and historically has done so in the final year or so,of most of the cases where a FV adjustment has been made.
It should have also pointed out that most cases have seen no FV adjustment throughout their lives.
And then,of course,the elephant in the room.The Petersen matter is produced.
Almost 800 million of FV gains on the balance sheet!
With no explanation.
With no information.
With no attempt to explain the methodology.
With no reference to over 200 million in sales to third parties.
It's poor journalism,in my view.

[time_traveller] 19/3/2021 16:48

It was nothing of particular opinion or news. Just usual illogical IC weasel words. Even the free Shares mag (with ajbell) is better than the IC nowadays.

[scubadiverr] 19/3/2021 16:44

Use Bing search engine to search "IP Group premium could soon return"

[rar100] 19/3/2021 16:43

Donald,
So in plain English, what does your pasted article say - that the Argies are just playing stalling games?

[rar100] 19/3/2021 16:40

They didn't mention Burford in the bit I saw, but I havent got a subscription so maybe didn't see the whole thing?

[tradertrev] 19/3/2021 11:49

I see the Chronic Investor has contrived another opportunity to smear Burford in an article tipping IP Group:
So when Burford marks Petersen to the value of a transaction involving the sale and purchase of 15% of the investment, that's apparently dodgy, but when IP Group does this repeatedly involving typically smaller transactions that's absolutely fine.
Words fail me.
No doubt the upcoming content of this article was trailed.

[djderry] 18/3/2021 14:08

Maddox,thanks for your gracious reply.In future,I'll just howl at the moon!

[maddox] 18/3/2021 12:49

Hi dj,

That's very kind of you - no offense taken; and I have high regard for your opinions, that are always very welcome - whether contrary to or in agreement with mine.

I think we're all a bit frustrated with the yo-yo share price performance atm.

Regards Maddox

[tradertrev] 18/3/2021 08:55

Amazing how high BUR's beta is when the returns of the business are completely uncorrelated. Up to the short attack it (rightly, in my view) had a negative beta, but ever since has been perceived as very high risk. When the shares were above £15 one could make the case that there was high valuation risk, but that no longer applies down here. The conclusion to my mind is that the shares are still too loosely held by short-term traders and haven't yet found their way into long term institutional hands - an ongoing process.

[dagoberia] 17/3/2021 22:03

Thanks for your view Williamcooper

[djderry] 17/3/2021 21:41

Just scrolling back over my earlier comments directed to Maddox.On rereading them,they're dismissive and impolite.My apologies Maddox.Your views are as legitimate as anyone.The number of shares I own is neither here nor there.
My views might be better expressed by urging management to keep a long -term focus and work to sustain a long-term competitive advantage.Whether that involves buy-backs or not,I'm sure management will do what's in the best interests of the the company and its shareholders.

[williamcooper104] 17/3/2021 21:08

Little direct impact - credit spreads (currently v high) more important than a few basis bonds movements on gilts Larger indirect impact as Bur has a high beta and rising yields are spooking markets (was actually arguably more the pace of increase/volatility rather than the actual level of increase), so short term could impact the sp

[dagoberia] 17/3/2021 20:43

Do rising bond yields impact Burford's business? I don't think they impact the SWF agreements already in place? Do they affect BUR's bonds? I would have thought BUR's business would be relatively resilient to movements in the bond market, but i guess if it gets more expensive to borrow it would have some impact. Then again they would make more money from the asset management side? thanks for any insight

[tradertrev] 17/3/2021 17:12

How far away can an opportunistic bid be? How about a million miles. The staff would just set up elsewhere. What sort of company would bid? No bank could (conflicts of interest). Private equity couldn't (similar reasons plus unwise to operate with high leverage).

[time_traveller] 17/3/2021 16:06

How far away can a opportunistic bid be? An Argie swoop is a bit fanciful (albeit rational)!, but it does demonstrate how absurd the current price is, and how parties associated with major litigants could insider trade to a degree. I can't see how it could be stopped, especially in less scrupulous countries.

[dekle] 17/3/2021 16:06

Lets wait for the actual results next week and a further update. LIT reported yesterday and although it wasn't brilliant the comments that came with it have breathed new life into the share. Hopefully we'll be able to see the same happen here.

[rar100] 17/3/2021 15:46

Everyone with an interest here, lets put our heads together, possibly cash also to see if we can change things.

The reddit crowd in the US reckoned BUR was a buy so let's get that show on the road if at all possible. BUR doesn't seem to have a press officer worth their salt - they should be trying to make friends with the FT & Investors Chronicle (who as we know don't like BUR) and basically giving out solid facts - not too complicated that explains why they are a money magnet!

I would like to be more pro-active by contacting BUR directly, take someone out to lunch - let them know LTH's are likely to walk if things don't improve share price wise - but then tell them what they need to do, how to and when to (like tomorrow).

I just don't have the time as I work full time, and I'm not an accountant or lawyer so not really qualified, but I do know advertising and press release know how, basically you write a juicy story - bold headline, how much money you made from XYZ...

And then there is Shareholder Power - much to the fore these days.

I have the impression of BUR offices being very quiet with heads down in musty account ledgers - ok so on screen, and poring over case law etc. Forgetting the fact they are servants of shareholders and they are not doing their job.

They now have a dreadful name in some quarters, and unknown in most - CHANGE THAT NOW!

I rest my case and back to work...

[jarega85] 17/3/2021 12:28

550-560 looks like the entry point if it falls that far but will 600 gone it looks likely

[lomax99] 17/3/2021 11:50

Usual service, down on fairly pathetic volume. If it drops another couple of % I will add a few more.

[1aconic] 17/3/2021 10:26

I'm also up to figures spoken about using "million"... time for others to join in...

Agree the annual dividend is paltry, but it's not over a few years and not in the context of using outside funding that takes 40% of profit to replace it.

The SWF taking up double the slack following the BOF becoming fully committed doesn't really scream out "more cash than it needs". Hopefully it screams "more opportunities than we have cash for".

I may be missing something so interested in hearing alternate readings of that from you Maddox (or anybody else).