Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[1aconic] 29/4/2021 12:20

Wasn't looking for argument - just wondered if there was anything backing up your claims. I view BBs as a tool for gaining insight and better make better appraisals. It's therefore helpful to know whether some of the fanciful claims on here are backed up by any actual substance. Obviously the case has progressed quite a bit since June last year.

On a more general point the error brokers typically seem to make with BUR is wanting exact figures - these are obviously impossible - and so tend to be pessimistic because they'll get far less personal flack for underestimating than over-estimating.

Regarding payment, I personally view the most likely outcome as settlement with BUR selling entitlements relatively quickly (at a discount) in order to put the cash to work. Therefore, no problem with collection, only what price is available. This is what happened with the Aerolineas claim going back a few years. If it does go to award, court judgements rank above everything else and BUR would have priority over regular bond holders in the US (of which there are many). Collection wouldn't necessarily be as difficult as Argentina's debt record would imply at a glance.

Obviously just my views.

[loglorry1] 29/4/2021 10:22

I'm not trying to get into a silly BB argument with you 1aconic. My reasoning on Perterson is mostly based on the Numis note 17 June 2020 (price was 550p at the time) which I can't share entitled "The fingerprints of Judge Preska". It is 15 page note pretty much devoted to valuing Peterson.

To be fair to you even Numis (who I think are/were house broker?) do say there could be significant upside.

I actually think the case is very good for Burford and they can easily win it. However I think the time it takes to collect the money from YPF/Argie state could take a very long time and I'm not sure it will be easy to collect a very big award.


I'm not in BUR for Peterson but it's a very nice bonus if it comes in big.

[1aconic] 29/4/2021 09:55

LogLorry: What's your rationale for believing TW is too bullish on Petersen? What Petersen will eventually turn out to be worth is indeed anybody's "guess". However, those "guesses" can be made probablistically and there are "guesses" of extremely informed, sophisticated investors available for anyone not wishing to do their own analysis. I've done a lot of research and analysis of the case but wouldn't be so bold as to dismiss an expert opinion. In a previous post you admit to not knowing basic details about the case. I'm curious on that basis what you think you know that TW doesn't?

[geraldus] 29/4/2021 09:40

Patience,what a virtue. That and balls of steel. Gla.

[tnt99] 29/4/2021 09:12

Don't worry about the past as you can't do anything about it but the future for burford is very bright up up and away gravy train leaving to 15 pound land as I say

[this tea tastes of chicken] 29/4/2021 08:22

My concern is that journo's have an inflated regard for their reputation which in turn clouds their judgment.

[loglorry1] 29/4/2021 07:50

Welcome to the stock market. The most important organ is your stomach not your brain.

[maddox] 28/4/2021 23:21

As someone that posts my honest opinions on a stock, such as Burford, I find it painful when other investors lose money, in some cases quite considerably significant amounts of money, due to short attacks based on fallacious evidence or worse still concocted lies.

I will as I have in this case take advantage, multiplying my original investment six fold. However, I'm not happy that others have lost out or that the miscreants have profited at their expense. Further, I think that financial journalists should have a higher regard for their own personal reputation than they appear so to do.

[loglorry1] 28/4/2021 19:19

I wouldn't pay much attention to the financial journos, FT or the sell side analyst.

Look at the published tables at the end of the AR and see how each case is evolving and balance that against what it costs to run the company. Over a long period this has been pretty good inmho.

It's also an uncorrected asset class to the economy by and large which is useful.

[devalpha] 28/4/2021 18:55

Should read pre MW.Watch closely the FT, IC and Times reporting on Burford over the coming months.The biggest learning for me as a Burford owner over the last 2 years is how little knowledge the financial journalists have.

[devalpha] 28/4/2021 18:50

You need to remember that pre MW report, the FT and IC were reporting on Burford very bullishly. Post MW they changed completely. All that showed is they had no real knowledge of Burford's business at all either before or after the short report.Some of the FT journalists are close to Block, or so they think.What they're too naive to understand is that he plays them like a fiddle.Watch with interest how they report on Burford over the coming months as the price steadily recovers.It'll be entertaining if nothing else.As for the Times, I suspect they'd never heard of Burford pre ME, although they gave the impression that they did. Embarrassing journalism.

[three black crows] 28/4/2021 18:47

Loglorry1,
Its anyone's guess what Peterson might return, I'm happy with £1 on the share price , but it might be a little closer to the lower end of what Travis suggests and even this would be a significant overall jump in the SP

[loglorry1] 28/4/2021 17:32

The write up at traviswiedower.com is a bit too bullish on Peterson if you ask me. There are plenty of hurdles to jump yet on Peterson and the punitive damages he describes are a bit OTT in my opinion. Happy to be proved wrong obviously but I wouldn't count on $15 from that case.

Just my view.

[williamcooper104] 28/4/2021 17:21

The company and share price has moved on from MW Disclosure and account presentation is much better and corporate governance was improved Last set of results were excellent as showed that Bur wasn't a one trick pony as MW alleged

[williamcooper104] 28/4/2021 17:18

It's not so much weak or strong - more that you had two large positions held by Woodford and Invesco that needed to be sold and everyone knew that It was though holders selling rather than shorters that crashed the sp

[williamcooper104] 28/4/2021 17:17

Very true - it was trading prior to the crash at 4-5x book which was far too steamy (and of course management off-loaded half their equity then) But equally it was trading below NAV not so long ago, which was too cheap

[three black crows] 28/4/2021 17:08

Burford Capital is By Far the Most Undervalued Company I Know Of

Burford valuation according to Travis Wiedower at :
hxxps://traviswiedower.com/
you can read the full article on his web page but he
refers to Burfords Share Price Valuation, with particular refernce to Peterson.
He believes Burfords Petersen case if won is worth (on its own)between $5 - $15.
If this were added to the current share price we would be looking at $17- $27.
Maybee this is one reason why the share price is picking up.

[syoun2] 28/4/2021 17:01

I sold but brought back in at £7 so happy both price @ volume significantly up

[syoun2] 28/4/2021 17:00

I sold but brought back in at £7 so happy both price @ volume significantly up

[syoun2] 28/4/2021 16:58

All valid pints, No offence meant but we all know(hopefully) about his false claims & the good it will hopefully do in the long run. Better governance etc.etc.. however not sure it help if we keep dragging up. And FT/Times/investors chronicle were all biased for some reason.

Did someone mention there was some Peterson news due end of this month

[loglorry1] 28/4/2021 16:52

To be fair BUR was trading at a pretty eye watering multiple of NAV before the fall. I know they make a lot of money from their litigation book but I don't think that multiple was justified. It's still cheap here but we have to be realistic that there is only so much an investor will pay as a multiple of a litigation book.

[gettingrichslow] 28/4/2021 16:40

Yes, for me one thing the MW saga really exposed was the level of ‘weak holders’ there must have been at the time of the attack, as opposed to strong holders that would refuse to sell. It’s pretty clear that the fall in price was to a large extent down to panic amongst weak holders who fled at the thought of some sort of wrongdoing. I suspect BUR would be far more resilient if something similar were to happen again, so in a funny sort of way it may have led to some positive change for the long-run. It has also made me think about the type of holders before I buy into other companies, which to be perfectly honest I didn’t do previously.

[saltraider] 28/4/2021 16:04

The past is important because it has a bearing on BUR's current price ... and on how it will change in response to future events and results. The MW attack is still an important factor in respect of BUR and I'm certainly interested in different views about it. People can move on if they want to ... or not if that suits them.

[alter ego] 28/4/2021 16:00

I think the point Maddox was making is that the FT are continuing to peddle innuendo and perpetuating the falsehoods. Hard to move on if mainstream media will not.