Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[1aconic] 22/12/2020 16:49

Don't know why my posts aren't showing up... I guess we'll find out if Hansen's request for it to be bilateral is taken on board when she makes an order... she seemed very serious on the call and it wasn't pleasant listening.

[lomax99] 22/12/2020 16:25

As a minimum it should be a bi-lateral requirement. Is Preska being serious here?

[djderry] 22/12/2020 15:34

Pretty bruising conference from a Burford perspective in the Petersen matter today.Basically,Judge Preska seems to want to get discovery of the Eskenasi's documents and depositions.Mark Hansen was saying it's within the Argentinian state's power to get the discovery while the defendants are saying you ( Burford) bought the claim so you should have seen to it that the Eskenasi's would be made available.Counsel for Burford saying they have no power over them,that they ( the Eskenasis) are so far down the pecking order of creditors that it doesn't matter,etc.Judge Preska making some worrying warnings ,eg,'you pays your money ,you takes your chances' and 'get it done,or they'll be consequences,but I'm not sure what they'll be',or words to that effect.Sounded ominous to me.Mr.Hansen asked that both sides be tasked with using their influence.According to him,Burford have no influence, Argentina are the ones with the power to get the discovery done.

[williamcooper104] 21/12/2020 08:28

Makes no sense that it's down today - I get that there's a beta to global markets/wider economy greater than you might think but U.K. turning into Brexit zombie plagued island is of little relevance Should be up in £ share price due to fall in £/rise of dollar

[time_traveller] 21/12/2020 08:19

There you go. Maybe Burford should delist from the UK completely. It's UK operations are minor, but the UK's self destructive path taints Burford and it's share price.

[lomax99] 18/12/2020 11:04

Looking to add if they drop back to the £6.80's

[jockthescot75] 18/12/2020 10:16

I know Bogman. I was just being cynical about the constant focus on intraday share price movements.

[dagoberia] 18/12/2020 08:32

Apologies for the futile post.. i thought maybe some news had come out on either the divorce case or the Petersen case.

[bogman1] 18/12/2020 00:35

Think he is referring to the drop at the end of the day. Which seems to happen regular, as if the money makers are making a few quid on the side. It will regain those losses 1st thing.

[jockthescot75] 17/12/2020 22:40

Are you talking over the past few years and referencing Muddy Waters report late last year? ;) I just don’t see the relevance of talking through the share price movement over 2 hours for a very high beta share, where ultimately value will out in the medium & long run.

[dagoberia] 17/12/2020 19:29

Does anyone have a clue about the big drop at the end? Cant find anything in the news.. i guess just the usual

[1aconic] 16/12/2020 20:30

Won't question that using earnings is problematic. Still not entirely convinced a NAV approach doesn't miss half the story though... doing so in 2018 you'd have entirely missed the potential for new funding sources. You're also still ignoring outliers just as badly.

[williamcooper104] 16/12/2020 19:23

They're not stupid :)

[bogman1] 16/12/2020 19:21

And then bought them all back at 4-5 quid!

[williamcooper104] 16/12/2020 19:06

Lots of shareholders still think as most of what MW said was wrong the share price should thus be £20 At high teens - 4-5x NAV the share price was overvalued - hence why management sold 50 percent of their equity

[williamcooper104] 16/12/2020 18:57

Yep - it's either NAV or else a DCF computed NAV; which ought to be higher than book NAV A simple multiple on PE doesn't work, given outlier cases, lack of earning guidance, volatile cashflows

[1aconic] 16/12/2020 18:45

Maddox: a multiple of NAV makes more sense to me for getting a more realistic snapshot valuation of current investments over using straight NAV. But in terms of trying to determine some kind of fair value, there surely would need to be an additional step along the line of compounding that on a repeated basis then discounting back?

[maddox] 16/12/2020 14:19

I don't subscribe to the notion that the share price need be anchored to historic NAV. A more realistic fundamental valuation of this firm would suggest a multiple of the NAV reflecting their highly attractive return on case investments.

[riverman77] 16/12/2020 13:49

I believe the market is giving zero value to Peterson (or possibly even a negative value - market so concerned about this case that BUR would be worth more it it didn't exist, which is clearly non-sensical). Under normal circumstances I would expect BUR to trade at least 2x its book value given dominant market position and ability to generate very strong returns.

[1aconic] 16/12/2020 13:29

William: exactly. That's why I think Rar's lofty expectations can only be met over a several years or with an outlier result in a case e.g. peterson.

[1aconic] 16/12/2020 13:25

Lazg: Turns out I do have it to hand. Jeffries reported it as $773m in their last note so about £575m at current exchange rates.

[williamcooper104] 16/12/2020 13:23

It is exactly that old debate The market is valuing it like that at moment - the US listing hasn't changed that More years of showing realised gains at historic IRRs and eventually it might start trading on a PE basis

[1aconic] 16/12/2020 13:22

lazg: pretty sure it's in the region of 700m but don't have exact figures to hand either