Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[time_traveller] 30/8/2022 21:56

If she rules that way, what's to stop governments expropriating foreign shareholders, selling on 1% to domestic shareholders, and declaring to courts "you can't touch us because we have private shareholders"?

[djderry] 30/8/2022 19:50

Thanks Chester9,appreciate that.I think there might be one that refers to 'Chris Bogart'also.
Obviously there's been a lot of experts' opinions flowing under the bridge but it's not beyond the bounds of possibility that Judge Preska decides that YPF were powerless in this situation.

[chester9] 30/8/2022 18:16

That's the two relevant ones

[chester9] 30/8/2022 18:15

You should stop by 500 Pearl St., Suite 12A and ask Judge Loretta Preska "by when?" on my behalf.

[chester9] 30/8/2022 18:01

"Soon" we will know the ruling for the expropriation of YPF and the possibility that Judge Loretta Preska publishes a divided ruling, releasing the oil company from all responsibility, is not ruled out.- Could this be the reason for the recent rally in the price of ADRs?

[djderry] 30/8/2022 17:09

Sebastian Maril has been busy tweeting today on the Petersen matter.Perhaps someone could kindly post some of them here?

[feuguru] 23/8/2022 08:22

Not a legal guy. But how much, if any, does Conoco/Venz issue have some bearing here?

[lomax99] 23/8/2022 08:21

What's up with the spread on BUR, currently 842 to buy and 810 to sell?

[lomax99] 23/8/2022 08:04

Perhaps BUR could provide assistance providing their Asset Recovery Services....(Or perhaps not, don't want to highlight all avenues in advance of deploying them yourself!)

[lazg] 22/8/2022 12:38

It is hard to understand where the selling pressure comes from these last days.

[divmad] 22/8/2022 04:06

Remind me when is this Promised Land of super non-correlated returns in their billions supposed to begin?

[djderry] 21/8/2022 07:36

Thanks Papy02.While the Lionel Hutz piece is the best overall analysis that I've read re the Petersen matter,I think he's guilty of the sin of omission. To look at Burford only through the prism of Petersen is a glaring omission,in my view.We know,in so much as anyone can,of the billions set to flow through to the bottom line in both realised profit and original investment returned.(What we don't know,of course,is the timing .To me,as a long term investor,it's irrelevant.)
As this profits flows in and the market finally wakes up to the real 'meat and potatoes',as Lionel puts it,it will begin to value the non-correlated nature of these returns.
And that's all without Petersen.

[loglorry1] 20/8/2022 22:22

Aren't most of mark up in case values where no transaction, like the one you describe, has happened?

It's not a massive issue for me but it doesn't sit that well when there never seems to be much in the way of cash generation. Sure the claims book is getting bigger and a lot more valuable but investors are paying a big premium to book for an asset manager precisely because the assets are meant to produce great cash returns.

[donald pond] 20/8/2022 20:08

It's accounting rules though innit? Do you seriously think they should be allowed to sell 10% of the YPF case for $70m or whatever it was and yet value the rest at zero? That would be totally misleading

[loglorry1] 20/8/2022 17:07

Personally I don't think BUR should place any value at all on a claim until they get paid. It's far more transparent to account for them this way. It might make their book value look a bit weak but I can't see why investors need to have this imaginary mark to market stuff.

[loglorry1] 20/8/2022 17:04

Lomax they are probably leased or have first lien senior secured charges on them.

[donald pond] 20/8/2022 12:09

Burford have said before they don't mark up to reflect their views on the prospect of success but only in light of an objective event: a legal ruling at a pre judgment stage or the sale of a share in the judgment. They last marked up IIRC to reflect the sale of a portion of the claim. Since then there has been no objective event that would incline them to revalue imo

[lomax99] 20/8/2022 11:58

Well this is state owned, a fleet of 77 planes, some of which will be ripe for seizing:Https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerol%C3%ADneas_Argentinas

[loglorry1] 20/8/2022 11:33

Seems to me that the FX issue and if YPF are found to be off the hook leaving just Argentina are the biggest problems for BUR right now.

In particular if it's found that only Argintina are liable then they will just put up two fingers and there's little recourse. Yes I know argie state has some foreign assets but not many, and they'll be hard to seize.

Not a slam dunk by any means.

[williamcooper104] 19/8/2022 22:07

24 percent could be a 15 discount rate over 10 years

[syoun2] 19/8/2022 22:06

If it wasn’t for markets lack of belief I assume Burford would have marked the £700+k up to 1.5 + billion by now. (Unrealised gains). So yes I agree there are parts of the article that are not stated as certainly I would see. Never the less some good legal stuff detailed. We will see ………;

[tradertrev] 19/8/2022 22:05

Burford would never take on a case that had 24% probability of success, even at this late stage, which would usually suggest that the probability at inception would have been much lower. They have said previously that taking on low probability, big ticket cases would be the fastest way to lose money.

[djderry] 19/8/2022 20:22

Hi Divmad.I think that's not the full story.It's a really insightful take on the case in general and on many of the legal points which have been raised but,on that particular point,I think it's an awkward expression which has been used by other commentators.Burford has gone to great lengths to show how they value a case over the course of its life.Many cases have no fair value mark-ups but some do.If we look at each vintage,their fair-value adjustments (when they occur) and the subsequent final cash realisations,they tend to do almost all the fair-value adjustments in the last year of the case and,overall,it proves to be a conservative valuation,i.e,the final cash realisation is significantly more.This,if you remember,is the direct opposite of the Muddy Water claims.Therefore,to look at the fair-value mark up in isolation (and remember this was based on secondary sales in the market) does not really capture subsequent outcomes.

[williamcooper104] 19/8/2022 18:43

Not sure you can really base that from a figure derived from historic part sales of the claim Plus there's a discount for win or lose and equally a huge one for the risk that it takes decades to collect - so not easy to infer probabilities from the balance sheet mark It's useful in that it gives you a starting point to measure the possible P&L profit