Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[riverman77] 18/10/2022 17:15

If they win, I think they have to return at least some of it to long suffering shareholders. No problem with them recycling the most of it in new cases, but shareholders definitely deserve something after all they've been through the past few years.

[extrader] 18/10/2022 16:52

Interesting article/thread from seeking alpha



HTH, NAI, DYOR etc etc

[time_traveller] 18/10/2022 16:04

Scuba, I think that depends if the realisation comes in a tidal wave (eg sell it on, which while maybe a lost opportunity, would propel Burford into the big time, free us from Argentinian sentiment, and really stick it to MW), or ripples spread over a longer period

[donald pond] 18/10/2022 14:50

I think the debt is fine unless they can buy on a discount but a big share buyback would be good

[tradertrev] 18/10/2022 14:45

Pay down some debt, pay a bigger dividend, buy back some shares and retain some for future growth. All of these would do the shares a power of good.

[scubadiverr] 18/10/2022 12:28

Agree too, but don't think a special div on a win would be the way to go. I don't think it would help general PR of this industry and think the we'd get better returns in long run reinvesting into cases.

[donald pond] 18/10/2022 08:59

Agree with that kaos. There's no doubt BUR makes good money winning cases and recycling proceeds but the jury is out on who benefits the most

[kaos3] 18/10/2022 08:56

If BUR wins - I ll be waiting how they handle the bounty - eg - distribution of it...

- sold to the hedgies - why on earth (except for a small discount to the nominal)?
- letting all the friends and employees to feed on it by providing "services" etc
- cashing it - but no major transfer to the shareholders

etc

dividing the bounty will tell me if Bogart likes the owners of the business best or has he other priorities.....his moral and ethics

having a good businessman at the top making good deals and wins is not enough by a long stretch - to have a good investment

so far the match is undecided to me

[donald pond] 18/10/2022 08:33

Log, you are just a time waster now. I agree Bogart is a bit too slick for his own good. But have you any evidence that Argentina avoids US court judgments? As people have explained before, a judgment for breach of contract or tort is very different to a bond issue, where a group of people lent money and so both took a credit risk on the state and agreed to act as a group. In this case, investors bought shares in YPF precisely because the prospectus made clear there was no sovereign risk. They will wriggle but either buy or don't buy, just stop saying without evidence that they won't be able to enforce

[loglorry1] 18/10/2022 08:24

They have an enforcement plan. Argies have a plan to avoid it just as they are avoiding current enforcements. What's special about Petersen other than its so big its even more likely to attract the finger.

[loglorry1] 18/10/2022 08:22

Bogart says a lot of things. Show me the money.

[donald pond] 18/10/2022 08:11

However you look at it YPF has been a great investment that has gone to plan so far. Bogart always said it would be a long game. Having predicted it perfectly to date, it seems unlikely they haven't got an enforcement plan. And as they have said, Argentina has historically paid out court judgments

[tradertrev] 17/10/2022 23:34

But Bogart has said taking bets on huge potential multiple payouts at low probability of success (e.g. 25%) would be the quickest way to lose a lot of money. They don't play at that end of the risk/reward curve.

[williamcooper104] 17/10/2022 21:54

And indeed Burs already made a decent return ahead of collecting or even winning the case So they made the right risk/return calculation

[loglorry1] 17/10/2022 21:47

They game out the chance of winning, chance of collection, time value for each outcome, cost of the case, size of claim if won etc. Then decide if it's worth funding. Since the costs were rather small, and the potential payout large, even if it was only 25% likely collectable it's still worth getting involved. It's just a probability game.

You can't deduce that just because they took the case there is a strong chance of collecting. It might have just scored highly on other factors like chance of winning and cost to play.

Most ppl would agree it's easier to win than collect. They may also be able to sell it on after winning and someone else might like the collection risk.

[tnt99] 17/10/2022 18:34

Should double from here!

[tradertrev] 17/10/2022 09:24

Returning to the topic of collectability of the YPF claims, it is surprising to see so much doubt about the matter expressed on here. Collectability of any claim is one of the fundamental cornerstones of BUR's due diligence process - up there right alongside the case merits. Doubters on here seemingly urging one to sell one's shares appear to imply that they know more about the collectability of these claims than BUR's team.
Personally, my money (and quite a lot of it) is with the BUR guys.

[williamcooper104] 17/10/2022 08:43

It is now I believe A friend of mine was bankrupted by IG prior to those rules - so I would read T&Cs very carefully

[loglorry1] 17/10/2022 08:37

Or simply use a gaurateed stop.

[donald pond] 17/10/2022 08:25

IIRC under spread betting rules, if you are not a professional investor you are only liable for the sum in your account. Given the 4x leverage available...If you own 4,000 BUR shares you could sell them for £25k and a bit, put £6,500 in an SB account, buy BUR at 40pp and if the result of YPF is a loss, your downside is £6,500. But you retain all the upside (tax free). Is that what others understand the position to be?

[375uv] 14/10/2022 21:46

Since 2000, Argentina has paid claims for $16.5 billion. Holdout creditors (multiple lawsuits) $10.1 billion, Repsol (YPF exprop.)$5 billion, ICSID claims $1.2 billion, United Nations Trade Court $240 million.

Argentina still has unpaid claims for $980 million. Unpaid judgments to holdout creditors (+$530 million), ICSID $370 million, others.

Argentina has ongoing lawsuits for $14.6 billion, including $8.5 billion related to the Petersen & Eton cases.

Source: PACER, SEC, Latam Advisors

[loglorry1] 14/10/2022 21:11

YPF have a US listed ADR so what? That doesn't help BUR collect.

I find the argument that a judgement is easier to collect than Sov debt unconvincing. Again so what? It doesn't mean that it's collectable just that it's easier than Sov debt. That's not a high hurdle in the case of Argintina.

The article also states that Argintina has paid out on claims to date. Well that's simply not true. There are many pending.

Also on YFP, it's a state controlled entity with barely enough $ to service it's own debt. I can't see YFP acting differently from their state owners.

[flare1] 14/10/2022 14:48

Sebastian Maril 2 hrs ago, This saga started in 2012 with the expropriation of YPF approved by Congress and it should end with a settlement agreement approved by Congress. If Arg loses, it should offer BUR a series of payments t/o a 10yr span. BUR doesn’t need all the money upfront, Arg doesn’t have it.

Funny ole thing, didn't I say that earlier this morning!

[muzmanoz] 14/10/2022 10:15

I reread the last presentation call transcript. They answered this question on enforcement.

So Emmanuel de
Figueiredo asks, given the worsening economic situation in Argentina, are you are worried
about actually collecting YPF in the advent of a positive ruling for Burford?
So I suppose I would say a couple of things in response to that. One is, and this is really quite
important, and we get this question a lot. There is a distinction between sovereign debt and
the enforcement of defaulted sovereign debt on the one hand and stand-alone court or
arbitral tribunal decisions on the other. When you are a sovereign debt holder, you are
subject to not only the whole set of terms, which usually include enforcement related terms
in the documents that you have agreed to as part of the loan, but you are also not, generally
speaking, an independent actor.
The sovereign debt holders are acting as a group of creditors. That just is not the same
dynamic when you have a court judgment. If you are an independent actor, you have an
immediate set of remedies available to you, and you are free to go and begin using those
remedies as soon as you have an enforceable judgment. And there is not the opportunity for
the judgment debtor to basically use a collection of sovereign debt style roadblocks to block
that.
That does not mean to say that enforcement against recalcitrant sovereigns is easy. But it is
something that we do and that we have significant experience in doing. And it is also
obviously a key part of our underwriting ability when we take on these cases. It is notable
18
that Argentina has, in the past, consistently paid arbitration and judicial awards, consistently
meaning ever since Argentina rejoined the capital markets. And so we are not going to
comment publicly on the specific dynamics of how to enforce against Argentina or what our
strategy would be. But we are not subject to the same macro forces that you might see in
play with sovereign debt.