Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Burford Capital Limited LSE:BUR London Ordinary Share GG00B4L84979 ORD NPV
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  1.50 0.22% 671.50 840,915 16:35:25
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
672.00 673.50 683.50 664.00 670.00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 314.61 239.26 82.89 8.3 1,468
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
17:14:54 O 5,025 669.9363 GBX

Burford Capital (BUR) Latest News

More Burford Capital News
Burford Capital Takeover Rumours

Burford Capital (BUR) Discussions and Chat

Burford Capital Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
18/1/202002:51BURFORD CAPITAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Litigation Funding15,403
07/1/202009:17BUR Charts782
17/10/201910:13Burren could bid for Ramco?18
26/7/201909:09Half year call-
04/7/201907:41Bond do go down-

Add a New Thread

Burford Capital (BUR) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2020-01-17 17:14:55669.945,02533,664.30O
2020-01-17 17:14:55669.939,83465,880.83O
2020-01-17 17:08:01670.531,3398,978.37O
2020-01-17 17:06:00671.539576,426.58O
2020-01-17 17:05:48668.232041,363.19O
View all Burford Capital trades in real-time

Burford Capital (BUR) Top Chat Posts

Burford Capital Daily Update: Burford Capital Limited is listed in the Equity Investment Instruments sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker BUR. The last closing price for Burford Capital was 670p.
Burford Capital Limited has a 4 week average price of 655p and a 12 week average price of 655p.
The 1 year high share price is 2,045p while the 1 year low share price is currently 380.20p.
There are currently 218,649,877 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 459,548 shares. The market capitalisation of Burford Capital Limited is £1,468,233,924.06.
stockvalue: A very powerful way to increase the value of remaining shares is for a company to buy back shares at a discount to their intrinsic value. The bigger the discount, the better it is. The difference between what a company pays for its own stock in the stock market, and what it is worth, accrues to remain in for shareholders. The value of the remaining shares goes up. This is a method that few managements seem to use right and for the right reason. Then again not many managements think about the driving value on a per-share base. Sometimes you have the idea that some of them want to buy their own stock high and sell it low. They are often buying back shares at a high price and doing a share issue when the chips are down and they need money. In my opinion Management at Burford should think about an SRP as soon as possible. The share price of Burford shares is at a huge discount to their intrinsic value at the moment. If you can keep the leverage, at a healthy level, it even makes perfect sense to borrow money to buy back shares. It is all about the financial risk that comes into the pitches. I, as a shareholder, would love Burford to buy back shares, as MW created such a nice opportunity. In my opinion, the shareholder of Bur should urge the company to buyback its own shares! Now it’s a perfect time to do so and not when the share price is up again.
maddox: Hi Rar, Managing one's own human psychology is the biggest challenge when investing. Whilst the future is uncertain - the past is irrelevant. One needs to take a dispassionate look at BUR as if it is a new investment and ask yourself - do I think the share price will rise or fall? And act accordingly - buy or sell. Now, IMHO if you look at BUR it's clearly in a highly attractive fast growing market - you can see evidence of this in MANO and LIT. Its fundamental valuation is extremely low, on a p/e 5, and yet the growth rate is high and yields and cash generation are excellent. Two further crucial factors to weigh up: >> Intangible fair-value gains account for a high proportion of reported profits; and >> No mark-to-market price comparisons available for the 'assets' as each case is unique and thus valuation relies on management judgement (albeit verified by what looks to be a rigorous two layer independent audit process). So, it really comes down to (as it does with all shares in reality) do I trust the management? Frankly, I do. I've attended a couple of their presentations, asked questions and spoken to them directly. They communicate very well, are highly credible, and are happy to go into minute detail. I've been particularly impressed in the way they have dealt with the MW attack - a cool, precise and authoritative detailed response. Future prospects? Well the share price looks to be fairly resilient around 700p despite the continuing negative coverage. News of a secondary US listing would be positive and failing that we'll probably have to wait for a fin year-end trading update. If, as I expect, this will be positive then I think a partial share price recovery will commence. A share growing at the pace of BUR should command a p/e of 20+ (as do the very similar MANO). It'll take a while for the negative sentiment to diminish to allow for such a valuation - what say 18 months or two years? So limited downside and highly attractive prospective upside, but some patience required. FWIW that's my own view, no advice given or intended, as always DYOR. Regards Maddox
galatea99: Long read just published in Chronic Investor on fair value accounting. Burford mentioned. Extract: "Materiality, however, bursts from the fair-value gains recorded by Burford Capital (BUR), an Aim-quoted Guernsey-headquartered company whose role is to provide the finance for civil litigations and take a slice of the settlements. As Table 2 shows, in 2015 Burford’s fair-value gains were a comparatively-modest $22m out of $77m operating profits, or 29 per cent. By 2018, such gains contributed $230m out of $344m of operating profits, 67 per cent of a much bigger total. The basic concerns are twofold. First, Burford’s fair-value gains stem from level-3 valuation methods at their most unobservable. As Burford itself says about valuing the possible pay-offs from legal cases, “the estimation of fair value is inherently uncertain. Awards and settlements are hard to predict. . . There is much unpredictability in the actions of courts, litigants and defendants... There is little activity in transacting investments and hence little relevant data for benchmarking.” "Obviously, Burford’s internal valuations are checked by its auditor, the London office of Ernst & Young. For every case where there is a year-on-year change in fair value, the auditor says it tests and challenges management’s assumptions, does external research and compiles relevant secondary-market trading data, such as exists. For cases where there is no change in value, the auditor does much the same but for a sample of cases. That sounds fine. Yet, much like the ways that Burford comes up with fair value in the first place, it’s hard to know from the outside what that really means in practice. The second, and connected, concern is that Burford’s accounting profits – swollen by paper fair-value gains – contrast sharply with the rate at which cash leaves the group. In 2015, while the group recorded operating profit of $77m, its operating cash flow was minus $9m. By 2018 compared with operating profit of $344m, the cash outflow was $198m. Cumulatively in the five years 2014-18, there was a $1.2bn divergence between accounting profits, which relied heavily on fair-value gains, and cash outflows, which removed the paper gains. True, all may yet come good at Burford, though the pace of its share-price decline – at 717p, it’s down 65 per cent from its all-time high in mid 2018 – suggests otherwise. Perhaps more important, Burford prompts the thought that fair-value adjustments – great in theory – actually cause more problems for investors than they solve. If so, that would be because, at worst, the effects of IFRS 9 and IFRS 13 turn company accounts from a precise record of past transactions into glorified speculation about the outcome of future events. Not just that, but such speculation would be strongly influenced by each company’s own bosses. Paradoxically, that would tend to have the opposite effect to what accounting-standards setters wanted when they shaped the fair-value rules. It may make equity investment less efficient because values, rather than being shaped by scores of (mostly) independent financial analysts, would, in effect, be handed down by one or two company insiders. What would be fair in that? " Https:// (Not a holder).
galatea99: "Burford chief executive fears Argentine reprisals Chris Bogart tells US court he fears for safety if $1bn case is moved to Buenos Aires" Https:// "Burford Capital’s chief executive has told a US court that he could be threatened or imprisoned by the Argentine government if a $1bn court case were moved to Buenos Aires. “I do not put it past the Argentine government to attempt to imprison me or otherwise menace me,” said Chris Bogart, who co-founded Burford, in a legal declaration to a US court late last week. “Neither I nor other members of the Burford team would be able to participate in proceedings there given concerns about our safety.” The litigation financing company is pursuing the South American nation on behalf of Petersen Group, an investor that went bust when the government nationalised oil company YPF in 2012. Burford has valued its total stake in the case at $1bn. A US court ruled in September 2018 that Burford’s case could go ahead in the US, but Argentina has challenged the decision on jurisdictional grounds. Mr Bogart said he had warned his family and Burford employees of the risk of travelling to Argentina. He said: “Argentina will not hesitate to use tactics outside the four corners of this litigation in an effort to avoid responsibility for its actions [which] heightens my concern about personal safety.” Burford initially invested $18.4m in Petersen’s claims against Argentina and has so far made $236m by selling parts of its stake to third parties. The Aim-listed company, which is the world’s largest litigation funder, is resisting Argentina’s jurisdictional challenge. Mr Bogart admitted that sending the case to Argentina “would hobble and perhaps destroy it”. Burford’s $1bn valuation in its Petersen stake was attacked by short-seller Muddy Waters this summer, which accused the financier of “pulling forward” returns while not accounting for accompanying obligations. Burford is still reeling from the Muddy Waters report, which alleged it had misled investors by overstating the value of the cases it was funding and criticised its accounts and management. The report slashed Burford’s share price almost in half. Burford defended its accounting methods as “reliable and judicious” and has claimed to have found evidence that trading of its shares was illegally manipulated around the time of the report’s publication in August. It has since disclosed the extent to which its performance hinges on the Petersen case. Burford said in September its return on invested capital spanning all of its investments stood at 98 per cent but acknowledged that this would fall to 59 per cent if its Petersen claim were stripped out. Burford’s internal rate of return would fall from 32 per cent to 24 per cent, it said. Argentina’s Peronist party, which was in power at the time of the expropriation of YPF’s assets in 2012, returns to power on Tuesday amid fears among investors of a deterioration of relations with the private sector. A spokesperson for the incoming government did not comment."
metis20: "At the close of trading on 5 August 2019, Burford’s shares were priced at £13.81 and Muddy Waters had built up a significant, but at the time undisclosed, short position amounting to 0.71% of Burford’s share capital. Rather than publicly disclose this position to the market (as required under legislation governing short selling), at 1:30pm on 6 August 2019, Muddy Waters tweeted that it would be announcing a new short position the following day, but without identifying the target. Despite this lack of transparency, Burford’s share price fell in the afternoon of 6 August 2019 to a closing price of £11.21. At 8:53am the next morning, Muddy Waters posted a further tweet which identified Burford as the subject of its short position, albeit without disclosing that Muddy Waters had already significantly reduced the size of that position. Burford’s share price continued to fall during 7 August 2019, closing at £6.05." Above is from one of the briefing papers - the principal court filing - The principal court filing along with Professor Mitts' report have been uploaded to the Briefing Papers section within Investor Resources on Burford's investor relations website which can be found at
ronchong: Not sure why everyone on this board is so fixated on the daily share price of Bur. Ben Graham once said "In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, it is a weighing machine." Over the short term, the market is driven by sentiments and current sentiments for burford are not great.There appears to also be more at play here & it is not hard to understand why given its nature of business. If you look at the volume data for burford for the past week, the data shows sell orders that are multiples higher than the average day volume near the close on the day of 27/08, 28/08, 30/08, 02/09 artificially keeping the closing price low even tho most of muddy waters claims have been dismissed. Burford is bound to have made some enemies along the way & it should not be surprising that someone is taking the chance to bring them down. The shorts have brought up some compelling arguments and gave all of us interesting insights into Burford operations. However so far, it seems like none of them has held up and I would like to thank them for the long overdue changes they have effected. For the longs that have done their due diligence, this gives you an opportunity to obtain part ownership at in a wonderful business for only 1.5x the book value. For anyone that has ever been to a litigation finance conference, you would know how highly respected Burford is, even by their closest competitors. Specialty Fin thrives on superior underwriting and It is telling when none of the other litigation funders have not come out to capitalize on this but cleared burford of any wrongdoings (LCM). Sure, Argentina is a wild card but the last remembered, bonds were still trading even at the very worst, a 70% discount to par when Argentina defaulted. At 30% ROE compounded, Burford is a steal at the current price and like all longs would, I have never been happier for a price like this. Continue taking the long term view and filter out the noise & trolls on this board. You will be a lot wiser and richer in 10 years time. Ron
adnan17: djderry - the way I see it is as follows: 1. The share price will be volatile for the next few weeks, possibly even until November. 2. By the end of the year and definitely by Q1 2020 there will be a US listing, this should be share price supportive. And will dispel any myths about fraud as the US regulator will further investigate the accounts. 3. Burford will report fresh numbers by Q1 2020, where the auditors will go through it even more rigorously. This should also drum up support for the share price 4. We may even get an additional financial statement produced by the end of November to give further support to the share price 5. There may be a private equity bid in the range of £10-13. But I think the majority of investors would reject that. Given the valuation of the company particularly amongst sell side research analysts. But any PE bid would be supportive of the Share price. 6. I appreciate the naysayers will continue to scream fraud. But given the actions taken by the CEO of wanting to list in the US dispels the myth. why would you want further scrutiny if you had committed fraud? Hence dispels the myth of fraud. It is the equivalent of me hiding a body in my car boot and then taking it in for a MOT (makes zero sense). 7. So expect some volatility from now until early 2020. I've hardly looked at the share price this week. Was glued to it all of last week. But this week just ignored it as I'm a long term investor. Hence, will sell once I believe it is overvalued.
galatea99: Mr Bearbull of Investors Chronicle on Burford. Quite a long commentary that starts: "It should be obvious why I am writing about companies that run a mismatch between profits and cash flow. It’s to do with the fun and games at litigation financier Burford Capital (BUR). It wouldn’t surprise me if Burford is a can of worms. Yet the point isn’t to pass judgement on it. That’s why a PDF of the Muddy Waters research sits unread on my desktop, lest it influence me. Rather, the aim is to draw investors’ attentions to the type of company that Burford might be, or Aero Inventory was. That said, the ‘safety’ spreadsheet could have been written with Burford in mind. The company may set records for the gap between accounting profits and cash flow (see table). While operating profits rose almost eight times in the four years to end 2018, cash flow resolutely went in the opposite direction. As a result, over the five years 2014-18, $363m (£295m) of cash left the group before interest and taxes while the income statement simultaneously totted up $863m of operating profit. And in the most recent year – 2018 – the gap between profit and cash flow is a mind-boggling $543m." ........................ "These are the sort of shares that I would only consider buying at a steep discount to net assets, whose value – almost by definition – is tentative. In Burford’s case, the latest net asset figure is 573p a share. So, even at the current 808p (down 60 per cent from its 12-month high), the share price would have to halve, then drop some more before I would take an interest. Even then there is the issue of its corporate governance – idiosyncratic or risible? Has anyone noticed that next month all four of its four-man board solely comprising non-executive directors will cease to be independent? Still, as I say, it’s not really about Burford." Https:// "It wouldn’t surprise me if Burford is a can of worms"! This is one of IC's flagship columns.
jon l: Haven't posted on these boards for a long time but can't resist today. Thanks bamboo2 for keeping this BUR thread separate from the emotional river on the other. My question is: does the long term chart give any clue to what will happen next? Here is an old-school view of support levels etc. free stock charts from Since the late 2015 breakout above ~£1.45 (thick black horizontal) BUR price has accelerated through progressively higher (blue) uptrends 1>2>3>4. Quite a ride, didn't even backtest near-term support until early 2017 (first red horizontal). Then profit-taking / distribution started and price dropped down in orderly fashion, just like the text books, to lower trend lines 4>3>2. Which is where we got to in early 2019. Notably, the directors joined this selling in quantity. Early 2019 it gets interesting. A very rare rectangle formation (thick black lines) developed between uptrends 3 & 2. It's right out of the Jesse Livermore 1920s workbook! Someone holding the price up in order to sell in quantity? This highly artificial formation isn't seen much now since the regulators cleaned up bigtime market manipulators like Livermore. I watched in wide-eyed wonder and sold out. My thought was the price would drop to trendline 1 in the next 2-3 months and I'd buy back in then, maybe ~£10 or so. Now here is my problem. Last week BUR price crashed down through every potential support level there is, even through uptrend 1. There is no technical support level I can see in the chart above £1.45!! Conclusion 1. BUR price crashed: partly from the public attack, but just as much from WITHDRAWAL OF MAJOR BUYING SUPPORT which gave up at 1620 just a few weeks before the H1 results. Perhaps the shorters knew this? Conclusion 2. This chart analysis says the price debate is now between this weekend's price and that thick black horizontal at ~£1.45. Either the chart is no use now, or it could be quite a ride from here.
stevoc1964: From this mornings Telegraph:-LEAD STORY'Bear raid' on Burford piles further woes on WoodfordEmbattled fund manager is caught up by attack on one of his major investments, which sees its shares slump     By Harriet Russell? and Michael O'DwyerNEIL WOODFORD suffered a fresh blow yesterday when one of his most successful investments, litigation funder Burford Capital, came under attack from short seller Muddy Waters, which accused the company of "egregiously misrepresenting" its returns.Burford Capital was a top 10 holding in Mr Woodford's now-suspended equity income fund. According to the latest available data, his funds still own more than 7pc of Burford.Muddy Waters claimed in a note published yesterday that Burford "is a perfect storm for an accounting fiasco" and that its "governance strictures are laughter-inducing".As a litigation funder, Burford puts up the cash to help costly legal cases proceed. Investors, such as hedge funds, agree to invest in exchange for attractive returns if the cases are won.The short seller also hit out at Invesco, Burford's largest shareholder and Mr Woodford's ex-employer, for what it called "unethical behaviour"."We also see Invesco fund manager Mark Barnett as having been equally complicit in ways reminiscent of some of the highly aggressive marking value techniques he and Neil Woodford have employed together," the report stated.It highlighted Invesco's relationship with Napo Pharmaceuticals, which was backed by Burford in a legal case.Invesco said: "We categorically refute any accusation of improper or unethical behaviour on behalf of Invesco or fund manager Mark Barnett."Invesco has been a long-term shareholder of Burford Capital and held investments in Napo since 2006. These investments were made and overseen in line with our robust investment and independent oversight processes. Invesco's legal advisers are reviewing the accusations and we expect we will be able to make a broader statement in due course." Woodford Investment Management declined to comment.Muddy Waters asserted that Burford relied on "a very small number of cases" for its returns.Responding to the note, Burford said its board "takes note of the short attack report by Muddy Waters, a firm known for such tactics, and believes that the report's criticisms are without merit". It added: "Burford will issue a detailed response to the report as soon as practicable and, following that detailed response, will also convene an investor conference call ... in due course."It said that directors would buy more Burford shares once a response to the Muddy Waters' report was published.Burford issued a stock exchange statement earlier yesterday, prior to the Muddy Waters' note, after its share price fell by almost a fifth on Tuesday on speculation that it was the subject of a cryptic Muddy Waters tweet.Yesterday, the company's shares halved in value to 561p. Analysts at Jefferies said they thought Burford should "seek longer-term remedies" by issuing more market updates.The fallout threatened to engulf the wider litigation funding industry.Shares in Litigation Capital Management fell as much as 28pc before recovering to be 5pc lower, while Manolete Partners fell as much as 21pc before ending 13pc down. There is no suggestion of any misconduct at either firm.LCM boss Patrick Moloney said: "LCM has consistently prepared its accounts and its return metrics on a conservative cash accounting basis. There is no fair value accounting in our numbers. We are committed to providing investors with the disclosure and transparency needed to assess the underlying basis of our returns and performance."
Burford Capital share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Burford Ca..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200118 09:50:48