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
  +0.00p +0.00% 1,950.00p 0 05:30:35
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
1,944.00p 1,948.00p - - -
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Equity Investment Instruments 253.67 184.49 88.64 21.6 4,157.9

Burford Capital (BUR) Latest News

More Burford Capital News
Burford Capital Takeover Rumours

Burford Capital (BUR) Share Charts

1 Year Burford Capital Chart

1 Year Burford Capital  Chart

1 Month Burford Capital Chart

1 Month Burford Capital  Chart

Intraday Burford Capital Chart

Intraday Burford Capital  Chart

Burford Capital (BUR) Discussions and Chat

Burford Capital Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
18/9/201809:22BUR Charts374
13/9/201817:54BURFORD CAPITAL :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Litigation Funding2,948
15/8/201413:33BUY and HOLD in Burford Capital (BUR)-
16/11/201109:29Burford Capital12
08/12/201021:16Forecast eps of 96p in 2007 so PE is 88

Add a New Thread

Burford Capital (BUR) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
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 1,950p.
Burford Capital Limited has a 4 week average price of 1,890p and a 12 week average price of 1,470p.
The 1 year high share price is 2,075p while the 1 year low share price is currently 993p.
There are currently 213,225,455 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 350,098 shares. The market capitalisation of Burford Capital Limited is £4,157,896,372.50.
pj0077: I can only gain in wealth from a future share price rather than a past share price.As the standard financial disclosure reveals ' past performance may not be indicative of future results'.Worth bearing in mind for both BUR & IMF.
sogoesit: On the discussion of asset vs earnings valuations even if there were an "appropriate" accounting based rules system the asset valuation approach would unlikely be able to overcome the issues of opacity and confidentiality. Further, how does one account for the outcome risk? (In my industry, o&g, we can model outcomes on a monte-carlo analysis basis, but which also has a lot of subjectivity involved in allocating probability profiles, rather than on a discrete basis). I think investors will always look at a mix of valuations and make their own judgements but one missing from the mix is the earnings yield, coupled with the dividend, or payout to shareholder, metric. Surely, at some time, BUR will want to payout to shareholders in cash or is that prospect just too far away since the market is so large that they will continue re-investing cash for the foreseeable future? (In fact the lack of payout, or low payout ratio, is an indicator of "value" in itself and, from the cash generated to capital invested provides an idea of the IRR for each investment or for the company as a whole). There's no getting away from the fact that, a bit like construction contract awards, this is a lumpy business and outcomes and their pre-conclusion risk are going to show-up in lumpy share price changes. The only way to smooth this is through portfolio management but that will not reduce the underlying event risk anywhere near zero (beware Black Swans) in my view. [Another example of this valuation "lumpiness" is PPH, a hotel group, whose earnings are relatively low, with low P/Es, but with "hidden asset value" (book value in this case not matching market value; usually trading at at least a 30% discount to market asset value). Every now and again there is a part valuation which brings the real market value into plain sight and bumps up the share price Any investor in these kind of businesses needs time-line patience... 5 years plus imv.]
galatea99: Minerve, No, I don't agree. Anyone, even a small private investor like myself, who devoted the time and effort to researching Burford would have been able to come to the well-founded conclusion that the consensus earnings forecasts were way too low and that the results were likely to beat expectations, leading to a rise in the share price. That's why I was still buying at just below 1500p (posted on here). I'm surprised that Woodford with their research resources seem to have come to a decision that the results would lead to a fall in the share price, that being (I assume) the reason for their selling the day before the results are due to be announced. You may think otherwise, that's your right and your opinion. (Not quite sure what my personal net worth has to do with this conversation, tbh).
galatea99: The Fintel link provided by jonwig mentions several holdings. The value of eHi is not shown, Highland is given as $29.1m and Stewart as $22.35m. "All Burford Capital Investment Management Llc holdings are listed in the following tables. Data is sourced from 13D/13G, 13F, and N-Q filings. Green rows indicate new positions. Red rows indicate closed positions. This is a list of 13D and 13G filings made since the last quarterly 13F report (if any). Click the link icon to see the full transaction history. File Date Form Security Prev Shares Current Shares Change (Percent) Ownership Change (Percent) 2018‑05‑22 SC 13D EHIC / eHi Car Services Ltd. 4,900,394 6.60 This form was filed on May 14, 2018. Click the link icon to see the full transaction history. Search: Reporting Period Form Security Imputed Share Price Prev Shares Current Shares Change (Percent) Prev Value ($1000) Current Value ($1000) Change (Percent) 2018-03-31 13F-HR HIGHLAND FLOATNG RATE OPPRT / SHS BEN INT (43010E404) 15.99 1,818,762 29,082 2018-03-31 13F-HR STC / Stewart Information Services Corp. 43.94 364,150 508,819 39.73 15,404 22,358 45.14 2018-03-31 13F-HR JAGUAR HEALTH INC / (47010C201) 0.19 2,217,579 432 Https:// This is the explanation in the last Annual Report of the Jaguar Health holdng, the smallest (by far)of the four: "Jaguar Health We have repeatedly commented on the increasing complexity of Burford’s investment transactions, and the Jaguar investment is an example of both investment and accounting complexity – but also an illustration of our success in turning complexity into profit. Jaguar is a NASDAQ-listed pharmaceutical company. Burford provided financing in connection with a litigation matter involving one of Jaguar’s predecessors. In the end, Jaguar was not successful in the litigation although it did succeed in using the litigation to reach a desirable non-financial settlement. The structure of our investment and of Jaguar’s subsequent corporate changes have led us to be paid a sum of cash in 2017 that more than recovered our invested capital with the remainder of our return coming in the form of a series of complex equity transactions that now leave us holding around 6% of Jaguar’s voting common stock along with rights over a further interest in the company (collectively worth approximately $6 million at the end of 2017). Because Jaguar is publicly traded in an active market, we are obliged to mark our equity position to market, which in 2017 caused an unrealised loss of $6.95 million as the stock price declined from a formulaic deal price at which our equity interests were initially issued (which we are reporting separately as “net loss on equity securities” on the income statement). Stocks like Jaguar are notoriously volatile in the US equity markets and we expect the potential of continued market price volatility for so long as we hold this position, which will have non-cash earnings impact. Some of our interest in Jaguar remains locked-up and we have not yet determined our path forward with respect to the investment, but every incremental dollar for us from this investment will be pure profit as we have already recovered our invested capital and a cash profit from our initial investment. So costs are fully covered and there is an additional return from an additional shareholding in Jaguar which fluctuates in value on Nasdaq. eHi sounds like a situation somewhat similar, simply because of the name of the company. Does anyone know anything about this company? The other two, Highland and Stewart sound very different. Stewart is in "title insurance" and is a very substantial business with many institutional shareholders already so this sounds like some kind of trade investment by Burford. Highland looks to be a floating rate bond fund and also has a number of very well-known holders, people like Blackrock and Wells Fargo. Note that Stewart is reported as having increased in value by 45%, presumably since the previous reporting date.
galatea99: BUR still owns 75% of their original share of this case. BUR have reported that their share of the case is valued on the secondary market at $660m. There is therefore already an implied underlying value of 75% of $660m, that is about $500m. We do not know how much of this has been taken to profit already but BUR have mentioned that their approach to taking profit is conservative. This seems to be supported by their remarks in the recent RNS concerning the quite separate Teinver case. The valuation of $660m may itself be already conservative since I have seen estimates in the Argentine media that the BUR share of the case is 35% and that the compensation that Argentina might have to settle could be of the order of $3bn to $4bn. Their 35% could therefore come to over $1bn against the $660m value that the secondary market is placing on their share. The US District Judge Preska had ruled in favour of Petersen/Burford. Argentina appealed this judgement to the NY Appeals Court and it is their decision on that appeal hearing that is now awaited. What seems to be the objective of the Argentines is to have the case transferred to the jurisdiction of the Argentine courts. The document posted earlier mentions some of the circustances which may be seen as intimidatory and hostile to local lawyers acting on behalf of Petersen/Burford. One might also question the impartiality and independence of the Argentine judicial system, given quite well-documented events in the past. The handing down of the decision of the NY Appeals Court is taking longer than expected. Comments in the Argentine media on what this might mean are mixed. Some see this as positive for Argentina since it might mean the judges are seeing merit in moving the case to Buenos Aires. I have also seen other comment which seems quite resigned to Argentina losing the appeal and then having to try to have the case passed up to the US Supreme Court, provided the Supreme Court would accept it. In those circumstances, there could of course, be a negotiated settlement for a lesser sum or a sale by BUR of their share of the case (as they decided to do with the Teinver case), also for a lesser sum. Given the sums involved, success for Petersen/Burford would produce a bonanza of profit for BUR. They already have the right to sell a further 10% of their share before the end of 2018 and they might decide to do that in any case; that would be worth, presumably, $66m in itself (or perhaps more) which could be taken to profit in 2018 (less any amounts already taken to profit, if any). That is why the decision in this case is important. ............................................................................ One further point of note is that I believe that the Liberum note issued recently and giving a target price of 1689p does not specifically include anything for the marking to fair value at each Balance Sheet date of cases in the BUR portfolio, I believe because they consider they (Liberum) have insufficient information on which to calculate these. One could therefore consider that target prices such as these are inherently understated. All IMHO. DYOR.
galatea99: Some background on the Petersen case judgement which is the subject of the present appeal by the Argentine Government. The main point of their appeal is to transfer jurisdiction from the US to Argentina. The decision of the NY Appeals Court on this matter ought to be made very soon. Rejection of the Argentine appeal ought to give a boost to the BUR share price. hxxps://
jonwig: Hardman have a brief note in their March monthly summary: Burford has announced another successful fundraise through a retail bond issue. The justification for this was given in the January statement, which revealed record commitments during 2017. The second half, in particular, saw Burford make new commitments of $855m, almost twice the rate in the first half. No indication was given on the cash position, or inflows from maturing investments. However, for previous bond issues, Burford has aimed to avoid the drag that excessive uninvested cash brings. From this, we can infer that the new investments had reduced cash significantly, to the point where a bond issue was justified. ► Issue details: Although the issue was scheduled to close on 6th February, it did so a week early. The issue is denominated in US Dollars – a first for ORB – with a coupon of 6.125% and maturity on 12th August 2025. The offer was oversubscribed and raised $180m. ► Risk management: Given Burford’s business exposures, a US Dollar issue makes sense from both a risk and diversification perspective. The spread over the corresponding US Treasury is lower than last year’s sterling issue was relative to gilts, although, due to interest rate moves, the coupon is higher. ► Risks: The investment portfolio is still diversified, with exposure to over 500 claims, but it retains some very large investments, which means revenue may be volatile. As the company matures, we would expect that to decrease, but not to disappear. The Teinver case shows that this volatility is not simply a negative. ► Investment summary: Burford has already demonstrated an impressive ability to deliver good returns in a growing market, while investing its capital base. As the invested capital continues to grow, the litigation investment business will continue to produce strong earnings growth., Their 2017 forecast eps stays at underlying eps of 104c (ie. 75.5p) so a PER of 13.3x. Expensive, cheap? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I noticed something from the 10 Jan RNS, then forgot about it: As previously noted, Burford's board of directors determines the fair values of investments following the close of each financial reporting period after taking into account the views of management, the operation of the audit process and input from external experts (as it considers appropriate). Generally, that process does not conclude finally until shortly before the release of Burford's financial results for the relevant period and as a result Burford is unable to comment or provide guidance on its 2017 financial results in advance of their release. So, really, they'll never comment on profit numbers, positively or negatively and maybe no outsider can form a view, either! What they do comment on is "... made $1.3 billion in new commitments, more than triple its 2016 level." So future business won't lack volume. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Share price weakness? Redemptions from funds, maybe. But I've seen before instances of order book manipulation where DMS gives operators the chance to persuade holders that selling is happening in volume, when it's really series of AT trades of under 100 shares. It can be unnerving for long-term holders sitting on a decent profit. Short interest appears to be zero.
lomax99: IC comment: Burford Capital (BUR:1,205p), a global finance provider focused on investing in litigation cases, is now one of the largest companies listed on Aim, with a market capitalisation of £2.5bn, a reflection of the 725 per cent rise in its share price since the summer of 2015 when I initiated coverage ('Legal eagles', 8 Jun 2015). I last advised top-slicing your holdings when the shares hit a record high of 895p ('Top-slicing and running profits', 26 Jun 2017). It paid to maintain a financial interest as the share price is up another third since then, and within touching distance of last autumn’s all-time high of 1,258p. Ahead of full-year results on Wednesday 14 March, this looks an opportune time to reassess the investment case. In a pre-close trading update, the directors revealed that new commitments made to litigation funding cases more than trebled to $1.34bn (£970m) last year. This implies Burford made $855m (£620m) of new commitments in the second half of 2017, up from $488m in the first half, and $488m for the whole of 2016. As analysts at investment bank Berenberg Capital rightly point out, this suggests the company, which is the leading litigation funding player in a litigation market worth $800bn in annual revenue, has had no problem finding sufficient opportunities to deploy its capital. It also augurs well for future profits. That’s because new cases typically take two years to complete, so, given the high returns on capital Burford makes, its high success rates and portfolio diversification which mitigate risk, it can realistically expect a hefty financial return on these new commitments. It also makes sense for the company to consider tapping the debt market again to recycle low-cost capital into funding potentially high return litigation cases. Having raised a total of $519m through three London Stock Exchange retail bond issues since 2014, all of which are trading above par, the company is currently holding meetings with fixed income investors. Importantly, results for the 2017 financial year are going to be eye-wateringly good. Analysts at Numis Securities predict a near doubling of pre-tax profit to $218m on revenue of $313m, up from $163m in 2016, to produce EPS of 96.6¢, or 75p based on the average sterling dollar exchange rate last year. Part of the profit booked reflects the gain Burford realised by selling off 25 per cent of its economic interest in the multibillion-dollar Petersen legal case relating to the 2012 expropriation by Argentina of a majority interest in YPF, the New York Stock Exchange-listed energy company formerly owned by Repsol, the Spanish energy major. The $106m realised equates to six times its original investment, and analysts believe its retained economic entitlement could be worth $1.25bn (£905m) in the event of a successful outcome in the courts. In addition, Burford had a favourable decision in an arbitration relating to the claim by Teinver S.A. and others against Argentina in connection with the country’s expropriation of two airlines. The arbitration tribunal ruled against Argentina, requiring it to pay $324m in damages, of which Burford’s entitlement is estimated to be $140m, or 10 times higher than its original investment of $13m in the case. Burford’s entitlement represents over 4.5 times the $30m carrying value of its investment in the company’s half-year accounts to the end June 2017. Rated on 16 times likely earnings, I would run your bumper profits.
bestace: winsome - not sure about Burford's share price having zero correlation with the markets. I think it would be more accurate to say their financial performance (as opposed to their share price) has low (but not zero) correlation with the wider economy, but if the market has a mass sell-off I doubt Burford's share price would be immune from that.
lomax99: Shares magazine comment 21/12/17. Litigation finance provider Burford Capital (BUR:AIM) is up nearly 60% since we flagged its attractions in the spring and its market value has increased more than eight-fold since the beginning of 2016. We still rate Burford as an excellent business, but a few issues prompt us to lock in our gains. A recent setback, including the departure of key figures from the acquired Gerchen Keller Capital (GKC) business, together with a lofty valuation mean we now see a risk the shares will drift lower in the short-term. Notably house broker Liberum has downgraded the stock from ‘buy’ to ‘hold’. House brokers will almost never put out a ‘sell’ recommendation on their corporate clients so going to ‘hold’ should be seen as a negative. Analyst Justin Bates says: ‘We continue to believe in the longer term growth story for Burford, as the leader in the burgeoning litigation finance market. ‘However, based on the combination of 1) downgrades to 2017/18 forecasts, largely due to the timing of performance fees, 2) disappointing news that the GKC principals will be leaving the business, and 3) recognising the incredibly strong share price run year-to-date, up 110%, we believe the shares are now trading around fair value.’ Shares says: In the long-term Burford still looks an attractive proposition but we feel now is a good time to lock in a tasty profit in anticipation of a period of share price weakness. share price at 1160.
Burford Capital share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
add chat code
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

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

P:43 V: D:20180924 06:07:06