Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[lomax99] 12/3/2021 18:20

rar100 - Are you short BUR? Most of your post have a negative tone. Is this your only holding? I may have missed one, but it looks like ALL of your last 300 posts have been devoted to BUR!

Filtered, again.

[rar100] 12/3/2021 16:26

Thank you galatea99 also, nice to see you posting here, I remember you from the now totally defunct ii discussion board, and not sure if it was there or maybe here that you and I were extremally happy one day when BUR had a a very large jump north, maybe 3 to 4 years ago - it was almost life changing as I remember. And you very wisely baled out of BUR some time before the MW attack. I wish I had!

I'd be interested to know your views on BUR now and would bet that you are not owning any shares in it, I almost wrote 'investing' - that's not how I see it now, in step with general market it seems.

Posters here, many of them get excited about a few pence on the share price either way and the unfathomable (to most) in accountant speak - all clutching at straws I think. Most investors have had a torrid time for 2 years and it's all still in a fog.

The childish language in the trading update did more harm than good, lawyers should have more sense...I'll be shot at as usual daring to criticize, they will tell me to sell the shares and move on. Well as it happens I will do just that if the next accounts produce anything like the reaction to the trading update.

That's my view after facing a big loss on this doggy`

[djderry] 12/3/2021 14:21

Thank you galatea99 and lomax99.I was aware of the consent order having been granted.I think it's a bit of a leap in the commentary to suggest that it may be a precursor to a negotiated settlement.It oftentimes is just an agreement not to air every dispute and evidence in public.It probably suits both parties.

[williamcooper104] 12/3/2021 13:48

Thanks for posting Interesting

[galatea99] 12/3/2021 13:44

There is a hint here in an article from Clarín that an agreement reported to have been reached between the respective lawyers for each party in the YPF/Petersen case that the information gathered in the discovery phase by each party may not be tabled or made public in the case without the permission of the other party (although all documents will still be revealed to Judge Preska) may indicate that a negotiated settlement is being explored. The article is in Spanish but you would no doubt be able to put it through Google Translate and get the gist of it.



According to the writer, this is a legal proceeding often used when a negotiated settlement is being explored. One may of course also speculate that the Argentine parties involved as well as Burford have matters that they would not wish to be openly revealed or matters that may be politically embarrassing. But then again, such matters may well make a negotiated settlement the most elegant solution for all parties involved.

[ptolemy] 12/3/2021 12:14

Burford

Posted an update on Twitter:



Technical evidence to suggest price may move higher.

[djderry] 12/3/2021 10:15

I note that on Wednesday a California appeals court ruled that MW cannot be sued over an anonymous report that accused a Chinese aluminium company of fraud.Business as usual then.

[porsche1945] 12/3/2021 10:13

Once Petersen evaporates which it will these are worth 3 something a share. Like all this aim stuff it seems to end up back it where it started. Cashed out at 7.70 thank god.

[williamcooper104] 11/3/2021 22:39

Not least when buying back own shares means effectively leveraging up the balance sheet It's nuts We need a rock solid balance sheet Also there's a huge precautionary need/opportunity cost of having excess cash in that another outsized return case could come at any time

[dekle] 11/3/2021 15:42

I am not a supporter of share buybacks as there are too many examples where it doesn't work at lifting the price. Unless they can buy them at least 20% less than the tangible NAV. Just my opinion of course. Better off holding on to the cash specially as all the indicators are cash will become more expensive.

[djderry] 11/3/2021 14:43

In my view, the case for a share buy back is increasing.
Firstly,would it be advantageous to the company and its shareholders?
Secondly,is it the best use of the company's money?
Thirdly,what are the possible outcomes?
Of course, different strokes for different folks.
My take on it is that,although I generally want my portfolio companies to use their cash in the business,this is not always the case.
As I've suggested,I believe Burford is at present materially undervalued.
This is key.
Most of the money frittered away in buy-backs is done when companies are materially over-valued.
The shares,if bought back could either be cancelled,which would immediately bolster EPS,or be held in treasury.
Of course the naysayers will say that you are throwing away future earnings.
But I'm not talking about reducing the investment in the portfolio.
One does not preclude the other.
If,as I possit,the shares are worth a multiple of their current stock market quote,it makes eminent sense to buy a pound ( in your currency) for twenty pence.
Another important reason why a share buy-back should be considered is because it will act as a defence and a deterrent to an opportunistic bid.At present,I believe the company is vulnerable.
The largest and most diversified portfolio of litigation finance in the world is trading for peanuts.
It often happens,there being little or no relationship between the fundamentals of the business and its shareprice.
As an investor,I'm completely comfortable with that.However,it's been my experience that really promising companies in my portfolio have been taken out either by PE or management or a combination of both.
What of the effects of a buy-back?Well,I suggest the following: an increasing investor confidence in the company,a vastly increased shareprice,(of course if shares held in treasury they will add fire power to the company's war chest)and ,crucially,it would act as a deterrent to an opportunistic bid for a patently under valued business.

[tradertrev] 10/3/2021 13:48

...but Will104 this is nothing like a normal AM platform with very, very few competitors and large, uncorrelated returns, so 2% of AuM still v conservative. For a comp you could go back to EMG's glory days when AHL was producing positive uncorrelated returns (not as high as LitFin) and was still a new and growing product. Market was happy to value EMG at over 10% of AuM by my recollection (was a while ago I looked at that).

[williamcooper104] 10/3/2021 13:35

Normal AM platform is worth about 1.3 percent of GAV/8x ebitda of assets managed, with Burs growth you'd expect that to be closer to 2 percent

[lomax99] 10/3/2021 12:46

Hmm, may be worth a bit then... An element of which will presumably be entitled to an enhanced share, as targets are triggered.

[williamcooper104] 10/3/2021 12:06

Good point, the asset management bit will not be in accounting NAV

[trevor777] 10/3/2021 12:00

William Cooper – figures are very approx. I’m sure yours are more accurate!

Interestingly if share price = NAV that means asset mgt business valued at zero on $1.5bn of 3rd party assets with 25-40% profit share depending on the fund.

And just looking at direct investment, I find interesting that the remainder of BS investments outside YPF assets in cases is $877m which includes just $38m of unrealised gains as at FY19 end. Applying historical IRR rate (30%) to just the BS invested cash, you get over $2.5bn of investment profit to come through as these conclude into 2021 and rising beyond.

[stentorian] 09/3/2021 18:26

Didn't know about Stavely/Therium. Thanks for posting.

[williamcooper104] 09/3/2021 17:32

Good to see that Amanda's Ss pursuit of Barclays was funded by Therium - so likely to have been turned down by Bur - which echoes what I've long heard from litigators about Burs underwriting standards

[williamcooper104] 09/3/2021 17:18

Also between now and when/if Peterson is lost NAV is likely to have increased - not unreasonable to assume it won't be for a year and NAV could have grown by 20 percent in that period such that the NAV at the time of losing P could be around £5 So a P loss likely to lead (IMO) to a longer period of sideways trading, with a maybe 10-20 percent dip on the loss On balance, I think there's more upside than downside

[williamcooper104] 09/3/2021 17:11

I was getting about £3.80 NAV on a lose - though that doesn't include whatever else they spend before losing

[trevor777] 09/3/2021 16:23

Lose NAV £3.5/share
Win NAV £12-16/share