Burford Capital Share Discussion Threads

[trident5] 17/7/2021 15:38

Suggestion that B told the ex-wife that if she didn't settle they were going to down tools.

[bogman1] 17/7/2021 14:26

Pasted said article below. First good words the ft has written about burford

[syoun2] 17/7/2021 14:20

For those of you with access There’s an article in FT today about the Akhmedov settlement. Believe it not Analysts at Canaccord Genuity said the settlement look like a good result for Burford.
Reasonable words from Canaccord and FT in one day, amazing.

[williamcooper104] 17/7/2021 07:53

Other than Peterson where the mark up was driven by third party sales, almost all FV adjustments happen 12 months before final settlement and always after something tangible has happened

[gusrezo] 16/7/2021 19:40

Take into account that this was a post-settlement case, not core litigation where most of the business is; so probably the realized gains were recognized as assets were transferred to the ex-wife, more clear that a revaluation of an investment due to a judge.

[gusrezo] 16/7/2021 19:35

This case has received extensive coverage(FT, The Times...): the chase of the mega-yacht, the trial against the son. I would say that Burford was presented as a company wasting its money in a very complex and extravagant situation fighting a russian mogul that was hiding his assets in tax havens all around the world. So probably Burford wants to shut some mouths and change this perception.

[time_traveller] 16/7/2021 17:37

The fact that eg 5/7s of the gain is already booked, is to some extent, by the by, because the market has taken a very cynical view and low valuation of unrealised gains booked, post MW. The more Burford's mark up ratio is proven, the more all the other unrealised gains will be valued in the share price. So I'm surprised the price hasn't gone up more, but it'll be a slow burner I guess.

[kannerwas] 16/7/2021 16:40

The rules set out circumstances in which an announcement must be made.

As far as I know, there is no rule to prohibit a company from voluntarily making an announcement about circumstances for which an announcement does not have to be made.

I think this announcement was at Burford's discretion, and was made because of the high level of publicity surrounding the case.

[kuk1doh] 16/7/2021 15:52

If the NYSE listing and it’s regulatory disclosure obligations causes the need to report these events and if a $100M cash flow/$20M earnings help is sufficiently material to merit a public disclosure then this announcement might give many cause to wonder about the quality of the performance to be reported in the H1 2021 release due in September as it’s the first announcement of its type that I can recall since the October 20 listing… but I might have missed other such RNS before now.

I don’t know but my hope is that it’s the reclassification of a sufficiently large previously reported “unrealised221; gain to “realised̶1; that is the driver of today’s RNS and, from memory, $50M is 25-30% of the ex YPF balance sheet unrealised gains in the 2020 accounts and a similar proportion of the reported pretax income…

Regardless, regulatory disclosure obligations are not a management discretion pick and mix shop so it’s not the great PR value that’s led to today’s announcement and I’d take great comfort from more frequent news flashes…

[maddox] 16/7/2021 12:09

They are also on NYSE so presumably that may influence what needs to be reported?

[syoun2] 16/7/2021 11:55

I guess this could be a new normal with the change in CFO

[syoun2] 16/7/2021 11:52

I get that it was bad wording from me. I can’t remember them announcing enforcements either outside of results

[catsick] 16/7/2021 11:47

They won ages ago this is the enforcement...

[syoun2] 16/7/2021 11:45

Anyone know why they announced this win but have never done before. No reaction from market but another good piece in the foundation of the company’s reputation

[trident5] 16/7/2021 11:34

We don't know, other than that $50m profit was booked by Dec 31 2020.

[lomax99] 16/7/2021 11:13

Err, do we know when the bulk of that had been booked? Is it not feasible/likely quite a bit of it could have been in the half year ending 30th June, just over 2 weeks ago - when it is quite likely they were fairly sure settlement was imminent.

[trident5] 16/7/2021 11:01

Conservative fair value accounting? Not sure whether booking 5/7 of the profit ahead of the outcome could be described as conservative.

[williamcooper104] 16/7/2021 10:44

Ditto; also buying calls

[williamcooper104] 16/7/2021 10:39

Had to be reputionally positive - just as Elliot made their name seizing Argentinan ships

[maddox] 16/7/2021 10:35

BUR sees additional c. $21m attributable to 2021 P&L - so another example of conservative fair-value accounting.

[donald pond] 16/7/2021 10:17

$50m had been booked that's true, but people had said you can't trust unrealised profits. And if you follow burford watch on Twitter, as recently as a month ago they said this case would be a total lossIt's a huge victory and I expect the Sunday papers to be full of it

[riverman77] 16/7/2021 10:09

Market completely failed to grasp how significant this is and also added. No major financial impact, but very good PR for Burford as it's been a highly profile case and should feature in the press. More importantly it sends out a strong signal that they have the ability to chase down these sort of payments. This will be hugely encouraging for corporate clients looking for litigation funding, and must surely give Burford a big competitive advantage over small peers who don't have this capability. Also for defendants thinking about perhaps stringing out a case, they may think again and be encouraged settle early. All this should help solidify Burford's position as the leading player in this space.

[trident5] 16/7/2021 10:09

But $50m profit had already been booked, which seems to have put a lid on the market reaction.