We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Litigation Capital Management Limited | LSE:LIT | London | Ordinary Share | AU000000LCA6 | ORD NPV (DI) |
| Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -0.20 | -0.30% | 65.80 | 6,928 | 12:30:05 |
| Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 64.60 | 65.80 | 65.80 | 65.80 | 65.80 | |
| Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - |
| Last Trade Time | Trade Type | Trade Size | Trade Price | Currency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10:18:09 | O | 300 | 65.80 | GBX |
| Date | Time | Source | Headline |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18/3/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Interim results for the HY ended 31.. |
| 07/3/2025 | 14:54 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Investor Presentation via Investor Meet.. |
| 28/2/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Appeal Filed in Class Action Investment |
| 21/2/2025 | 09:44 | ALNC |  Litigation Capital Management fails to win Quintis class action |
| 21/2/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Judgment Delivered in Class Action.. |
| 04/2/2025 | 08:33 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Holding(s) in Company |
| 29/1/2025 | 11:07 | ALNC | Litigation Capital forecasts "modest" six-month net loss |
| 29/1/2025 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Trading Update |
| 15/1/2025 | 11:14 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Holding(s) in Company |
| 19/12/2024 | 07:00 | UK RNS | Litigation Capital Management Ltd Directorate Change |
Litigation Capital Manag... (LIT) Share Charts1 Year Litigation Capital Manag... Chart |
|
1 Month Litigation Capital Manag... Chart |
Intraday Litigation Capital Manag... Chart |
| Date | Time | Title | Posts |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20/3/2025 | 13:05 | A newer, freer thread but only for honest posters. | 1,668 |
| 04/12/2024 | 09:01 | :: LITIGATION CAPITAL MANAGEMENT | 1,885 |
| 07/2/2023 | 09:08 | peepol whu kant spel shudnt right hedders.... | 194 |
| 26/5/2022 | 12:54 | LIT | 167 |
| 25/5/2021 | 12:54 | 50% growth year after year after year | 46 |
| Trade Time | Trade Price | Trade Size | Trade Value | Trade Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10:18:11 | 65.80 | 300 | 197.40 | O |
| 10:18:11 | 65.80 | 300 | 197.40 | O |
| 09:48:11 | 65.80 | 1 | 0.66 | AT |
| 09:10:40 | 64.28 | 6,320 | 4,062.24 | O |
| 08:24:00 | 65.64 | 7 | 4.59 | O |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 20/3/2025 13:05 by mtioc Thanks as always for the excellent posts. I just caught up with the presentation, notes etc..At this price, at c. 50% of realistic realisation of current investments, I suspect you either believe Mr Market is giving you an incredible buying opportunity or you no longer believe in the model, management etc... You should probably either be a buyer or seller. Despite agreeing with most of the comments above, I am tentatively positive. I agree that the capital allocation decisions have been questionable – particularly with hindsight! The Board knew the dividend was not an effective use of capital, however, they wanted to be attractive to UK small cap funds. When you deliberately do something manifestly illogical, you probably send an unintended signal. At the time, it was challenging for smaller, esoteric fund managers to raise debt and LCM probably did well to raise money from Northleaf, albeit it was expensive and inflexible. Most first-time borrowers do not get multi-currency facilities, but they have got them now at a materially lower rate. The retail bond always seemed a “red herring.” With hindsight the buy back was poorly timed, but while not stupid, it was badly explained. The Board should explain when and why it will use shareholder funds to buy back shares. For example, if the shares are bought at 25% below expected NAV and the management expect NAV growth of X%, the expected increase in per share value would be Z. Simon Wolfson at Next has always been clear re buy back criteria. On the positive side, the private capital market leading performance of Fund I is really encouraging. LCM is seen as a “winner” in new alternative market (for mainstream institutions) where there is wide distribution of returns. LCMs fund investors, which include US uni endowments, will follow Swenson’s mantra that illiquid/private markets can produce better returns, but the best managers in those market certainly produce more “alpha” than their public market brethren who operate in more efficient markets. LCM currently enjoys this “halo” (whether it retains it, remains to be seen). This should enable a quicker than expected raise for Fund III with significant “re-ups” from existing investors and some new “blue chip” names. I suspect the 10% coinvest is set with to protect cash against the case LCM deploys the fund quickly and raises subsequent funds quickly but is slower in realising. I am not sure LCM can go much below 10%, which implies a 2% management coinvest (based on their 20% shareholding in LCM) that investors like to see. The breezy “taking the positives” from the “fact patterns” of the Aussie first instance losses struck an odd tone. It reminded me of an oil CEO explaining why a $5m “dry hole” was not so bad. The fiddling with FV methodology to make it “more conservative” was concerning (and brought flashbacks of Burford/Muddy Waters). I think Canaccord, who largely ignore FV in favour of cash-on-cash returns, have got it right. LIT was a concentrated direct investment in c. 50 litigation claims, with some representing c. 15% of cost. Soon (c. 1 year to 18 months?), LIT shareholders will in effect be economic partners with the current management team in the “general partner” of a much more diversified litigation fund manager with three active funds and a “blue chip” investor base that are “bought in” to the model. From the current share price, over the medium term (3-5 years), while there will be a lot of hair and noise, I suspect that may be a profitable place to be – but I have been saying that for a while! |
Posted at 19/3/2025 21:27 by maddox Further to my ready reckoner putting an expected NAV of 123p per share based on the 13-year historic track record of returns MOIC 2.4x (post 1661 above). I note from p19 of the investor pressy that concluded cases from the fund management model have delivered a MOIC to LCM of 4.7x. This illustrates the magnified returns from the fund management co-investment model now being pursued.The current B/S investments are a mix of LIT only and fund co-investments, but you can see where hopefully we are heading as the transition progresses. The Fund 1 US$150 and Fund 2 US$291m were invested on a 75% Fund 25% LIT basis but Fund 3 target US$300m will be 90:10. This will diversify the portfolio and potentially further magnify the returns on investment as the performance fees contribute proportionately more. If LIT is successful in maintaining their investment returns at these levels I don't think that the share price will be trading at a discount to NAV as it is at present. This accepting the performance volatility that will remain a factor for Mr Market. |
Posted at 19/3/2025 16:29 by williamcooper104 I hedged all my dollars at c1.25 last year and now have just a few low duration dollar bonds left and no US equities Had a great 15 year run on BDCs Bailed on LIT when they started buying back shares as opposed to strengthening the balance sheet Will have another look; though my bias now is that lit fin only really seems to have worked for Burford |
Posted at 19/3/2025 15:42 by johnwig I am sorry that I seem to have abandoned this thread. The reason is that Ali Babaaa and the forty thieves were put in charge by the USA electorate in November. I was there and it was a crushing blow. I have accordingly been working very hard to disentangle all my American business affairs and have now completed the task except for a Bank of America nominal account with a few dollars to enable me to re-engage in the unlikely event that they regain their senses.Fate has not been kind to LIT, alas. I haven't sold any, however, and am sanguine that a fairly swift recovery is on the cards. Recent posts by excellent posters have given me great hope. We are lucky that mostly we have avoided daft posts from ultra rightists that now abound on ADVFN. I have no political allegiance but am encouraged that the UK at least is on an even keel. Either Sunak or Starmer would have suited me. Our stock market, at least, is behaving as well as could be expected...... |
Posted at 18/3/2025 22:18 by maddox LIT value ready reckoner - 87p Net Asset Value per share at 31 Dec. This NAV includes a fair value MOIC of 1.7x. Adjusting this up to be in-line with the historic track record MOIC of 2.4x gives an expected current NAV of 123p per share or 91% ahead of the current 64p share price. |
Posted at 28/2/2025 15:46 by maddox LIT has a remarkably successful record of case wins and settlements - and it would be remarkable indeed not to lose any cases in court at all. Typically, LIT will drop a case early when they realise the prospects aren't good at a point when the investment has been trivial. However, when you take a case all the way through to court the risk/reward is magnified - win and you'll win big, many multiples of your investment but lose - and you lose 100% of your investment. The returns are asymmetric in LIT's favour but you are risking a perverse judgement as has occurred in the two recent cases.I don't think this is particularly difficult or complicated, accepting the fair-value accounting of course, but obviously it's unpalatable to suffer an adverse judgement. This is going to be a roller-coaster of an investment - and we'll have to accept that or sell-out. OTOH we get the good results too - that thankfully have been more numerous. The last update we had on Fund I was that of the 25 cases funded seven had concluded generating a gross IRR of 80%, net of performance fees to LIT, a 61% net ROI to Fund I investors. Unsurprisingly, all of the Fund I investors have also invested in Fund II, and it's a great record to encourage more investors into Fund III. So, losses are inevitable but you need I think to look at the overall track record - and be prepared for a bumpy ride. |
Posted at 02/12/2024 16:37 by mtioc The new facility is certainly an improvement and appears to be a more conventional corporate facility (e.g. no profit participation). The facility is important for the obvious cost of capital benefits, but it may also allow LCM to mitigate any adverse realisation periods.The reduced cost of capital is described above. Undrawn debt will usually have a commitment fee 50% of margin or c. 2.75% but with no associated cost of funds. When drawn, the interest is the relevant interbank rate by currency (probably c. 4% blended down from 5% a year or so ago) and the margin 5.25% vs 8%. So, cost of debt c. 9.25% vs 13% historically. While leverage is not a major driver of returns, if LCM wishes to maintain its 25% Balance Sheet share per investment, I believe the facility also provides LCM with insurance against an adverse period of realisations versus commitments/investme |
Posted at 23/9/2024 14:26 by maddox Hi NChanning,Yep that's the way I see it and if we're able self-fund the 25% commitments, avoiding expensive debt, then we'll be growing the profitability very nicely as the overheads decline as a proportion of revenue. There is no escaping the variability in financial reporting - driven by case conclusion timing - so share price volatility is a given. It would be good to see this addressed by an explicit policy on buy-backs to discourage too deep a discount to NAV. I'd also like to see a return to case conclusion reporting. This newsflow was a great shop window into the business model performance and maintaining shareholder interest. Regards Maddox |
Posted at 08/6/2024 11:11 by mtioc I read the Zeus note.Anything that raises LITs profile and explains an unusual business to a wider audience should be welcome. Robin Savage is an experienced analyst who has been at Zeus since 2015 and was formerly at Canaccord (LIT’s current broker). Given that, I was a bit disappointed. Most of the note, if you are being polite, was a “representatio Zeus positions LIT as an emerging fund management business that should be valued on a NAV rather than earnings basis. As the company can control the quality of its assets, but not the timing of realization, I suspect this is correct in theory, but most will always look at the earnings too. Initially, I was confused by the “algebraically For me, the new or interesting bits were: • Commitments: 2023-£140m, 24-£150m, 25-£167m and 26-£173m • Realizations: 2023-70, 24 – 40, 25 – 33 and 26 – 42 • Tax rate: 25% versus 10% for Guernsey listed Burford • First North American investment (suspect Canada) I agree with Citiwolf: the assumptions seem very conservative or pedestrian. I wonder if these were sense checked with the company. All recent company presentations have anticipated a significantly increased deployment rate over the next few years. The potential tax rate gain from moving offshore is far more material than shaving a few basis points off of a low debt quantum. The analyst was a bit disparaging about the LCM balance sheet business, but appeared to fail to realize that it funds all the admin costs because the funds do not have a management fee. As CW points out (and is noted in the note), the legacy assets held at cost are not valued. The analyst did not comment on the fund management quality of earnings where it is all derived from enhanced performance rather than management or other fees. The analyst also did not appear to appreciate the uniqueness of a successful litigation operation/franchise. These take longer and cost more to build than most other private capital businesses (e.g. you could create a profitable private credit fund in year but would take at least five to create a profitable litigation funder). Overall, while helpful, it could have been much better. Like others, I suspect we will need to wait a while for the share price to reflect underlying value. |
Posted at 21/9/2023 12:55 by someuwin A robust outlook makes this legal stock a buyA cash-rich provider of litigation financing has reported record results and could deliver another year of growth September 19, 2023 By Simon Thompson * Net profit up 145 per cent to record A$21.8mn (£11.3mn) * EPS of 29.5¢ (15.4p) * NAV up 27 per cent to A$124.3mn * 2.25p a share final dividend declared Litigation Capital Management (LIT:117p), a provider of litigation financing, has reported record results buoyed by settlements from its directly held portfolio as well as bumper fees earned from third-party funds. The performance of both the group and the fund interests made for a good read. The third-party funds delivered A$70.2mn (£36.5mn) of post-tax profit and a hefty $24.6mn of performance fees for LCM, which receives 25 per cent of profit on each fund investment over a soft hurdle rate of 8 per cent. The group also earns an outperformance return fee of 35 per cent over an internal rate of return (IRR) of 20 per cent, so providing an attractive income stream to complement realisations from its own directly held portfolio. Over the past three years, LCM has delivered a cumulative return on invested capital (RoIC) of 208 per cent and internal rate of return (IRR) of 76 per cent, a key reason why outside investors want a slice of the action. Earlier this year, the group’s second Global Alternative Returns Fund (GARF) raised A$291mn of commitments. The outlook for deployment of the capital is increasingly positive. Strong trading outlook Chief executive Patrick Maloney predicts a significant rise in the number of appointments of external administrators and liquidators in insolvency, which will translate into increased litigation funding applications in the future. That is of particular benefit to LCM given its long history of funding disputes arising from insolvency and restructuring. Maloney also highlights a tightening and contraction of the competitive landscape in the litigation finance industry across several markets, including the UK, US and Canada. Having built LCM's expertise and capacity in the London market, as well as having access to capital through its funds management business, the well-funded group is well-placed to capitalise on tighter industry conditions. In addition, Maloney pointed out that LCM is “seeing more opportunities in the market and expects to materially achieve commitments in the second fund”. This will position LCM well for launching its third fund, aiming to exploit the high-quality investment opportunities that underpin generations of value and cash to both fund investors and LCM’s shareholders. Furthermore, as the group continues to grow, the operational leverage of the business means that it should deliver even greater profitability and cash generation given that higher activity levels will not need to be matched with proportionate increases in overall costs. It’s a positive narrative and one well-supported by a raft of successful case settlements in the past year that led to bumper profit for both third-party fund investors and LCM shareholders. It also explains why the board has announced a A$10mn share buyback programme alongside a 2.25p-a-share final dividend, and is planning a fixed-income investor roadshow to attract investors for a London-listed sterling retail bond to take advantage of investment opportunities. Re-rating set to continue The news has been well-received with LCM’s share price hitting a 12-month high around 121p post results, up from 87p when I last suggested buying over the summer (‘Litigation funders LCM and RBG digest court ruling, 27 July 2023). House broker Investec is working on new forecasts to take into account the group’s transition to IFRS-9 fair-value accounting, but analysts had previously forecast a 66 per cent rise in adjusted pre-tax profit of A$47.7mn. Trading on a 12-month trailing price/earnings (PE) ratio of 7.5, offering a 2 per cent dividend yield and an delivering eye-catching return on invested capital, the shares remain a buy." |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
