.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
Burfords Nav grew from 1.60 to 10.00 dollars from 2010, and have a 84% win rate i beleive, which shows the potential here if they can execute scaling up. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. |
Interims are 2 weeks away March 18th according to last RNS.
On that same RNS, how much say would LCM have in the appeal against the Stanwell Corporation ruling or is the plaintiffs council effectively already funded for that? |
Maddox (and several other recent posters): again thank you very much for your cool and well-reasoned animadversions. I agree with your points and see no reason to mess with my long-standing holdings. I hold c.200,000 as a long-term value proposition and I don't see any reason to do anything at all at the moment. After next week's results I might even add more. One of the other criteria is my respect for the CEO. I've held quite a few corporate jobs either running or guiding quoted companies. Most of the city/spiv types I came across perforce were not very impressive. They make their money too easily by sitting behind a computer looking for opportunities to manipulate shares. Our guy would eat them up for breakfast in the real money-making universe. |
 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. |
will be able to top up in the 50p's soon |
Yes, the insurance relates to other party costs. LCM is only at risk for it's client's costs.
Obviously, a sequence of bad news since December. Two big on balance sheet loses and slow deployment. While not in the funds, the losses will impact the track record and may impact future fund raising (even if LCM claims not to invest in this type of case any more).
Difficult to value. Last June y/e NAV adjusted for case write offs would be £75m (including fair value adjustments) and £32m (excluding FV adjs). The current market cap is c. £68m or 90% adjusted YE24 NAV with FV.
LCM will always be lumpy and challenging to understand. I will await mid March half year results announcement and presentation, when the position should be a bit clearer. |
I suspect this relates to legal costs of the other party that may be awarded against LCM. |
It's a quotation from the RNS so there is obviously some recovery available. Would be interesting to know how much. Clearly it wouldn't fully indemnify the loss, but must to some extent |
That insurance sounds too good to be true! If it works it means that lit will never make a loss. If it win a case it will win big and if it loses, it will be covered by insurance. |
"LCM has a policy of insurance in place providing an indemnity in relation to the adverse costs exposure of this claim."
Doesn't this mean that the 13.2m isn't actually a loss? That we have historically paid a premium to cover us against said loss? Has anyone been in touch with the company? |
Classic dead cat bounces and trap door events
Many got shafted last year, does anyone know how to read a balance sheet and carry out financial due diligence or just the usual reckless gambling addicts?🎰28584; |
Yes @Farrugia but these old cases are now nearly all run off, so nearly all the cases going forward are fund cases where risk is spread much more widely (so under the new model this case would have been a c.$3.3m loss based on 13.4m total size) but we can still make big amounts on individual caes due to performance fees |
Dear oh dear You focus on the balance sheet precisely because cases can go against you |
A complete overreaction imo. The revenue under the old system was always lumpy. The new system will ensure startling success. |
They desperately need good news on an other case. Does anyone know if anything is in the pipeline? I remember one case that was a win but still waiting on final settlement |
but in this case citywolf they've practically lost the full A$13.2m? That's very bad considering its just one case. |
Do we know if they are they appealing the Queensland judgment? They only wrote off c.A$8m at 31 Dec |
@Williamcooper
Yes, if only they had focussed on the balance sheet then the recent cases that went against them would have been successful. |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
