Author Topic: BUR.L - Burford Capital  (Read 32776 times)

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #340 on: August 12, 2019, 01:29:38 PM »
You are right. My question was in reference to other posts criticizing MW's report in the same vain as 'short and distort'. I assumed a materiality to the question but you are right that the literal reading doesn't express any materiality. Between that and the lead to your post, I assumed a tone to your response. Hopefully, that goes some way to explain mine.

In general, I'm frustrated that BUR doesn't provide enough information to complete an analysis of them. I don't understand why MW is blamed for BUR's current predicament. You are the wrong person to direct that frustration.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2019, 01:35:53 PM by Schwab711 »


frank87

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #341 on: August 12, 2019, 01:35:50 PM »
You are right. My question was in reference to other posts criticizing MW's report in the same vain as 'short and distort'. Between that and the lead to your post, I assumed that was the tone of your response. Hopefully, that explains mine.

In general, I'm frustrated that BUR doesn't provide enough information to complete an analysis of them. I find it frustrating that MW is somehow to blame for BUR's current predicament. You are the wrong person to direct that frustration.

If this wasn't a short and distort followed by a rapid covering of said short, than what is?

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1558
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #342 on: August 12, 2019, 01:45:22 PM »
You are right. My question was in reference to other posts criticizing MW's report in the same vain as 'short and distort'. Between that and the lead to your post, I assumed that was the tone of your response. Hopefully, that explains mine.

In general, I'm frustrated that BUR doesn't provide enough information to complete an analysis of them. I find it frustrating that MW is somehow to blame for BUR's current predicament. You are the wrong person to direct that frustration.

If this wasn't a short and distort followed by a rapid covering of said short, than what is?

If someone wrote a long thesis that said X was undervalued, which causes X to increase by 100% in a matter of hours, are they doing something wrong selling while readers are buying from them? I don't think the direction of a thesis or the timing of the thesis playing out have anything to do with what is suggested by the phrase 'short and distort'.

Said another way, MW performed research and presented that research. They expressed their research opinion with an investment and sold as the market recognized their investment thesis. Did their exist some hyperbole in their report? Probably. Was it material to their report? I don't think so but I'd guess folks could reasonably disagree.

There's probably some level of hyperbole or exaggeration in nearly every detailed thesis or investment report, long or short. If the thrust of the negative thesis is accurate, that generally doesn't seem wrong to me.

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1869
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #343 on: August 12, 2019, 02:06:48 PM »
Frankly, I dont think market manipulation should even be illegal as long as it is not companies/insiders/related parties. People should know what they are investing in. If you get freaked out by someone else's research, or see a large sell order and choose to sell, that's your prerogative, and no ones fault but your own. Thats like playing poker and saying no bluffing... Its bs.

At the same time, there is a distinction between some of this behavior. Scummy doesn't mean illegal. The MW report was largely sensationalized, and cherry picked information. Nothing new was really presented, and as some have detailed, there are several instances where you can without a doubt see that they deliberately misrepresented things to bolster their case. But this is the stock market and the David Tepper quote I love the most rings true here..."when you enter into a securities transaction, you are betting the guy on the other side of the trade is an idiot"... Know your shit, understand your risk, and accept responsibility for the end results.



Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2985
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #344 on: August 12, 2019, 03:40:00 PM »
Quote
But this is the stock market and the David Tepper quote I love the most rings true here..."when you enter into a securities transaction, you are betting the guy on the other side of the trade is an idiot"... Know your shit, understand your risk, and accept responsibility for the end results.

..and if it starts to smell, sell.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

Foreign Tuffett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #345 on: August 12, 2019, 04:31:30 PM »
New head of IR for Burford. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they previously had a full time IR person?

https://www.burfordcapital.com/newsroom/robert-bailhache-appointed-head-of-ir-for-burford-capital/

Normax59

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #346 on: August 12, 2019, 04:38:05 PM »
New head of IR for Burford. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they previously had a full time IR person?

https://www.burfordcapital.com/newsroom/robert-bailhache-appointed-head-of-ir-for-burford-capital/

No, they didn't, he was previously outsourced.

LaGrandeBelleza

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #347 on: August 13, 2019, 07:40:33 AM »
What exactly did MW get wrong? BUR doesn't actually refute much of MW's report

I think some of your recent responses are overreaching.

Writing "Seriously, it's a fraud" on 8/7 was needlessly inflammatory and misleading, and you later had to walk that statement back, albeit after waiting four days to do so ("I didn't mean to write fraud to suggest that "I know BUR commits criminal fraud" in an earlier post. I only meant fraud in the sense that BUR's management seem like con artists to me. I should have been much clearer.").
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I think even those very critical of Burford can recognize that recognize that Burford's response directly addressed much of Muddy Waters' report. A few examples:

1) MW presented the Napo case in an oversimplified, misleading way. Here are the most relevant two sentences from Burford's response:

"Thus, Burford structured its financing agreement with Napo so that its recovery could come from not just Napo’s dispute with Salix, but from other litigation as well."

"As it transpired, a litigation matter other than the Salix matter resolved first, and resulted in an entitlement for Burford. That is the figure shown in Burford’s 2013 reporting."

2) MW fails to mention that the Gray estate's litigation against Burford was stayed and sent to arbitration in 1/2019.

3) MW referenced the wrong case # for the Neptune situation

4) MW implies that case # 154586 was acquired with Focus Intelligence Limited, but Burford says "The investment cited in the report is a post-acquisition matter; it did not exist at the time of the acquisition"

5) MW misleadingly references a typographical error made by a 3rd party (Jaguar Health) relating to the address of a Burford subsidiary as if it is indicative of some kind of conspiracy between Burford and Invesco.


These are pretty valid remarks and I've to admit the initial MW report was - at least partially - tendentious. Nonetheless some of the fundamental questions regarding the business, its valuation and specially the way management presents metrics and information to investors remain questionable, I wouldn't consider their principals crooks but the fact is that they've somewhat been misleading investors perhaps not on purpose, that's yet to be seen.

After attending the special call and reading into the transcript some questions remain open to me:

1. AIM changes nothing in terms of governance vs the main market according to the company, although an uplisting is clearly necessary. Why do they remain the only company to adscribe to the Guernsey governance code tho?
2. Why does the question about their compensation remain unanswered?
3. Why do they refuse to further discuss mark-ups on their BS of Petersen when there have been recent transactions of tranches for this case? Shouldn't it be marked up precisely using these market inputs?


Foreign Tuffett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 882
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #348 on: August 13, 2019, 07:52:14 AM »

These are pretty valid remarks and I've to admit the initial MW report was - at least partially - tendentious. Nonetheless some of the fundamental questions regarding the business, its valuation and specially the way management presents metrics and information to investors remain questionable, I wouldn't consider their principals crooks but the fact is that they've somewhat been misleading investors perhaps not on purpose, that's yet to be seen.

After attending the special call and reading into the transcript some questions remain open to me:

1. AIM changes nothing in terms of governance vs the main market according to the company, although an uplisting is clearly necessary. Why do they remain the only company to adscribe to the Guernsey governance code tho?
2. Why does the question about their compensation remain unanswered?
3. Why do they refuse to further discuss mark-ups on their BS of Petersen when there have been recent transactions of tranches for this case? Shouldn't it be marked up precisely using these market inputs?

Those are good questions, but I believe they addressed #3 during the call. From my notes: While there is active litigation ongoing, revealing the "fair value" mark would constitute revealing "attorney work product"

I actually think this is an acceptable answer. It isn't difficult to imagine a sort of reflexivity-type feedback loop occurring, with Burford's marks being introduced into ongoing cases. Obviously Burford wants to avoid this.

writser

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1883
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #349 on: August 13, 2019, 08:13:56 AM »
The easiest way to avoid that would be to use cost-basis accounting, just like IMF and LIT. Using your own valuation model but not disclosing specific marks seems like a strange solution if 'revealing attorney work product' is your concern. Also if your valuations are proprietary and you refuse to disclose the valuation of your largest case because you are afraid of feedback loops it seems a bit strange that you are voluntarily releasing press statements touting prices at which you are selling stakes of said case.

Maybe it is an 'acceptable' answer but it doesn't seem like a very convincing one to me.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 02:36:56 PM by writser »
When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid.