Author Topic: BUR.L - Burford Capital  (Read 43720 times)

bjakes00

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 46
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #350 on: August 13, 2019, 02:34:19 PM »
They appear to use this attorney / client privilege argument whenever itís convenient for them to do so.

Unfortunately, whilst Burford may turn out to be a fantastic business in the long run, there are just too many areas (far more than a normal operating company) where management has discretion to tweak things and hide it under the veil of attorney work privilege or whatever they want to call it.

I just donít have a good answer to ďwhy should I trust management?Ē In this case. There are too many things they are doing that require an unacceptable level of trust.



cherzeca

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #351 on: August 13, 2019, 03:04:46 PM »
accounting for investments is different than accounting for PPE, right?  you have to mark to market, just like KKR and Blackstone do with their PE investments that are still in portfolio. 

I like the opportunity to invest here at a discount to prior price precisely because no one, not MW not you not me not the guy behind the lamp post can seriously assess the appropriateness of these carrying values.   not saying there is a margin of safety, just a little margin, now that there is a half off sale

LaGrandeBelleza

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #352 on: August 13, 2019, 04:03:19 PM »

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.

Yes, the thing is I fail to understand such logic. I don't come from a law background so perhaps my understanding of the matter is poor but what kind of information are you giving to the other side by disclosing your mark-up? They would obtain your implicit probability of winning the case but that's just your best estimation, also considering the company is supposedly so cautious while marking up cases it shouldn't reflect the full probability even if they are being optimistic about the outcome. Or they could simply bluff in order to influence a settlement with the other side. How would they ever know? Wouldn't the other side be running their own estimates with the available information too?

Moreover, since a market price has been established by allegedly 40 sophisticated parties hasn't the implicit probability already been disclosed by the transaction that they've openly & publicly announced?

To wrap it up if such sale of a tranche of Petersen has taken place shouldn't that very same valuation in fact be reflected on Burford's books?

Something doesn't seem consistent to me.

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3276
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #353 on: August 13, 2019, 04:48:48 PM »
So what will the impact of an Argentine sovereign default on the Peterson case, if any?
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

LaGrandeBelleza

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #354 on: August 14, 2019, 01:36:57 AM »
So what will the impact of an Argentine sovereign default on the Peterson case, if any?

Petersen should be discounted at the probability of Argentina's default at least imo

Just look at what happened to Elliot

Gregmal

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2260
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #355 on: August 15, 2019, 07:53:55 AM »
https://www.voxmarkets.co.uk/rns/announcement/0ff07516-cb13-4f05-9bae-72798570cae5


Good news all around IMO. Very impressive that they are listening to shareholders like this. Personally, I did not expect them to move this quickly with these things.

Liberty

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11447
  • twitter.com/libertyRPF
    • twitter.com/libertyRPF
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #356 on: August 19, 2019, 10:23:53 AM »
Scuttleblurb writeup on the Muddy Waters report  (sub required):

https://www.scuttleblurb.com/bur3/
"Most haystacks don't even have a needle." |  I'm on Twitter  | This podcast episode is a must-listen

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3276
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #357 on: August 19, 2019, 10:28:54 AM »
Scuttleblurb writeup on the Muddy Waters report  (sub required):

https://www.scuttleblurb.com/bur3/

I am not sure why this deserves a post here. If yourself not a subscriber, you canít read/ listen to it, and if you are, you get a notification anyways.
To be a realist, one has to believe in miracles.

Foreign Tuffett

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 990
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #358 on: August 19, 2019, 12:36:33 PM »
Scuttleblurb writeup on the Muddy Waters report  (sub required):

https://www.scuttleblurb.com/bur3/

I am not sure why this deserves a post here. If yourself not a subscriber, you canít read/ listen to it, and if you are, you get a notification anyways.

Completely agree with Spekulatius about this.

coc

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
Re: BUR.L - Burford Capital
« Reply #359 on: August 19, 2019, 12:39:11 PM »
accounting for investments is different than accounting for PPE, right?  you have to mark to market, just like KKR and Blackstone do with their PE investments that are still in portfolio. 

I like the opportunity to invest here at a discount to prior price precisely because no one, not MW not you not me not the guy behind the lamp post can seriously assess the appropriateness of these carrying values.   not saying there is a margin of safety, just a little margin, now that there is a half off sale

"I like the opportunity to invest here at a discount to prior price precisely because no one, not MW not you not me not the guy behind the lamp post can seriously assess the appropriateness of these carrying values. "

Can you explain that statement? I'm reading it as "I like the opportunity to invest in something I cannot possibly value, nor can anyone else." But that doesn't make sense, so I must be mis-reading it.