Member Info for Forensic505

Sounds like an obvious ponzi scheme chrismac

Job done here. Very tidy return in 3 weeks. I heard their house broker has completely ignored the Fair Values in their latest coverage (not seen it myself) but enough to make me bow out at this stage. GLA.

Looks like they have paid off all the expensive high yield bridge funding and now going to Bond market where they will get much better pricing on a much better track record. Textbook. Simon Thompson of Investors Chronicle has always been a fan of LIT. Covid got it the way of course but I'd expect him to write soon to at least reiterate his 160-180p (I think it was ?) target price. It is now performing as he anticipated - just two years later due to Covid !

Exactly as hoped for….plus some! The buyback was a welcome addition which will do wonders for the share price.

Good results. Very pleasing to see this alternative legal business model working so well. Well done to the CEO/Founder who I saw speak once and was very impressed with. Not a shareholder, yet at least. DYOR.

Obvious point: there would be no point undertaking the exercise if the results were not materially different to those under the historical cost convention.

Gallmat - if you look at the companies that have used Fair Value from the outset (BUR and MANO), the Fair Value element of their profits vary but can be very material. BUR's model looks most similar to LIT (funding international litigation in the broadest sense) and on BUR's Argentine case alone the Fair Value was something around $700m profit. Not suggesting LIT's actual numbers will be anything close to that, but I dont think we can rule out the materiality of this until we see it on LIT's results Tuesday next week I believe.

Ever since its IPO in 2018, investors have only seen historic cost accounting numbers for this company. As the avg case takes around 3 years to complete: every set of financial accounts showed what the company was doing a very long time ago.

The financial statements we will see in the next week, investors will see, for the first time: what the company is doing NOW.

That is a huge change in perspective. Apologies for the hyperbole but I genuinely expect to see a dramatically more positive representation of the company in terms of both profit and net asset value.

As ever, please DYOR. This is just my opinion. I am invested but only since they announced the change in accounting presentation.

Great string of 100% buy trades today. If you know, you know ! These results are going to very exciting. GLA and of course DYOR.

I think their plan is to do both Gallmat (which is helpful).

The aspect I do like about the Fair Value method is that it does give the reader the Board's view of the value of the in-process cases. As they are delivering 2-3x cost, the difference in the inherent value of the business will be substantial. Looking forward to their results which are due out very soon now.

I am now a convert to this company - we have now seen a number of very impressive and large settlements come through.

Maybe more importantly, they have (finally!) decided to use Fair Value Accounting (as per Burford - the market leader). This is absolutely transform their numbers in a very positive and material way (P&L and Balance Sheet, no cash effect). The old numbers will be unrecognisable. DYOR but imho this now looks set to take off in a serious way.

Tommy - pretty obvious FoMo is from LIT.

I agree oldbutwisa.

A subtle but important point from this whole PACCAR thing is: pricing. MANO have always said (including in their most recent annual results presentation) that they split the net recovery on any funded cases 50%/50% with the creditors. That now becomes very important because DBAs have to be at a maximum 50% of the gross recovery to the Funder. The fact that MANO is 50% of the NET means its share is always below 50% of the gross (the difference being the costs of the case). So that positions its funding proposition very well. We have seen their returns over many years, and it clearly works for MANO very well. No need to be greedy (and maybe that is what the Supreme Court ruling was really all about? If that is right, I think its sensible. Funders arent regulated so some control on them to ensure they arent exploiting desperate claimants makes good sense).

I have never seen a standard split disclosed by other Funders but they are now going to have to get used to effectively capping their model at 50%. That may be an issue for them, it may not, but it is a new hurdle that MANO self imposed from the outset.

Yes Guvvi. They'll need to amend their agreements going forward. That will also impact their economics and business models because (as I understand it) DBAs are limited to 50% of the net returns, which was a major area of concern for the Supreme Court. Goodness knows how they re-negotiate all past agreements??? Nightmare. But this will all be horribly complicated so a proper lawyer needs to explain all this. I certainly dont qualify !

Exactly Guvvi - potentially renders all Litigation Funding Agreements unenforceable. Only firm not impacted by this will be Manolete (MANO) as it buys (rather than funds) its cases, which is a peculiarity of insolvency which MANO specialises in.

Lol - these guys spent the first 4 years as a UK listed Plc saying fair value accounting was the devil’s spawn….lmfao

Other law firms also up, Eg Knights +12% but they and RBG and DWF all down 75% from highs.

Rumour that DWF is going private so probably a read across to this....

Game over. Take what you can.

3 trades today....AIM is broken...