Member Info for laconic

Slushycat: first ever post and just repeating the same usual. unfounded scare tactics already discussed in detail today? Shorter looking to shake the tree further by any chance?

The price rise on Tues to me showed a lot of day traders anticipating a surge, all fully intending to get out immediately. As they brought the price down I think they took a lot of ill informed PIs with them. Who knows. Whilst the company is so poorly understood it's easy to shake the tree. If there was more chat on the forums about the company and less about short term share price movements, you'd hope the share price would become more robust. That said, it's a difficult company to put your head round... I've spent hundreds of hours and still feel there are some big gaps. I'm only prepared to because of the huge amount I've got invested. The company's reporting needs to improve in accessibility. Most people won't put in the time and will bail when short term prices go against them instead of concentrating on the *actual* value of the company (which has nothing to do with the share price).

Worth noting that each fund is a different structure. The BOF one (which should now be fully committed) was a different structure and probably will end up less lucrative overall. It's broken down in last years annual report but does take a bit of effort to fully get your head round. I missed it for a long time.

Dago: That's right. My understanding is that all the initial capital is paid back first and NOTHING comes out to BUR until that's done. Certainly with the SWF. That obviously hides value because, for instance, if you invest 50m for a return of 100m, the full 100m goes to pay capital even though 50m of it was profit and BUR's 60% share would technically be 30m. That 30m is lovely hidden value. How long before you generate enough returns to pay back the initial capital will depend on the size of the fund and how it's allocated. When it does though, profits should begin to flood out. That's my understanding anyway and why it's also worth keeping an eye on the group income figures, not just the BUR balance sheet ones.

Dago: Redeployments are afterwards. It must be the tax bill, admin expenses, US listing expenses that they mention - that will come out in the annual report. Remember also that a lot of gains came in the funds. With the waterfall structure you repay the capital first before the splitting profits. That means wins there currently make zero for BUR on paper. However, once the capital is repaid the payout begins. Lots of hidden value being accumilated there that people only looking at headline figures totally miss.

DrInvest123: Yup, it's that simple. If you don't want to have much risk, look to a fairly (or over) priced plodder that will give you a steady few percent a year. If you want to make big money, look for something the currently unloved by the market and people don't understand. Do huge amounts of reseach and make sure you understand it better than the masses. Buy as much as you can afford to. Switch off your screen and wait for the magic to happen. On that note... I'll see you all in a few months time...

Forensic: BUR balance sheet NAV is about $7 per share and without fair value adjustments (most of which are YPF) about $3.50. That's pure NAV. So if you want to get pessimistic and the market prices based on NAV you could reasonably estimate a 50% SP fall from a loss on Peterson. However, the potential upside from a win is multiples of NAV. Add that BUR is an ongoing business making huge ROIs on all its other cases and NAV probably isn't the best way to value the company and what do you come up with... a substantially undervalued company with Peterson a freebie...

That's exactly right. Peterson is the moonshot but (depending on your valuation method) not priced in. By my calculations it's pretty much a freebie at current SP levels. Not to mention that if you do some EV analysis on it you have to go pretty negative on the probabilities to come out with a loss. The balance sheet amount would need writing down but that's all. It would not cause BUR any monetary financial impact. You might get a short term hit to SP from a loss due to perceptions but the company is strong enough elsewhere to recover than plus more. However, any kind of a win and it's a massive win of the scales virtually unheard of in other companies. You need to factor in everything with this company, not headlines. Like every investment there's a risk. After hundreds of hours researching BUR I'm conviced the upside potential MASSIVELY outweighs the downside potential for those willing to grit their teeth and ignore day to day fluctuations. Reporting is an issue and lack of in depth understanding by investors a bigger one. Too many fragile investors ready to sell in a panic when a short or MM plays a little game. Rather than watching short term SP movements, it's worth researching *in depth*. You'll then see how many layers there are here and how strong BUR's position actually is. You'll then have the conviction to switch of your daily share price ticker and go away for a few years whilst BUR (hopefully) makes you rich.

So that's a no? Nothing consttuctive to add to a discussion on company fundamentals? All you've got to add to the debate is criticism of the fact it's listed on AIM and complaints about short term price movements? How about you start by explaining what calculation you used to derive the price of 600 you'd be happier to invest under (notwithstanding the fact it was actually there a couple of weeks ago and you evidently didn't)? Any actual substance behind that number or just pulled out of the air?

jdlse123: So nothing to say about the actual business then? I will agree AIM isn't the place for it. However, they're now on the NYSE too. Would personally prefer they pulled the plug on AIM entirely. However, it's the underlying company that counts long term.

Another reason it's unlikely is that American companies don't really favour dividends for tax reasons. Share buybacks seem to be a far more common route to achieve similar aims in a more tax efficient way. Much higher probability that would be BUR's favoured route in the event they ever had excess cash. So the kind people at BUR would do all your extra share buying for you and you wouldn't have to lift a finger ;-) Anyhow, all dreaming and speculation...

Next to zero chance. Firstly, the most liquid form of payment you could possibly hope to get from ARG would almost certainly be bonds - would either need selling at a big discount or the revenues would come in slowly. Second and more importantly, you wouldn't pay special divs with outstanding loans of your own, if you had any reasonable prospects for the money, etc, etc, etc, etc; wouldn't make any sense at all and only rewards those wanting a quick exit, not LTH.

My feeling is that Wirecard had an influence. There are plenty of people who haven't really done all that much research and things like that will make them nervy, especially with the backdrop of MW and that plenty of people bought in during the first Covid dip for a quick profit without being too interested in the longer term. Gladstone shaking the tree will un-nerve that section of holders too. With each shake the number of those will hopefully reduce a little and things will stabilise. BUR is always a bit volatile though - just have to accept that if you're happy that long term this has the *potential* to rise several fold.

I see yesterday's movements as Gladstone and market inspired. I think they've been trying really hard to break 500 for a while now. They thought yesterday was a good opportunity with the wider market dropping like a stone and increased their short by 0.12%. I suspect that's a similar thing as today helped by some flaky people who bought in low panicking and selling out (exactly what Gladstone want). Although after selling heavily this morning, who knows maybe they bought some at the lower price catching all the falling fruit. I'm beginning to be convinced that's all they want at the moment. When they start buying again in earnest and some of the more flaky holders have been shaken from their tree, hopefully we'll see some positive traction again.

Agreed - time to move on!

FFC: Thanks for the news link earlier. Do you get alerts from BUR themselves? I used to randomly get them (but not RNS alerts for some reason) but don't seem to anymore.

Would be interested to know if others do so I can resolve it. Good to at least get those next time I'm trying to avoid watching share prices...

GTX: No, that's not remotely the point.

Buying when you think something is undervalued and selling when you think it is no longer so and perhaps overvalued is entirely different. If he examined the fundamentals and thought BUR had become overvalued at 580 and sold fine. That's obviously perfectly rational if that was his opinion.

However, his comments did not remotely suggest that was the case. They suggested he just got sick of the share price volatility.

Addittionally, you weren't describing that. You were specifically referring to was selling then re-buying in a matter of days with no change in fundamentals and a very moderate change in price; that is most definitely speculation. Again valid if that's what he wants to do, but an entirely different mindset.

Pretty much every investment book I've come accross defines:
investor = buys shares believing the company will prosper long term
Speculator = buys or sells shares based on a guess (educated or otherwise) as to short term price movements regardless of company fundamentals.

So if TB on this occassion sold and bought back lower, well done. He got lucky or he's got great technical analysis skills or whatever. Maybe he ended up 10% or so up. However, there's always the risk that in the meantime something positive happens driving the price up 30%, 50%, 100% or more.

All I'm saying is that if it's a company you believe in long term it can backfire. It's happened to me.

Aside from that, there is a lot of whinging on here and other forums about price volatility (I seem to remember that TB did a lot himself). By selling with the hope of buying lower your adding to the problem. By lauding someone on here for having done it, you're inadvertantly encouraging people who perhaps don't have the same technical skills or good luck to do the same. It's not beneficial for long term shareholders.

Just my point of view. Everyone is entitled to their own.

GTX: Happy to accept your comments if you change the word "investor" for "speculator". Essentially shorting using your own shares puts you in the latter category. If you believe in the company and that it's under-valued on fundamentals, it's surely not worth the risk regardless how strong your technical analysis skills are. Not for a second saying that I've never been guilty of it... but I've learnt the hard way that you can miss out on a huge rise when an RNS drops by trying to get a few extra percent here and there.

I am baffled what Gladstone are doing. As you say, they've played with it a lot but this was a golden opportunity to close it. My (probably wrong) personal view is that they decided to close (at least some of it) but half way through decided to see if they could do it at a lower price. I was keeping an eye to see if they held the break below 500; if they had and managed to push it back down further I'd have been tempted to add a few more. Overall, I'm stupidly overweight here though - I'll use the opportunity if they do but am probably now hoping they don't.
Yoyoing the short in a share that's being volatile I can see the logic in. But continuing to close day after day in the upper 500s then selling in the low 500s just a few days later??? Best I've got is that it was a tactic that failed (really do hope it was that) or that in a matter of days they completely changed their minds on the fundamentals... that's the best I've got...

Yeah, I didn't submit a question but I did consider it on the takeover topic (and asking him to say that he and Jon would vote against it - 10% isn't insignificant). Despite big top ups over recent months I'd still be badly stung if that did happen. Was a little disappointed with the response on that one too.