Member Info for Thunder2040

TraderL, interesting take on it, but I put it to you, what does a half price sale usually do for demand? I would not read too much into it - if it looks cheap people will buy, if not, it remains here. Time will tell.

Potentially true, although he needs cash for redemptions that will no doubt flood in when the gate lifts. We have not had any TR1s from II's yet, so a lot of the recent action has been driven by PIs it seems - would partially explain the volatility seen today.

From the rhetoric on the conference call last week it appeared to me that a buy back was not the preference of the board, I think they would rather continue deployment of capital within the business - but at what SP that argument changes I do not know. The P/E and PEG both appeal to me at current SP.

It could be an II selling down direct to Dirs (as someone suggested) or to another II...I agree that the probability of a TR1 disclosure notice is increased. I also wonder what Woodford will do here, stick or twist.

Wasn't you. Anyway, lets digress. The Argentina election result's potential impact on Peterson case is of more interest to me if anyone has thoughts on that..

I will also share something else, as there is so much interest here. If you visit the London stock exchange website and the official trade log, all trades' flags are disclosed there:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/prices-and-markets/stocks/exchange-insight/trade-data.html?page=1&pageOffBook=0&fourWayKey=GG00B4L84979GGGBXAMSM&formName=frmRow&upToRow=50

Notice that some of the large late trades today are flagged SINT. This is a Systematic Internaliser trade.

'Traditionally, an SI would essentially be an investment firm that could match ‘buy and sell’ orders from clients in-house provided that they conform to certain criteria. Instead of sending orders to a central exchange such as the London Stock Exchange, a bank would then be able to match orders against its own book. So an SI firm is then able to compete directly with a stock exchange or automated dealing system.'

Think what was being referred to was the seeming lack of market know how, with comments about the UT etc.

Some people may find this useful:

https://help.stockopedia.com/technical-guide/prices/faqs/london-stock-exchange-quotes

Agree 1onic, its painful to read at times.

To add some balance, lets remember that shorting is currently legal, and you can see that when a company isn't fancied by the market the short interest often grows to well over 10%..we know the big names. So consider this - everyone has read all the publicity regarding Burford in the news the last few weeks, including other hedge funds that operate a short strat. They will have evaluated the merit of the claims. None of them have opened any new positions so far. Tells me all I need to know.

There are many new investors on here looking for a quick buck and the volatility is unpalatable - just hoping it blows over now as I really like the business model here... but that may be wishful thinking.

FCA involved now. This feels very serious to me. I hope MW are lawyered up because this could get very very ugly now.

Depolyed some serious legal firepower to represent there, glad they are taking it seriously. MW must be sweating off this. More important to me though is that we have all talked through the points in he report and drawn our own considered opinions...onwards and upwards.

I will add my view on the accounting:

The majority of income is BUR is from realised and unrealised gains on level 3 financial assets (no market inputs) held under IFRS 9 - Financial Instruments. If you want the details, look in the last published annual financial statements. The company is more akin to an investment fund holding relatively illiquid investments in cases, the valuation principles for which are discussed in the accounts but are likely to be sensitive in this field of business. As far as I can see the impact of IFRS15 (related to revenue contracts) is not significant and this is consistent with the disclosure of the impact given by BUR in the financial statements. The assets are assessed every 6 months and marked to market with FV movements taken to P&L - IFRS15 does not change this.

The alternative accounting treatment for the litigation assets discussed and applied by others in the field I believe, uses cost accounting -classifying investments as intangibles and recognising on the balance sheet at initial cost less charges for impairment. So you have a crazy situation with that treatment approach of potentially having material upside totally off balance sheet (as only realised gains at settlement are recognised), and a very lumpy P&L when this happens - which seems stupid to me. Venture Capital Funds or PE often hold investments at cost in their infancy as it best represents FV but will revalue up and down once indicators of the value are available. So BUR is no different here IMO and is transparent about what they do.

Approx 50% of gains recognised are unrealised, and 50% are realised (backed up by the cash from settlements in the CF statement). Given the rapid deployment of further capital to add new investments this does not seem unreasonable. The cash is flowing in from settlements and being reinvested. For me this gives some reassurance over the historic FVs ascribed to cases. Also, the valuations will be audited. I have seen people write some negative views about the value of audit - but I for one am confident that the valuations will be challenged in this process.

FYI the UT is the closing auction optimised price that matches as many trades as possible so that they can clear. Have a great weekend guys.

Closed at £8.50 as per the UT trade. No ifs, no buts. That is the close.

Congrats on bag Haroo!

There is not that much stock on loan for a squeeze IMO. Plus pretty easy to release more crap over the weekend to lower the re entry...so not sure about that, but who knows!

Don't try and beat a computer - lesson number 1. Just hold and relax.

Nice disciplined trade that Julian, but based on my read of the oil market this would probably be a safer bet than BP at the moment haha. GL

If you were on the call yesterday you will know buyback unlikely as they want to deploy capital within the business...more a tool to deter further shorting.

We have heard little from LTHs in recent days. Board is full of traders who will be in and out like yoyos. I would say that there are algo traders picking off those trying to play this short term...best strategy IMO is a buy and hold 6 month min. This is sctually a defensive stock...you can ride out brexit and the trade war in this share and come out the otherside far better off.