Molson Hart

this is my opinion, regardless of the integrity (or lack thereof) of a litigation finance firm's CEO/CFO. Theoretically this difficulty can have both bullish or bearish implications for the business. And of course in the wrong hands, poor results can easily be presented otherwise

BUR intrinsic value ( continued): do your scenarios based, monte carlo, real options , etc valuation approaches... pick your poison. you cant possibly have confidence in intrinsic value, whoever you are. the outcomes are chaotic (nonlinear dynamical sense).

you're a fool who doesn't you're a fool if your approach is: x litigations, assume average value in bull/bear/base case.. yeah, go about it that way, and you're a sucker.

the unknowability of litigation instrinsic value, (absent knowing the litigation outcomes, i.e. MNPI) can be both the bear and bull case for the stock.

aside from the recent batch of Burford skeptics, this man is the only person I'm aware in public forums, who has been asking the right questions about Burford since last year: @AdamB1438

We were seriously considering going public with our opinions and findings on Burford, in a big way, last year. for various reasons, we did not. That looks to have been likely a mistake, lol.

what is a (credible) long + fundamental case for BUR? I have some ideas, but I'm curious to know. This by the FT is meant as a joke (that fund's bur pitch is a huge joke):https://twitter.com/FTAlphaville/status/1159069266504814593 …

whatever trajectory the stock follows from here, I would hazard to guess that a huge sum (maybe all) of this "funny money" in the stock has been flushed out, is being flushed out.