Interactive Investor

Stockwatch: time to buy this small-cap share?

Strap in for more volatility when it comes to this company’s share price, says analyst Edmond Jackson.

15th August 2023 12:48

by Edmond Jackson from interactive investor

Share on

Upside for this share 600

Last April I drew attention to Burford Capital (LSE:BUR) at 870p as a medium-term speculative “buy” on the rationale that litigation finance outcomes were looking up. There was the benefit not only of a backlog of court cases during two years of Covid being heard and settled, but also a major one with Argentina.

The 2015 “Petersen” claims were coming to a head after the 2012 nationalisation of Argentine oil company YPF had left a group of minority shareholders without compensation relative to majority shareholder Repsol of Spain suing Argentina in 2014 and obtaining a $5 billion payout. The Petersen group had bought 25% of YPF on the New York Stock Exchange, making the case relevant to international property rights and the status of NYSE-listed assets.

At end-March, a summary judgment by an international court – albeit Argentina would say in New York and with an American judge – declared a complete win against Argentina with respect to liability, albeit damages to be determined.

The stock rose 27% over 1,100p by late May then profit-takers took it back near 900p by mid-July. Lately, it has been on a tear again, currently 1,110p. Commercial updates have been strong, although key interest remains the Petersen outcome; where a 26 to 28 July trial court hearing in New York brought together the various parties. Post-hearing briefs were submitted by both sides earlier this month, with a final judgment awaited.

It keeps in focus Burford potentially receiving $5 billion to $15 billion versus a current market value of £2.4 billion or $3.0 billion equivalent.

Eyes are on progress with Argentina’s general election

A big hope for investors is the 22 October election (with a possible 19 November second round) triggering a re-set for Argentina, where it recognises the necessity of resolving Petersen, like it has other legal battles, or otherwise face mounting interest due on money owed.

In a primary election last Sunday, there was a huge shake-up. Voters punished the two main political parties, promoting Javier Milei, a libertarian outsider candidate, into first place with nearly 31% of the vote, versus the main conservative opposition on 28% and the ruling Peronist coalition on 27%.

Milei is a Donald Trump-admiring nationalist who promises a “break with the past” of poor governing, which is responsible, he says, for inflation at over 115% and a cost-of-living crisis leaving four in 10 people in poverty. What might this imply for the Petersen claims? That radical nationalism tempers once in power to sort the matter out and move on? Or that it takes a defiant line, part-symbolically, quite as Trump rode high on “America First”?

While there was an aspect of protest vote to Sunday’s result, where voting in the primaries is obligatory for most adults, now that Milei is shown capable of winning, his strength might consolidate, even grow.

Paying the claims involves more public debt, where ironically Argentina has just borrowed $775 million from Qatar for a stop-gap repayment to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) despite its timetabling imminently to forward Argentina $7.5 billion. Quite whether that will be forthcoming, given that a radical nationalist is now lead candidate as president, but it has reached a stage anyway where it is more the IMF with a debt management problem than Argentina.

Argentina’s ratio of public debt to GDP is “only” expected around 73% at end-2023, compared with the UK’s over 100% currently and the US at near 123%. Yet there is a genuine debt service issue.

Might Argentina be compromised, realistically to pay (much of) the Petersen claims?

Last October, the Fitch agency added a minus sign to its CCC credit rating, citing “severe macroeconomic imbalances and limited external liquidity, which increasingly undermine repayment capacity as foreign currency debt service ramps up in the coming years”.

Fitch noted last June: “A default event of some sort appears probable in the coming years, regardless of upcoming elections...negotiating new external financing with the IMF will saddle the next government with even larger imbalances and socially painful policy trade-offs...”

That final aspect is pertinent now a “populist” presidential candidate leads the polls. Even if New York legal rulings continue comprehensively against Argentina, how realistic will it be to get financial settlement?

Burford equity may therefore remain volatile, especially if the next court verdict re-asserts value for its Petersen entitlements – much further rise, again being likely to see profit-taking.

Yet holders can take encouragement, a median scenario would be Argentina stringing out payments, with the not unreasonable excuse that it would otherwise risk social unrest. Burford might even opt to sell on its entitlement to remove uncertainty and gain a still substantial sum to re-deploy in attractive legal cases.

In terms of the risk/reward profile versus current share price levels, arguably it favours further medium-term upside – despite the volatility risk.

Underlying momentum looks strong, with scope to re-invest

Two years of court cases disrupted by Covid explain a volatile profits trend, where a slump from 2020 (see table) is expected this year to become $412 million (£425 million) net profit, for earnings per share (EPS) equivalent to 145p and a price/earnings (PE) multiple barely over seven times.

Burford Capital - financial summary
Year-end 31 Dec

Turnover ($ million)82103163343425366328217319
Net profit ($m)46.665.7109249318301143-28.830.5
Operating margin (%)62.174.972.379.880.974.063.730.760.8
Reported earnings per share (cents)22.231.552.912015113765.2-13.113.8
Normalised earnings per share (cents)22.231.554.812015114267.2-10.917.4
Operational cashflow per share (cents)-45.1-9.9-3.3-49.1-111-12524.5-267-210
Capital expenditure per share (cents)
Free cashflow per share (cents)-45.2-10.1-4.1-49.4-111-12524.5-267-210
Dividend per share (cents)
Return on capital employed (%)9.813.613.518.214.814.
Cash ($m)196217181176343187322180108
Net fixed assets ($m)3263717951,3382,1672,5093,1343,6074,154
Net debt $m)-58.4-86933474084893598541,159
Net assets ($m)3834345967991,3631,5331,7631,6961,743
Net assets per share (cents)187212286383623701805774797

Only a minor dividend is anticipated albeit 42p a share equivalent in respect of 2024 hence a circa 4% yield.

With the 2022 annual results last May, management contended that its portfolio “is at a turning point, with a potential increase in our realisation rate as more of our capital provision assets resolve. We expect to continue to see strong demand for our capital from tighter financial conditions and an unfolding economic downturn.”

A 13 June update then cited “extraordinary” first-quarter revenues. Capital provision income had more than doubled to $185 million like-for-like, with a six-fold increase in realised gains and a 41% advance in unrealised gains.

Separately, fair value gains from the favourable judgment on the Petersen claims drove a 238% advance in their capital provision, near $500 million.

“As an indicator of ongoing portfolio activity, an additional 12 case milestones have occurred since the 16 May update noted 28 milestones and expected 61 more through the remainder of the year.” 

The upshot was a 26 June update noting demand for Burford’s financing, outpacing the rate at which capital can be recycled from its concluded cases. Thus $400 million US debt was issued, maturing in 2031, while 6% bonds due 2024 were redeemed early given the lower cost of doing so given an increase in UK gilt yields.

This was after the 31 March balance sheet already showed $1.2 billion net debt. Despite higher interest rates, management contends that the use of debt optimises shareholder returns given this enables valuable legal cases to be backed and allowed to mature, [rather] than relying more on cash flows from cases concluded.  

Short sellers have thrown in the towel

Various hedge funds jumped on the bandwagon after Muddy Waters Research declared Burford “arguably insolvent” four years ago. Having halved from over 1,500p, the stock fell below 400p in the early 2020 market sell-off and several hedge funds sold short 1% to 2% of Burford’s issued share capital. Yet the remaining two – Kuvari and Gladstone – had closed out by last April.

It further reflects a positive risk/reward profile, so long as you can tolerate this stock’s volatility; sometimes for no apparent reason.

Amid the ongoing risk of higher interest rates harming the economy, Burford is again of interest as a contra-cyclical play, able to benefit as litigation rises in a downturn, and in need of funding.

Interims are due on Wednesday 13 September and there is a case to buy once again, ahead of the results and final court verdict on YPF. That depends on your risk appetite where Argentina is concerned, thus overall I conclude: Hold.

Edmond Jackson is a freelance contributor and not a direct employee of interactive investor.

These articles are provided for information purposes only.  Occasionally, an opinion about whether to buy or sell a specific investment may be provided by third parties.  The content is not intended to be a personal recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument or product, or to adopt any investment strategy as it is not provided based on an assessment of your investing knowledge and experience, your financial situation or your investment objectives. The value of your investments, and the income derived from them, may go down as well as up. You may not get back all the money that you invest. The investments referred to in this article may not be suitable for all investors, and if in doubt, an investor should seek advice from a qualified investment adviser.

Full performance can be found on the company or index summary page on the interactive investor website. Simply click on the company's or index name highlighted in the article.


We use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis in forming our view as to the valuation and prospects of an investment. Where relevant we have set out those particular matters we think are important in the above article, but further detail can be found here.

Please note that our article on this investment should not be considered to be a regular publication.

Details of all recommendations issued by ii during the previous 12-month period can be found here.

ii adheres to a strict code of conduct.  Contributors may hold shares or have other interests in companies included in these portfolios, which could create a conflict of interests. Contributors intending to write about any financial instruments in which they have an interest are required to disclose such interest to ii and in the article itself. ii will at all times consider whether such interest impairs the objectivity of the recommendation.

In addition, individuals involved in the production of investment articles are subject to a personal account dealing restriction, which prevents them from placing a transaction in the specified instrument(s) for a period before and for five working days after such publication. This is to avoid personal interests conflicting with the interests of the recipients of those investment articles.

Get more news and expert articles direct to your inbox