Article, page-26

I like everything you are saying Portfolio

I think I understand the need too. I think??

Tho' I wish it was IMF-Bentham that was saying so...

The IMF-Bentham clip is informative, but I can't see why investing in practitioners portfolio's has an advantage over a case by case analysis.

It is not as if IMF-Bentham is pressed for work.

In the past IMF-Bentham has always gone close to a legal interest in the merits of cases, and is in effect their announced value add as a listed entity RATHER than down the other fork, of simply being a financier operating in the finance space that legal convention & law prohibits operation (The situation/restraint I believe IMF-Bentham's Hong Kong's Vanguard is trying to scale)

They've never been very strict in the financing segment of their operations, and have for years charged client LCIP the cost of IMF - Betham 's debt in their outstanding balances, rather than at least the W.A.C.C implicit in the IMF-Bentham operation. A financier's benchmark. Perhaps not surprisingly, as their accounts often made figuring out/determing what their WACC is a bugger of an exercise, and of course the oscillating ebb and flow of funds flows did not help. I sometimes wonder if IMF-Bentham has had a clue as to what their WACC is?

The Fortress SPV does not clarify this for me, nor does the Ralph Sutton clip either. It seems that Fortress FIIG (NYSE) will be the greater source of operating funds, while IMF-Bentham will still seek to add operating legal value, of sorts, though diluted by portfolio assessment? But that is not exactly what either is saying?

I do feel that there is a sense of a race in the litigation funding universe. Do I correctly sense that operators in the game seem enthralled by the prospect of "staking claims" in the meter of the old mine entitlements circa the Clondike gold rushes, into this new litigation funding realm.

As if some critical litigation funding weight and space is essential.

Doubtless it does and is.

If history serves us - most starry eyed prospectors used to get tripped & trampled underfoot in those "title stake outs"?


--------------------------------------

I haven't looked at Burford's accounts in a while, and having glanced at them now (Y/E 2016) think I remember why I liked them.
A much easier accounting for a start, which allows me to go to the "gearing throat" figures. An area that is my intrigue in any asset assessment.

I must make some time to do so once more.