Gregmal

I had the same thing happen when doing a refi. There s a couple different things to consider. They base it on items that most people dont weigh consciously. Crap like how many sinks you have, capacity of your septic(probably not something you have to worry about), condition of various amenities, etc. I might have tried to contest it, however I had a town wide reassessment done the same year, and my assessment for that came in about 10-15% higher than my refi assessment. So I used the refi assessment to get the tax assessment lowered(about $2,000 in annual savings).

Hopefully not. They are already entitled enough as it is. Nothing will ever teach them responsibility. Working how/when you feel like it(only to complain about wages), daily trips to Starbucks, paying $9 for avocado toast... they're idiots.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/hamilton-thorne-announces-acquisition-planer-120133171.html

I added to this the other day at 3.20. If nothing else the drama around BUR has put into perspective how Bentham has been able to quietly go about business for nearly two decades, while posting similar, more easily verifiable returns. MW actually highlighted IMF as "how you should do your accounting".

Frankly, I dont think market manipulation should even be illegal as long as it is not companies/insiders/related parties. People should know what they are investing in. If you get freaked out by someone else's research, or see a large sell order and choose to sell, that's your prerogative, and no ones fault but your own. Thats like playing poker and saying no bluffing... Its bs. At the same time, there is a distinction between some of this behavior. Scummy doesn't mean illegal. The MW report was largely sensationalized, and cherry picked information. Nothing new was really presented, and as some have detailed, there are several instances where you can without a doubt see that they deliberately misrepresented things to bolster their case. But this is the stock market and the David Tepper quote I love the most rings true here..."when you enter into a securities transaction, you are betting the guy on the other side of the trade is an idiot"... Know your shit, understand your risk, and accept responsibility for the end results.

Once again I'd say this is just another sign of their inexperience. They likely mean well, with their intentions being in the right place; to defend the company and its shareholders, but they're wasting their time. What occurred was a sleazy, unethical, piece of shit, etc, move. Absolutely. Was it illegal? Probably not. Tough way for these guys to have their "welcome to Wall Street" moment. Just get back to work and keep making money for shareholders and if they do that, things will be fine.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/burford-capital-ltd--bur-/rns/evidence-of-market-manipulation-in-burford-shares/201908120700046828I/ Not your average "market manipulation" claim.

Well, to be honest I agree with the majority of what Gotham wrote. It doesnt really have much to do with Burford as it does a general approach to the markets, something that, if taken seriously, could actually provide helpful to Burford and its shareholders. Specifically in terms of their Burford observations: 1 a. agree b. dont think so c. will have to see, but this assumption would have to be largely predicated upon one's views of 1b. 2. I thought there was plenty of public scrutiny about Burford already, but nevertheless, if one thinks a business is interesting, I dont see it hurting to give it as much exposure as possible. Even if terrible exposure, such as this past week, if the investment has merits, I guarantee you a ton of experienced investors who had never looked at this space and BUR specifically, just did. 3 a. I see where he's coming from but at the same time there are limited ways to even respond to that. Further, lawyers are bound by extremely high ethics standards. That is not to say they all follow them, but their behaviors are extremely prone to unreasonable scrutiny do to oversight by various bar associations. b. agree c. agree d. agree 4. dont agree or disagree. Its opinion and relies largely on the way in which its managed, and the size of the obligations 5. 100% agree 6. for the most part, agree. I would also point out, the insinuation that Gotham has no "relation"(using that term loosely) to Muddy Waters is complete bullshit.

The US legal system that gave this guy a 12 month sentence for all of this the first time? The US legal system that regularly lets celebrities and pro athletes off clean for major drug offenses if they do a 6 month rehab stint? The US legal system that lets a cop annihilate someone on video and doesn't produce even a day of probation? The US legal system that allows financial professionals and public company executives to line their pockets and pay fines without admitting guilt or having to give back all the ill gotten gains? Add in the Clintons and many other super high profile people here, and you bet; I have ZERO confidence ANYTHING, EVER comes from any of this. They might find a few small chumps to go after just to say they did something, but that's it. Our legal system is a total disgrace. I stopped being shocked long ago. How many times the same drug/DUI/firearm offenses that ruin the life(or severely impair them) of the average citizen, while famous people like Rose McGowan, Pacman Jones, TI, etc get literally nothing, over and over and over... EDIT: I'll also add, those people I listed are just pee on level famous. The folks Epstein was involved with are Illuminati level elites...

Definitely another inside job. This tool, or someone who was likely involved in this, clearly had to have pulled some strings to get this guy in the position to off himself. How else does this happen after he already tried and failed, and thereafter was placed on suicide watch. Yet still manages to commit suicide...Justice will not be served here and a lot of horrible people are currently breathing a lot easier.

AYR. Earnings from the cannabis companies this quarter have been incredibly robust, so I like this ahead of numbers. The peer group trades 30x EBITDA so with AYR pretty easily punching out 80-100M EBIDTA NTM, I like my chances here.

Find an introducing full service brokerage firm that clears through Axos(formerly Cor) Clearing. You can buy all the obscure pink sheeters your heart desires over there.

LOL Certainly not doing much to extinguish the deliberate and coordinated market manipulation claims. Lets at least hope there is some new information here, good or bad. Expecting basically the same stuff, regurgitated and manipulated into more scare rhetoric. Maybe they will in fact have the nuts to speak with conviction, rather than parse everything with "maybe" and "potentially" and beat around the bush on fraud and insolvency... I will point out as well, that on the call, one thing that stuck out a couple times is that they definitely do seem a little inexperienced. In fact in relation to the question about the CFO/CEO relationship, they even kind of acknowledged "hey, we kind of grew a lot faster than maybe we expected. our focus was always on getting the work done and we didn't really care about titles. Elizabeth happened to be responsible for a lot of the traditional CFO work. So investors pressed us to bring in people and fill specific titles. And then now, people come back and attack us for giving people titles based on the work they do." Paraphrasing again

It wouldn't typically be held against you unless the claim is paid out. Although if you can get the roof put on there, its absolutely worth it. The small premium increase if anything can be looked at as a massively discounted, financed roof. Everyone I know has gotten their roof done through an insurance claim. I just got a new roof and unfortunately became the first person I know who paid out of pocket.

Perhaps I should clarify as I didn't intend to come off endorsing buying every one of these shit shows on a trade. I guess my point was that this was the first time Ive owned something that got hit like this, and it helped that Ive seen enough; done enough studying and observing, to confidently stay calm and execute according to the playbook when the situation occurred. Who knows how Burdford ends up longer term, but Im highly confident MW report has no bearing on BUR's future. The facts surrounding it indicate this was a stunt. If he felt like this was a future zero, he would have held it longer than a couple days, or at the very least, have said so.

How is this any different than guys who are long, pitch an idea at the Sohn conference, and then sell on the pop? There's a difference between expressing an opinion about a company and accusing one of fraud, unethical and even criminal behaviour with little more than conspiracy theories and deliberate misinterpretation of facts. Not to mention that fear and panic generates far greater movements in the market than does optimism. I just find it wholly ironic that a lot of these guys accuse their targets of unethical and shady behaviour when they engage in said behaviour in broad daylight. I think I may try looking at big announcements of these large short companies and investigating and thinking of buying after their short is announced. With Muddy Waters for instance the big red flag was the fact that they included 2018 and 20191H returns in the IRR. Anyone (including MW) who spends a day looking at the stock knew that most of those investments were only partially complete and the way 2018 and 2019 IRRs were presented was dishonest. The same thing happened with Citron and Jumia. There are lots of reasons to be short JMIA, but again some of the facts contained in their report were blatant misrepresentations. If you really think a company is problematic, you put out a short piece that acknowledges all the facts and wait for the long term to play out. This is how MW and Citron and others built their reputations, but now they are simply leaching off their glow of their former good calls, building reports that look damning but are really nothingburgers, and capturing a quick buck when the stock overreacts after announcement. Ive been following a lot of these guys for ages and seen hundreds of these short bombs. Out of all of them, only TWO, have gone down in a straight line and never recovered. One was a heavily, heavily illiquid Chinese reverse merger, and the other, a couple hours after the report they found the CEO trying to board a plane out of the country. Both crushed, then halted, then delisted to doughnutville. Every other company, think of all the poo-poo STMP, HIIQ, HLF, OPK, etc.... They all get crushed and then dead cat bounce, issue a rebuttal, rally a bit, then the short seller issues a statement and they level off.... AND they're all still around and trading. People just get sucked into the moment.

Yea, so check it out. This guy takes a short position of .71% for his account on 5 Aug. He leaks rumors and starts covering for likely a 10-15% gain on 6 Aug, covering ~20% of his position and I'd gander when shit comes out, he's out of almost all of his position within 2-3 days of the "investment". LOL In his defense, I did consider his report more of an "enlightening" attempt than an investment thesis. There really wasn't a lot of "this is going to happen", but moreso, "this is what they do". Sure he's still going around on TV and tweeting, but at this point its just about advertising for his firm and building an audience so he can continue generating these massive moves whenever he decides he needs some short term returns. Either way, people would be wise to study these mechanisms and learn how these kind of folks operate so they can play the game as well.

Link? I'll try to find it later but the FCA requires net short positions to be disclosed. One of my paper pushers told me the same thing this afternoon and I was like "I could have told you Block was covering(and probably even mostly out already) without ever having dedicated a minute to researching it. After a while you get familiar with how these guys operate. Its why it was easy to deduce he was short the day before as well". Although I was surprised to learn that apparently the MW short position wasn't even that big. To writsers point, thanks Carsten for speeding up my position build and allowing me an entry point I never thought we'd see.

Ive screwed around with a bunch of different diets and whatnot. What I found works for me was adjusting the diet based on what my life outlook was. IE in the summer a lot of BBQ and red meat + seafood. So a high fat low carb does the trick. Then maybe adjust into a Mediterranean into November. From there, given the bunch of holidays, Thanksgiving(one big meal), Xmas(one big meal), New Years(probably 5,000 calories worth of alcohol), intermittent fasting...maybe not for everyone, but does the trick for me.

How is this any different than guys who are long, pitch an idea at the Sohn conference, and then sell on the pop? He's not. They're all ethically challenged scumbags. Its one thing if you publicly support/bash/pitch something, give your logic, and then your target, and generally try to follow that. It s another when you deliberately present things in ways to take advantage of others and then sneakily orchestrate your scheme. Right so in this spot, you short something, leak who it is about, and then BEFORE EVEN PITCHING IT, COVER INTO YOUR OWN LEAKED RUMOR? And then the next day, release your info and do publicity tour rounds on tv boasting about how right you are and its the next Enron when you had spent the past couple days actually BUYING THE STOCK?

663.77p Up to 10% share repurchase is already authorised - prior to all this events afaik - by the board however they haven't made it clear in the call if they'll proceed with it or not. This was prior though I think. So lets say you had the insider purchases occur today(we did), but the board chooses not to go through with any repurchases. They listed the reason why it might not make sense on the call...which mirror what BX has said before too, but after recent events I dont buy it as a valid excuse. But lets say they dont. Pretty damning in terms of triangulating a rough idea of their idea of fair value IMO.

Par for the course for those types. Also drive leased cars and live paycheck to paycheck, aided of course by American Express.

I kind of read it differently and feel as though they've backed themselves into a corner with the repurchases. What price did the CEO/CIO buys occur? What is the market price. Do they authorize a share buyback? If no, then that raises a lot of questions.

For the most part they are repeating what is in their written rebuttal. They are taking a lot of questions, more than they really needed to. Overall, the call was confidence building for me (I'm long). They still don't want to uplist to the LSE, but they are looking at dual listing to NASDAQ. No indication they will replace the wife. The CIO sounds very confident, straight up said he had oversight of every single investment. As Gregmal mentioned, CEO and CIO bought $4 million in stock this morning. LOL yea. Holy shit already just end the call its getting counter productive. Analyst: "are there any other Petersens in there?"

Still ongoing. Some notes Buybacks are being considered up to 10% depending on where market settles. Only half of ~$750M commitments are expected to be utilized in next 12 months. Comfortable taking on more debt and preference vs issuing equity several hightlighted instances, particularly the Nantucket address, where Muddy Waters deliberately used information it knew to be erroneous in order to draw a self serving conclusion(the Nantucket address has nothing to do with BUR or Investco and out of numerous SEC filings by unrelated company, looked to be an erroneous typo on ONE) spoken with many of their important clients and most "view this for what it is". In fact "some of the laws firms who worked on the cases mentioned in the MW report, called us immediately and said this is totally wrong" see the benefit of a US dual listing but also dont want to react on emotion and make knee jerk react. Would like to continue evaluating the tangible benefits of such in relation to mark to market vs cash realized, historically, the difference has been small. biggest difference generally occur when "a judge indicates a favorable sentiment, and the jury ends up providing a very different decision themselves, which is rare"-paraphrasing there insolvency claim is a total joke. would have to ignore cash, receivables, current cases all being 0's, no more access to capital markets, and 100% of maturities, which ladder out from 2022-2026, all coming due today If I recall anything else or new stuff pops up will post