Disclaimer: This interview is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. In Practise is an independent publisher and all opinions expressed by guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of In Practise.
Analyst 5: I think the way we've considered it from a risk standpoint is that it ties into what you're hinting at with current prices. The way we've thought about valuation, we segregate the core business from what we term as power law return cases. Then we adjust the returns in there and see what valuations emerge. Our thought process is that if you decrease returns on what we're labeling as core business, you can still reach valuations in the $10 range. So, when you're paying $13, you're already factoring in that returns can significantly decrease. You have these upside options with big cases, and then you have some of the embedded carry that's in the managed funds business because it's a European waterfall. From our perspective, it was pretty much that simple. You're not paying for a lot of upside options, even if returns decrease.
Analyst 5: I believe you have to consider it from a couple of perspectives. Firstly, what's the base rate of that occurrence? You can examine when the last major litigation finance firm was established and what its track record was. I believe that's one way to approach it. Secondly, is the sole reason for its existence merely the capital, or are there other components to the financing relationship that are significant? One thing I've tried to analyze and understand is that there seems to be an advantage in seeing more of these cases, particularly with settlements - and having reviewed all the Sysco documents, it's incredibly frustrating to see everything redacted - is Burford doesn't have the redacted files for that, so they almost have a proprietary database of settlement information. I'm unsure how long it would take for someone else to replicate that and how much of it you need to recreate to have the same ability to price or accept.
Analyst 5: That certainly could be, and that's where I haven't quite settled on it yet. Is it actually as much of an advantage as it might be?
Analyst 5: Yes, and I believe the only way you can definitively answer that question is if you find an insurance company that's saying, "Hey, we're willing to do this." They would need to have some sort of specialization in that and be willing to set up that type of product. But to frame the question, to assess the risk, let's just assume that this happens in year five and that the company enters runoff after that, based on whatever deployments have occurred from now until year five. Then they enter runoff. What's the business worth? As long as you're not down by 50 on that, is it really a significant concern? That's how I think about it.
Analyst 1: I have a thought on this. I don't have a specific answer, but consider other forms of capital, such as equity markets, venture capital, and private equity. These have been around a lot longer and things have sort of settled down to a base rate, as it were. You could argue that equity markets, GDP plus ROIC, plus whatever it is, plus valuation. Long term for the S&P 500 over 200 years is an 8%, 7%, 10% return, right? And you say, okay, what does equity investing sort of normalize around there? Or thereabouts, potentially.
Private equity? There are a lot of factors that go into this, but let's say valuations are reasonable just from, let's say, buying something at a low double-digit EBITDA multiple and a lot of debt and paying down the debt. You can come back into a 15% IRR with some variation and stuff. So with a lot of competition, maybe you can say that these two things will go to that.
The way I would think about answering your question, long term, is what are the structural constraints for this type of financing activity as a way that the returns could come down? I haven't really thought about what the answer might be, but that's how I would approach what's long term, perfect competition-based return.
Analyst 3: Yes, I believe when you consider them, you mentioned a law firm as potential competition. However, I don't think that's a concern because investing is an entirely different beast. It's one of the best barriers we could hope for, given the emotional energy and the character required to invest for five, 10 or 15 years. Anything is possible in the world, but I think it's highly unlikely that a law firm will develop that capability.
Analyst 3: They are breaking it into different parts. One owns the data, one owns the ability and the capital structure. I prefer my operations to be integrated. So, who is out there with a track record of doing it? And that's the other huge advantage of Burford that has the kind of capital it has. It's very permanent.
Analyst 6: Could you please illustrate the type of insurance product that would be a good replacement or substitute for the core litigation finance offering that Burford has?
Analyst 5: This doesn't necessarily apply to the core litigation, but it could factor in there. I believe if you consider Appian, it was the first time I'd seen it. Appian had a claim of upwards of, I think, a little over $2 billion against Pegasystems and won the initial claim. It was then going through appeal, but they were able to secure an insurance product that guaranteed them a payout of $500 million if it wins on appeal. So, if it wins on appeal and the judge awards only $500 million, the insurance doesn't pay out. However, if they only receive $300 million, the insurance will cover up to the $500 million.
Analyst 5: But the question is, if you think about insurance, it's an actuarial process. How much of the data can these new products actually use to look back and give an accurate actuarial prediction of how they should price this, given that now you have a confounding factor of the rise of litigation finance? So, historical numbers and cases may no longer apply.
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to access hundreds of interviews and primary research