Juridica Live Discussion

eagle51 21 Mar 2015

Re: IC comment Investors' Chronicle have forgotten to convert the dollar value of net assets into pounds. The current share price is bang on NAV, as it usually is because JIL doesn't seek to dis-appraise the markets about its real status - which isn't that of an investment trust, even though, as an investment company, it finds itself grouped in that industry category.The above (IC's clueless mistake) shows just how valueless these so-called 'analysts' are. They are often spivs in their twenties or 30s who don't know their a.rses from their elbows, have virtually no training or experience in a field they claim to be experts in and are over-rewarded to a gross extent for their pitiful views and recommendations.The more I think about the situation here, the less I like it. Shareholders have been treated with contempt. The lack of clarity about future company income is an insult in a year in which £20m or so has been paid to people who take no risk (although we knew about it in advance) looks horrible when seen in context. Expect a lot more of the same; maybe even two lots of 'hurdle beater' commission - one to the old lot and another to the new lot (is Field behind both lots?).I feel as if I'm caught up in a scam but will reflect and make a decision after I have calme down a bit. I hate being taken for a mug. Sorry to have been wrong in earlier assessments - it sometimes takes a while for all the facts to become clear and to sink in. JIL is a real winner, although I suspect not necessarily for shareholders.

delyss 21 Mar 2015

IC comment The IC's recent comment (always to be taken with a pinch of salt) includes: "The complexity of the business explains why Juridica's shares trade at barely two-thirds of book value. Realisations are also lumpy and earnings visibility low. But the huge dividend, more than twice covered by net cash proceeds, more than makes up for those defects. We reiterate our long-standing buy call"I like it for its lack of correlation with the FTSE, not to mention the past dividends.

Randlord 18 Mar 2015

recent news Thanks to all for the detailed analysis - in light of all I have reconsidered my view and have decided to bail out. The charges look high now and the lack of transparency alluded to scares me.........it may yet come good - but the upside looks to be capped by high charges.

Greyinvestor 18 Mar 2015

JIL v BUR BUR results out today, and they look pretty good at first glance, although lower yielding than JIL.

Greyinvestor 18 Mar 2015

My comments I must admit that I sold out of JIL a couple of months ago, and then looked at buying back in again yesterday. What influenced me to sell was two things; the fact that the new investment manager was non exclusive, so just how sure can JIL be that it will get the good cases, and b) the text below which seemed to indicate that no performance fee had been provided for, even though one might well be earned, and the fee had been reduced considerably for the future. It just felt a bit uncomfortable to me, and I have previously bailed out of companies where I consider payments to be excessive. Interestingly, history proves that I would have been better off staying in!So now there is a big fee payable, and the manager will have claimed as much as possible because it is the end of their reign. They ceased to be manager a while ago, but are still on an 'earn out'.As to the future, it seems to be on typical hedge fund terms; 2% plus 20%.So from next year on this is what it looks like; a hedge fund, managed by a third party manager, investing in legal cases. I'm thinking about whether I wish to reinvest...................Cut from the half year report.a. Management feeJAML replaced JCML as investment manager, effective 1 January 2014. From this date, JAML is entitled to a management fee of 2 per cent of the adjusted net asset value of the Company. The adjusted net asset value is the net asset value of the Company at the relevant time and will be calculated, after accruing for the annual management fee but not taking into account any liability of the Company for accrued performance fees, and afteri) deducting any unrealised gains on non-current assets; and(ii) adding the amount of any write downs with respect to contractual interests which have not been written off. Management fees for the period ended 30 June 2014 are US$2,260,692 (30 June 2013: US$2,532,425 payable to JCML), and the amount which remains payable to JAML as at 30 June 2014 is US$Nil (31 December 2013: US$Nil, due from JCML US$18,506). b. Performance feeUnder the terms of the Management Agreement, JCML, as Investment Manager, had been entitled to a performance fee based on the adjusted net asset value ("ANAV" (being the NAV of the Company before taking into account any performance fee payable less any unrealised gains on investments plus the value of any write downs in any investments that have been written down but not written off) of the Company. The performance fee payable was for an amount equal to the sum of: (i) 20 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 8 per cent annually compounding hurdle but was less than an amount equal to a 20 per cent annually compounding hurdle; (ii) 35 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 20 per cent annually compounding hurdle but was less than an amount equal to a 40 per cent annually compounding hurdle; and (iii) 50 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 40 per cent annually compounding hurdle. The performance fee was subject to a high water mark such that no performance fee will be paid if the performance of the Company does not exceed the NAV at the end of the previous year in which the performance fee was paid. As at 30 June 2014, the minimum hurdle rate (which is based on the adjusted net asset value) was not achieved. Therefore, no performance fee was paid or payable for the period ended 30 June 2014 (30 June 2013: US$Nil; 31 December 2013: US$Nil), and no accrual for performance fee has been recognised as at 30 June 2014 (31 December 2013: US$Nil). However, the current net asset value (unadjusted) is greater than the minimum hurdle rate as at 30 June 2014. To the extent that this net asset value is realised, a performance fee will become payable in respect of future financial periods. JCML will continue to be entitled to a performance fee in the future in respect of investments made prior t

Ru 8746 18 Mar 2015

Re: Is JIL a UCIS? Hey delyss,My reaction would be to consider changing stockbrokers. If they're execution-only, I can't see why they'd have a problem holding whatever you were minded to buy. If, however, you asked them for advice on buying or selling JIL and they declined to give it, fair enough. (But then I'd consider how much their restricted advice is worth to you!All the best,

eagle51 18 Mar 2015

Re: Is JIL a UCIS? delyss - you say: "Our stockbroker has written: "From the new published regulatory guidance, our Regulator now classifies Juridica as a UCIS".Can you clarify what you mean by: "our stockbroker" and "our regulator".What are you quoting from? I haven't read the whole of what was published (so far, although I will do when I have the time and the inclination).

delyss 17 Mar 2015

Is JIL a UCIS? Our stockbroker has written: "From the new published regulatory guidance, our Regulator now classifies Juridica as a UCIS. An "Unregulated Collective Investment Scheme”, is a collective investment scheme where the operator has not applied for or obtained FCA authorised or recognised scheme status. UCIS may not be promoted to the general public. The situation surrounding UCIS is complex and detailed and the Regulator’s position makes it difficult for us as a Regulated business, to hold these investments for regulated clients."Has anyone else come up against this, and what was your reaction?

eagle51 17 Mar 2015

Re: Doesn't Look Good The market slavishly follows NAV. No surprises there. Disappointing? Worrying, more like. The financial world and his cousin seem to have their noses in the trough here.That said, I'm not sure I understand the numbers and have a couple of calls out to ask for some explanations. The so called 'performance fee' in 2014 was $14m+ (for taking the risk of investing other people's money, by doing what you're supposed to and are paid generously for anyway - which is to invest in cases and products that are more likely to do well than not). The way I read it it's supposed to be calculated at 20% of the amount above 8% YoY increase in net assets (broadly speaking). So if the fee is $14m+, where's the $70m (+8% YoY) increase? I can't see it - can anyone else? I've set out below the explanatory note on the subject.Ooky - I hear what you say about good dividends but I've got an average of about 135p on my c.50k shares and it's no good to me if I get a dividend of 20p and lose more than this each time the results come out, because so many (so called) professionals are helping themselves to my money. £16m of expenses, leaving shareholders with a loss of £3m and a woolly statement about future performance is no good to man or beast. I wonder what directors' expenses of near enough £100k were about? The company seems to have lost touch with reality and has the feel of a 'feeding frenzy for those in the kitchen' about it. In 2014, management and performance fees paid to companies which (I believe) Richard Fields controls exceeded the increase in value of JIL's investments (see 'Statement of Comprehensive Income).[link] feel distinctly uncomfortable after reading today's news and unless I can resolve this I will exit at the first sensible opportunity. I hate greed and am surprised to see it in such an obvious form here so soon (relatively speaking) after investing.I'll report back if I learn anything new assuming the company's advisors can be bothered to phone me back (I tried 3 and all were said to be 'in meetings').From today's accounts:"Performance feeUnder the terms of the Management Agreement, JCML, as Investment Manager, was entitled to a performance fee based on the adjusted net asset value ("ANAV" (being the NAV of the Company before taking into account any performance fee payable less any unrealised gains on investments plus the value of any write downs in any investments that have been written down but not written off) of the Company. The performance fee payable was for an amount equal to the sum of: (i) 20 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 8 per cent annually compounding hurdle but was less than an amount equal to a 20 per cent annually compounding hurdle; (ii) 35 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 20 per cent annually compounding hurdle but was less than an amount equal to a 40 per cent annually compounding hurdle; and (iii) 50 per cent of the amount by which the ANAV exceeded a 40 per cent annually compounding hurdle. The performance fee was subject to a high water mark such that no performance fee will be paid if the performance of the Company does not exceed the NAV at the end of the previous year in which the performance fee was paid. As at 31 December 2014, the minimum hurdle rate (which is based on the adjusted net asset value) had been achieved on investments attributable to JCML. A performance fee was payable to JCML of US$14,511,058 for the year ended 31 December 2014 (31 December 2013: US$Nil), of which US$14,511,058 remained payable at the year end (31 December 2013: US$Nil). JCML will continue to be entitled to a performance fee in the future in respect of investments made prior to the termination of its appointment on 31 December 2013. JAML replaced JCML as Investment Manager with effect from 1 January 2014. For financial periods following this date, any performance fee payable on in

Randlord 17 Mar 2015

Re: Doesn't Look Good I don't think there is anything new in these results.The management charges which resulted in the loss have been well flagged.Have I missed something?

ookyfly 17 Mar 2015

Re: Doesn't Look Good I am very happy with my investment in Juridica, which has lined my pocket rather handsomely without any effort whatsoever on my part.Coming from a parasite investor, I think Loadadosh's comment about lawyers lining thrir pockets is a bit rich.Btw, I am not a lawyer myself, just an investor and rentier.

Guitarsolo 17 Mar 2015

Re: Doesn't Look Good Loadsadosh, does it really surprise you that lawyers will line their own pockets? I don't think it is possible as a private investor to be able to carefully analyse the case book of JIL. We don't have access to the case details (or in my case the US legal knowledge) to be able to assess the cases in which JIL has invested to predict the outcomes. On that basis, any investment in JIL is done rather blind. We have no way of knowing about the future dividends either. One can only hope they will be similar to previous years (excluding last year's 20p special), perhaps 8p if we're lucky? If you want to hold JIL I would suggest you keep your investment modest, or be happy with being a blind investor!GS - a modest holder from about current prices anyway.

LoadsaDosh2 17 Mar 2015

Doesn't Look Good Lawyers lining their pockets now! A very poor set of results.

fabrav 21 Jan 2015

Dividend on a dividend payout, Juridica is certainly better than Burford.

eagle51 12 Dec 2014

Re: SP Opened a short spread bet, have we, lambrini girl? Are you sure this is a clever move? Do you know something more about JIL's NAV than the market does (this is a hoot coming from me)?Who are you expecting to panic into selling? Scary otherwise.