Motley Fool Hidden Gems Investing - Robot Surgeons and Legal Financiers

Episode Date: January 10, 2024

The post-Covid surgery backlog is fueling Intuitive Surgical to strong preliminary earnings results, and the CEO of Burford Capital talks through their unique niche in the legal space. (00:21) Jason Moser and Dylan Lewis discuss: - The SEC’s pending decision on crypto spot ETFs and the agency’s X account getting hacked. - Potential regulations coming for the gig economy and workers that are heavily reliant on companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash. - An early earnings look for Intuitive Surgical, and why surgery activity has normalized post-COVID. (12:48) Burford Capital CEO Chris Bogart walks analyst Rich Griefner through the world of legal financing, his company's competitive advantages, and a high-stakes case with Argentina. Companies discussed: UBER, LYFT, DASH, AMXZN, BUR Host: Dylan Lewis Guests: Jason Moser, Rich Griefner, Engineers: Dan Boyd, Dez Jones Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New from Nespresso. Blend wellness into your coffee routine with the Coffee Plus range. Infused with functional benefits. Choose the coffee you love with added B vitamins. Like Coffee Plus B12 to help support immune function. And Coffee Plus B6 to keep your day moving. Or go with the flow and choose Ginseng Delight. Our new double espresso with ginseng extract.

Whatever lies ahead, don't change your morning. Let your morning change you. Discover Coffee Plus on Nespresso.com. Dylan Lewis. We're talking rules, rules, rules. Motley Fool Money starts now. I'm Dylan Lewis, and I'm joined in the studio by Motley Fool analyst Jason Moser. Jason, thanks for joining me! Jason Moser. Happy to be here! We've got a medtech company near all-time highs, a conversation with a business that

fits into the intersection of the legal system and financing. But, Jason, we're kicking off today with rules and regulations. Today is the SEC deadline to weigh in on one of several applications for a Bitcoin spot ETF. But the drama started a little early on this one. We had some interesting news yesterday about this. Yes, we did. It's funny, I've always said, anything manmade, at least in my mind, it's hackable, right? One of the arguments for crypto or Bitcoin is, it's this clear ledger and it's unhackable. The fraud, obviously, is not a problem. But clearly, somebody got hacked here in regard to this announcement. I wonder if that isn't just a foreshadowing

of what could eventually come here. But yeah, it seems like the SEC is meaning to figure out whether they want to approve this spot Bitcoin ETF structure. I think that they're going to do that. But you've got X saying one thing, you've got the SEC saying another. Somebody got hacked somewhere, and somehow this got out there. I don't know how it happened, but here we are. It does seem to me, though, that this is likely something that will be approved. Really, as a crypto skeptic, I'm not a crypto guy. Not that there's anything wrong with crypto. If that's your thing, that's cool, whatever. Don't at me on this one. But it is something where I think this type of structure, these spot ETFs, could bring

transparency to an industry that really does need it. I think approval of this will ultimately be a good thing and could make it maybe a bit more of a legitimate and understandable market for more investors. Yeah, if you are looking for official word on this, what we saw from the SEC on X yesterday, not actually from the SEC, their account was compromised, we will wait for the agency to officially weigh in and we should have word today. Unfortunately, we're taping a little bit early in the day, so we won't have their answer as we're having this conversation.

But I look at this, Jason, and I don't necessarily have a horse in the race when it comes to crypto, as obviously it's good for adoption if you're a bull on the crypto space. Even if you're not necessarily a crypto bull, I look at this and I say, if you're someone who is a fan of investors generally having more protection, generally having more safeguards with where they put their money, probably a good thing, too. Yeah, I think you're right. I agree there. Like I said, it's not something I'm terribly interested in. But from the perspective of bringing more transparency, more accessibility, I think that's a good thing. When you look at crypto now, in general, you have to jump

through some hoops to be a crypto investor. But it's becoming easier. I think the idea behind this right now is, for your everyday investor who's looking maybe to invest in a digital currency via their traditional brokerage, your options are limited. You're going through, ultimately, a futures-based Bitcoin ETF, for example, which is ultimately utilizing derivative contracts to come up with that pricing. It's just added layers of complexity. I guess it's just not as transparent as it could be. That's what we're hoping this decision could do, is ultimately bring more transparency to an industry that definitely needs it. As I mentioned, we're taping before the SEC's decision, so we won't know for sure

where this one's heading. But I will add the take that I think I always add when we see an incident like this, where regardless of the business or the security or whatever in the mix when it comes to a hack, basically an advertisement for identity management and cybersecurity companies. Oh, man. It's cybersecurity these days. It is such a hard space. That's probably a whole other show we could do just talking about that. It is just this ever-evolving threat that's never going to go away. You look at investing in something like cybersecurity, it can be really difficult. The companies that are doing really well today, they may

be rendered obsolete tomorrow. Honestly, when I look at investing in something like cybersecurity, I would probably opt for something like an ETF that gives you broad exposure to a number of the companies that are helping shape and advance the space. We're going to stick with the government theme here. The Biden administration is set to unveil some new rules affecting independent contractors and gig economy businesses. Jason, we're still waiting on full details for this, but the broad stroke that I'm seeing is, if contractors are economically dependent on a company, they will likely be entitled

to more benefits and legal protections from that business. Of course, as soon as you hear some of the elements of this and the themes here, head immediately goes to the gig economy businesses, the Ubers, the Lyfts, the DoorDashes of the world. What's the impact for a company like that? Well, I think for sure, the one guarantee from this is the lawyers are going to win. Because the decision that's made, it's going to go through the court system, and ultimately, that's probably going to take some time. This is an interesting one.

I look to Uber as the easy example to go by here and how this could impact a business. I recommended Uber in one of my services back in June of 2022. The stock is up 150% since then. One of the biggest risks at that time was that California Proposition 22, which essentially was this. This and that in a nutshell. I would be interested to know from the worker themselves, would you rather be a contractor or would you rather be a full-time employee? My guess is that it's going to vary. Some love the flexibility, some would love the certainty. I'm not sure ultimately how this

ends up. I think regardless for companies, it is something that, if they're required to maintain these employees as full-time employees and not contractors, and that pushes those costs up. Well, consumers are going to see that in higher prices. Your Uber bill is going to go up. Your Lyft bill is going to go up. Your DoorDash bill is going to go up. Then I look to the companies that can navigate these waters most effectively. I think that's where scale, I think that's where size really matters. You look at a company like Uber. Ultimately, it's not something that's specific to Uber. It's specific to any business that wants to employ this business model. You have to look to the biggest and the strongest as

the companies that will be able to manage those waters most effectively. If it does end up pushing costs up, then likely they'll pass at least some of that on to consumers. You just mentioned before that this has been the existential risk the entire time for companies that are operating in this space. I look at this, and I think you're right, I think the big companies continue to succeed and do very well. I also think, we've started to experience the convenience of this style of business. I don't know that higher costs are necessarily going to move consumers away from them. I don't think they will.

I think a time ago, it would have played more into the calculus. But I think that what we've seen over the last decade-plus, and really, I hold Amazon primarily responsible for this. and I'm not complaining. Listen, I love Amazon and the convenience that all of these companies offer us today. But they have done a tremendous job in helping us value things a little bit differently. It's not just about the lowest prices anymore. Convenience matters. Time matters. They've really hooked us on the convenience that a lot of their business models offer us, whether it's having something delivered to us or delivering us somewhere.

So, they got in, I think, early on, built up those user bases. Lyft, to a lesser extent, I think we've seen Uber rise above Lyft in that regard. But they've done a very good job of getting us hooked to the convenience. We were talking about pre-production. Now, this is wired behavior. That's that value. When you become a verb, and I need to Uber something or I need to Netflix something, there's a lot of power that comes with that, Pricing power included. I think it makes us focus a little bit less on the pricing and appreciate more the convenience that these models are offering us. We're going to wrap up our news roundup with a little bit of an earnings talk.

Last week on the radio show, we talked about how earnings season was ramping up. We don't have a full earnings picture from Intuitive Surgical yet, but we got some preliminary results this week. Strong market reaction to the results because they looked like a pretty strong indication of the quarter for the price. Yeah, I think this is, you know, what we're seeing is signs that things are, you know, getting back to a state of normal, particularly for a business like Intuitive. I mean, Intuitive, you know, being right there in hospitals, in medical facilities, I mean, those were places that really witnessed a lot of tumult here over the last few years

because of everything that we went through with COVID. it. We saw procedures put on hold, unless it's some type of life-saving procedure, but elective surgery really, really tanked. What we're seeing now, and we're seeing this certainly through the procedure growth, things are coming back around. Procedure growth for this quarter, up 21% from the same quarter a year ago. Procedures matter for a company like Intuitive Surgical. One of the beauties of this business model is having that big razor in the hospital, that razor and blade model, having that big razor in the hospital, and then selling those instruments and those accessories, the consumables that you need to actually make those machines work.

So, when procedures go up, then the sale of those accessories and those instruments go up as well. They've been able to witness a little pricing power on those as well, which which will help their margins, of course. As painful as it's been for them over the last several years, with procedure growth being so threatened, now we're starting to see things turn, procedure growth turning back around, which really has a number of ongoing positive effects for the business. I think, as we tape, shares up about 6% on these preliminary results. It's an interesting time to check in on this business because we are hitting a little bit of a COVID normalization, it seems, but also because at its

current valuation, we are getting close to all-time highs for this business. Again, this has been a growth story and a very future-forward story for a long time. Do you still see a lot of runway ahead of this business? I do. It is certainly a market that has become more competitive over the last several years as technology has proliferated and given other companies the opportunity to pursue this space. Their installed base is getting up there. They're closing in on 9,000 of the systems installed, whether it's DaVinci or this new Ion system that they have. That doesn't go on forever, particularly when you consider the competition in this space. The stock is not conventionally cheap.

I think it garners that multiple, somewhere in the neighborhood of 70-plus times earnings right now. It garners that multiple because of its top dog status in the space. I don't suspect that continues. We will see that growth start to slow down a little bit. We will see more competition enter the fray there. Naturally, as time goes on, we'll see that valuation start to pull back down. Maybe at some point, we start talking about Intuitive like we talked about Apple kind of making that transition from growth company to more staid sort of dividend payer. Maybe we'll get to that point with intuitive, but I don't think we're close. I don't think we're close to it yet. We'll check in certainly along the way.

Jason Moser, thanks for joining me today. Thank you. You just found out that your sales team is at risk of missing quota. Don't panic. Just ask Rippling AI. Since it's built on your real-time people and business data, Rippling AI can pull metrics from Rippling and Salesforce into a meeting-ready dashboard showing quota attainment, headcount plan, and monthly revenue to quota by region. In seconds, you'll see exactly what's behind your quota risk and fix it before it's missed. Question answered, action taken, crisis averted. When you have critical business questions that need answers, don't just file a ticket and wait weeks for an outdated report. Describe what you need and have

Rippling AI build it instantly from your live people and business data. Whether it's a dashboard with detailed charts or automated workflows with the right triggers, conditions, and approvals. Ready to rule your business? Head to rippling.ai slash fool to get the only AI built to give you full visibility and take complex actions across your entire organization. That's r-i-p-p-l-i-n-g dot a-i slash f-o-o-l. Sign up for exclusive access today. rippling.ai slash fool. Coming up, we don't talk about legal financing too much on the show because there's only one publicly traded company that does it. Motley Fool senior analyst Rich Griefner caught up with Chris Bogart, CEO of Burford Capital in early December for a conversation about his company's competitive

advantages in the space and a high stakes case with Argentina. Let's start at the start. Can you give me litigation finance, litigation funding 101? What is it? What problem does it solve? And what role does Burford play in the process? Yeah, absolutely. So litigation finance is basically specialty finance that looks at legal assets, claims, litigation matters, arbitrations, looks at those things as financeable assets. So when you think about a business, companies often have valuable claims that they're bringing. Sometimes it's against other companies. Sometimes it's in the context of a multi-company thing that has gone wrong. For example, companies that have been victims of price fixing. Those claims have value. You can think of them effectively as being

like contingent receivables. Just like any other financial asset that has value, you can organize a financing package around the value of those assets. That's exactly what we do. Now, why is that of interest to companies in particular? There are really two parts to that answer. One part is that spending operating cash, diverting operating cash from the purpose of your business and putting it into a collateral activity like litigation isn't the most value maximizing strategy for companies to engage in. You know, for example, I used to be the general counsel of Time Warner, the media group. So, Time Warner had lots of money. It wasn't a question of Time Warner not being able to pay for litigation if it wanted to bring it. But every dollar that we spent

on litigation was a dollar that we didn't spend making television or movies or publishing magazines. And ultimately, it's that core business, the business of publishing and making movies that investors want us to be engaged in. That's the business on which you get a multiple on your profits. Whereas being really good at collateral litigation doesn't get rewarded by investors and doesn't contribute to your market value in the same way. So, if you can get an alternative to paying your own operating cash for these collateral activities, whether it's litigation or something else that businesses do, you know, that's a value. And so, we help businesses take those costs off their P&L. We help them keep their operating cash to be devoted to the things that they really

are in the core business of doing. So, that's sort of part one. Part two is, especially in the world that we're in today, where there is more and more litigation, and that litigation can often be quite high value, these claims really do have significant future potential value. And as a result, they are assets that businesses can obtain financing against today, not only just to pay the costs of those cases, but also to generate today cash that businesses can turn around and use in their operating businesses. And so, we do that as well. We effectively monetize the future expected value of litigation today, and we give businesses cash against those values so that they can go and grow and hire employees and increase their profitability. Thank you for that overview.

That explains why litigation finance, legal finance, is beneficial to the corporation. How about from the law firm side? You also provide a benefit to the law firms. We do, because ultimately, most of the law firms that we work with are law firms that have an hourly fee business model. They charge clients for their time. Law firms don't really have access to the capital markets. You know, as you know, you can't go and buy stock in a U.S. law firm. It's not permitted for you to do that. And so, what that means from the law firm perspective is the only way for law firms to get capital into their business is by borrowing it from the bank. And they would prefer not to do that. They would prefer another more sophisticated

financial party like us to be in the market intermediating that capital. And they would just like to do the business of law. So, they're happy to have us accommodate the desires of companies for alternative fee arrangements while at the same time not having to go and become financial institutions themselves. And by the way, the investor side of that coin is that investors don't have very many good ways of getting exposure to the legal industry. And the legal industry is absolutely enormous. Globally, it's roughly the same size as the pharma industry. But as an investor, there are very few ways that you can go and get direct exposure to what's going on in that large and profitable industry, and Burford is one of those ways.

So, Burford co-founded in 2009, and the company has generated very consistently high returns on invested capital since that time. That suggests that you guys benefit from strong and sustainable competitive advantages. The company likes to call out four sources of competitive advantage, your scale, your brand, your expertise, and your data. And I was hoping we could just quickly, quickly touch on each of those four categories. So let's start with scale. Why is scale so important in this industry? Scale is important, but all of those advantages really link together and create a pretty substantial moat for Burford. Burford as the industry leader by a very significant margin, both in terms of pure scale, in other

words, the number of dollars of capital that we put out. We're sitting today with a portfolio that's north of $7 billion in size. We have more than 150 people spread around the world who do this work, many of whom are experienced former lawyers. What that does, you mentioned Goldman Sachs at the beginning of this conversation, when you look at a Goldman or a Blackstone or a KKR or a Morgan Stanley, those firms get a certain amount of business simply because of their size, scale, and presence. And we benefit from that as well. We're the known quantity in the legal industry. You'd be hard-pressed today to find a partner in a major law firm who doesn't know about us and doesn't know that our capital and our services are available for their clients.

So, those are the kinds of competitive advantages that we've built over the last 15 years, and they also lead to data. And data is a very significant competitive advantage for us that comes out of that combination of scale and longevity. The reason the data is important is because litigation is inherently risky. In any piece of litigation, there is idiosyncratic risk of a court, a judge, a jury not agreeing with your position and going in the opposite direction. And when that happens, you have a loss in the case. And when we have a loss in the case, we lose our capital. And so, trying to make the best quality investment decision that we possibly can is a significant part of what we do here. And one of the things about litigation,

of course, is that a fair bit of litigation resolves by settlement, by negotiated agreement between the parties, instead of by a case going all the way to trial. And settlements are usually confidential. And so, as a result, it's relatively hard, just based on public data, for you to get a good data set from which to make high-quality investment and analytical decisions. And what we have is the benefit now of, because, again, of our scale and longevity, the largest data set in the industry, which lets us, you know, apply significant quantitative rigor to our investment process and to make use of that data to improve our performance. So, we're now down, for example, to a loss rate across our portfolio of only about 9%, which is very low when you think of

of litigation being brought in large dollar cases where those cases are often pretty evenly matched. For folks who aren't familiar with this industry, you mentioned this a bit, the majority of cases will settle. So, about 70% of your cases settle. And when a case settles, Burford typically earns attractive returns with no real litigation risk. About 8% of your cases go to trial and Burford loses. And in that event, it's a near complete loss of capital. But there's there's about 21% of your cases that go to trial and Burford prevails. And that is where the real money comes in. You're looking to earn multi-bagger returns on your initial investment. So that's just an asymmetric characteristic of the industry. That's exactly right. And it's just common

sense when you think about it. Litigation is inherently risky. And so if you have a $10 million claim, you're not going to spend $10 million in legal fees to fight that claim. you're going to spend $10 million in legal fees only if you can get to $100 million in claim value. And so when we lose cases, yes, it's unpleasant to lose, but we're only losing the invested capital that we put into them, the $10 million in that example. When we win, we're capable of winning the entire claim, the $100 million in that example. And the settlements sort of fill in the middle range because settlements are an inherently discounted outcome because they're negotiated with the other side. The best example that we can provide

of a big outlier success is your YPF case. Ordinarily, Burford doesn't reveal much information about the cases in which it invests, but this is so public and so material to your results that you guys have discussed this quite a bit. I'm hoping, can we just do a one-minute overview? What is the YPF case? What's the brief history of it? Where do we stand now and what's next? YPF is a publicly traded energy company that's owned by the Argentine government. It was privatized a number of years ago. Argentina then renationalized it. As it renationalized it, it breached its promises to shareholders to tender for their stock in YPF. As a result of that, large holders in the stock suffered

financial distress because the share price collapsed. In particular, our clients, the Peterson clients went bankrupt and we were appointed by the Spanish Bankruptcy Court to try to get relief for their creditors. In doing so, we brought a case on behalf of those creditors in federal court in New York. That case has gone all the way through the trial process and ultimately produced a final judgment that is now on appeal. That final judgment in the trial court was for a little bit over $16 billion. And the reason that number is so high is simply because YPF was worth a lot, and there is a formula for calculating that tender offer price that Argentina simply didn't pay. So, all the court did, ultimately, was

find that both Argentina was liable, and the court used the formula to calculate the tender offer price. And you guys have been working on this case for eight or nine years now. You mentioned Argentina has found liable for about $16 billion in damages. Of that amount, Burford is owed a bit more than $6 billion, which is more than double the company's market cap. The market is obviously skeptical about your ability to actually collect cash from Argentina. I know you probably don't want to say too much here, but is there anything you could share that might give us some insight into your ability to enforce that judgment against Argentina?

Well, I think it's not so much a question of enforcing the judgment, but we do a lot of judgment enforcement around the world. And one of the characteristics of enforcing judgments is that that is a process that inherently discounts the face value of those judgments. And so even though you've got a judgment sitting there for $16 billion, ultimately, you'd expect that judgment to be paid through a negotiated process with Argentina. And that negotiation is going to result in a discount to that face value. I don't know if you can comment on this or not. Argentina's got a new president.

Is there anything you can say about how that might impact your ability to collect? Well, only just to say, you know, it's obviously early days. The new president isn't even in office. yet. But only to say that during the course of the presidential campaign, this judgment, because of its size, did come up, and the new government's position was Argentina needs to take care of its debts. As always, people on the program may own stocks mentioned, and The Motley Fool may have formal recommendations for or against, so don't buy or sell anything based solely on what you hear.

I'm Dylan Lewis. Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.