I do not hold OBL, but it is a stock I have in the past been...

I do not hold OBL, but it is a stock I have in the past been tempted to buy when it was IMF. I had no reason not to invest in IMF, but I did not. It is uncanny that you should mention OBL in this CCP subforum, because it was only days ago while fantasizing where CCP might invest its mounds of cash, that I thought of litigation funding. I have forgotten the ratio, but in the days of yore, for every X million that IMF hurled at litigation funding, it would get back 1.5X million, or whatever the ratio was. IMF was small, so selecting the right matters to fund relied on the skill of perhaps only one person, so my instincts suggest that it may be different in an international company.

Years ago I held another litigation stock, Slater & Gordon, and I tolerated its frequent acquisitions of law firms in Australia, because it gave the company a nation-wide presence, but at the point when shareholders could think of reaping the rewards, management branched into the UK. I formed the opinion that its Management was driven more by the ego trip than common sense, so I got out, and just as well.

Anyhow, I'll amuse myself, and have another peek at OBL.

Pulling this into a CCP theme, there are independent well-heeled investors that would cooperate with IMF on a case-by-case basis, so for them it was an opportunity to punt at good odds. Buying PDLs is in concept similar to contingency litigation, the buyer punts on making a profit for each PDL. However, a crucial difference is that with PDLs the Law of Large Numbers can exclude most of the risk. I think that Intrum, and perhaps Encore, have passive partners who invest in PDLs, or tranches of them, but this may not be the case - maybe they just buy bonds issued by these two companies.