Open Orphan Share Chat (ORPH)

Earache do you have brain ache as well, You seem to like arguing when you are shown to be wrong, do you think that will change the outcome?
You are conflating the total value for ORPH, against the value of 1 share in Hvivo and what that would be valued now.

Your egg analogy is completely wrong too, it doesn't matter if you add a billion eggs to your lot, if the price is still 26p per egg.

You're posting incorrections, thats the problem.

he maybe mega boring but he ain’t a clear thinking poster .

Adding eggs together = scrambled

Best try smother analogy.
Just try less than 200 character posts for all our sanity even it it’s carp

No I'm not Warren, and I agree that this has gone far enough, but when people perpetuate an argument from a wrong base, insist that black is white and abuse me for posting the correction then it's come to something. I'd no intention of hogging the BB but I'll always stand my corner. You're right, I should have left them in the wrong. ATB.

youre creating a strawman argument, earache. He was talking specifically about HVO holders and what their holding would now be worth, compared to last year. No one is saying HVO is still about, no one is saying venn is worthless or the countless other ramblings you are getting worked up about. If you had £10k of HVO shares on 26th Jan last year, then they were worth £55k on the same date in 2021.

Dont lose sight of the statement YOU had a problem with and make it about something else, nothing in the below is wrong:

"Why do some people think hVivo shareholders have only got a return of 70% on the ORPH takeover? Closing HVO price the day before the takeover was 11.62 and each HVO share got 2.47 ORPH shares. Therefore 11.62p is now worth 2.47 x 26p = 64.22p. By my calculations that’s a gain of 453% in a year."

For f—-s sake earache, are you a mathamaticián, life is too short.
GLA.

Hi MS. I'm bored stiff with this now. ORPH was worth 26p in January. He's trying to argue the current value of the old HVO shares that no longer exist. He's claiming hVIVO has increased in value by 450% or whatever. Wrong, wrong and wrong again. OO was worth 26p in January and hVIVO is just part of OO. So is VENN worth nothing? Is CF worth nothing to the sp? Has hVIVO accrued OO's entire value increase on its own? That's what he's trying to argue.

Half a dozen eggs used to cost £1.00. They were then put in a box with another half dozen so the cost of that box of a dozen eggs is £2.00. Have the first half dozen doubled in value and are now worth £2.00 all on their own and the others worth nothing? Of course not. A year later eggs have gone up and a dozen now costs £3.00. Is that first half dozen now worth £3.00? Has it gone up 200% while the other half of the box remains flat at £1.00? Of course not.

This is why you can't relate the old HVO sp to the current ORPH sp, why you can't attach an equivalent (separate) current value to hVIVO within the OO entity, why you can't make a direct comparison with the old HVO to calculate a %age increase and why you can't ignore we are a completely different company now. Apples and pears, as I said.

He's just mischief making and you've fallen for it.

Forget 11.2 x 2.47 and all that smoke and mirrors. It's wrong. Forget any HVO link to the present. The offer gave HVO holders an immediate sp uplift of 33.8%, so 15.56p per share in the old HVO world but 6.3p per share in the new ORPH world. 2.47 x 6.3 = 15.56; 2.47 ORPH to 1 HVO ergo equivalence.

If it were true that the old HVO share is now worth 64.22p, and just suppose for the sake of drawing this to a close hVIVO was worth the full 26p, then he's saying that since the merger hVIVO has lost 60% of its value. Right? Hardly an uplift of 450%. If hVIVO is half of OO then it's lost 80%. That won't attract much credibility here!

hVIVO had approx 83m shares in issue pre merger (from the Offer RNS, 72.5m shares represented 87% of shares in issue) so 83 x 2.47 gives you 205.8m ORPH shares. Right?

Since then another 204m ORPH shares have been issued taking our current total to 669m. That means there were 465m in issue post merger at 6.3p (15.56/2.47) valuing OO at £29.3m. hVIVO's 205.8m represented some 44% of that valuing hVIVO at approx £12.96m, up from its pre-offer value of £9.59m. https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ORPH/offer-update-0f2ebhb4sv2tvts.html

In January 2021, OO at 26p had an Mcap of 669m x 0.26 = £174m so hVIVO's 44% of that (if that remains the value ratio) could be said to be worth £76m giving a near 600% uplift from £12.96m. A far cry from a 60% or 80% loss per old HVO share. Staggering, eh?

Now if you think those maths are crap or that 11.62 x 2.47 is the correct methodology then you need to apologise on your way to night school.

Earache, honestly find it staggering you are trying to argue the toss on the maths of this one. The 15.5 price is factoring the premium that was paid on the share price as part of the deal, Hvo holders before the deal was announced were sitting on about 11.62p per share and as a result of the offer and subsequent takeover, each share rose by about about 450%, why can't you understand that?! It's baffling and so simple to understand. Without the offer, the 15.5 doesn't exist so why are you using that figure instead of the actual share price at the time before the offer?

You spout so much crap on this board, but like the other guy said, arguing 1+1 =3 is a new low for you, it's not even disputable when it's just simple maths

Ignore me, I’m wrong. Too much wine last night. 453% is correct. I need to rest my brain after reading this conversation!

The gains actually 553% - 64.22/11.62=5.53. Just saying, lol.

Enjoy your Sunday all.

Good morning Earache, this is definitely my last post on the subject. I’m sure the BB has had enough of our debate by now!

Our second discussion relates to the ability of an insider (CF) to escape the long arm of the regulator by first placing his personal investment funds inside a limited company. I’m not going to be able to convince you that you are wrong without engaging a high powered battalion of lawyers so we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

However, on our first point you are 100% wrong, bigly. Mathematics doesn’t lie and you can’t argue that 1+1=3. A hVivo shareholder had something worth 11.62p the day before Open Orphan offered to buy the company. In Jan 2021 they had something worth 64.22p. That’s it, end of story. You are only embarrassing yourself with incoherent rantings trying to convince yourself that black is white.

Regards, Rod.

I think you need to get things into perspective a bit Earache - lengthy posts at all hours. It's just an anonymous chat board. For goodness sake stop taking it so seriously.

Jeez. You been drinking or what? And you can keep your silly sarcasm.

If you want to quote the RNS then use the correct figures or none at all. The deal valued HVO shares at 15.56p which was equivalent, at the time, to 2.47 x the ORPH share price. 11.62p never came into it and there is no relationship between 2.47 and 11.62p. If you really insist on multiplying something by 2.47 then try ORPH's sp at merger time.

Open Orphan - all of it including Venn - has done well since Jan 2020 as reflected in our sp and of that there is no doubt, but no way has hVIVO "gained 453% in a year" as you claim. Just to remind you: "Why do some people think hVivo shareholders have only got a return of 70% on the ORPH takeover? Closing HVO price the day before the takeover was 11.62 and each HVO share got 2.47 ORPH shares. Therefore 11.62p is now worth 2.47 x 26p = 64.22p. By my calculations that’s a gain of 453% in a year."

I say again, you can not value hVIVO separately. You can not exclude Venn Sciences nor any other OO revenue stream from OO's Mcap and sp. You can not attribute an overall %age rise to a singular part of the company. Aside from using figures that are at variance with those in the RNS, that's why your post was and still is wrong.

I also said I'd no idea why you joined the lse chat room on 20th November and waited until 15th January for this, your debut post, in response to posts from Jimzi and Bronx. What's your agenda? You seem to enjoy and perpetuate argument for the sake of it but with a closed mind, a denial of logic and fact. You wanted to continue the debate but that's not debating; that's a stubborn refusal to consider that the other side could actually be right.

And what's all this about? "my posts from yesterday were not attacking CF. In fact, I’m in love with CF and I think he’s going to make me very rich! I was merely pointing out that using a limited company as a vehicle for his personal investments would not protect him from pesky regulators."

You know more about these things than CF then, eh? The difference was pointed out to you, info links were suggested, yet again you won't accept you might be wrong and want to argue about it. Further discussion on anything is pointless. I rarely use it but it's the bin for you.

MS. I note you came back with comment and no probs with that from me, but he and I are not saying the same thing at all. I hope you can see that now. The whole conversation started with him banging on about CF insider trading thus proving he hadn't a clue what he was talking about. I explain the score, he admits he knows nothing of the structure of Raglan yet still argues the toss talking a load of ****** about CF's wife being CF "and it is probably safe to assume" Raglan is CF for law enforcement purposes, etc. An argumentative know all who, imo, knows feck all but support him if you want.

Earache, you do realise:

"If each HVO share of 11.62p (or 15.56p) was worth 2.47 ORPH shares then following the merger each of the converted shares was worth 11.62/2.47 = 4.70p ... That's your starting point if want to compare ORPH then with ORPH now, but leave HVO out of it. It's gone."

....equals +453% right? Exactly what Rod said, just processed in a different order? Youve basically had a go at his maths then proved him right.

"leave HVO out of it. It's gone."

literally the whole basis for the conversation was to say how much better HVO holders were from the final day to the 26p in Jan 2021, so why would you call him up on the calcs then say that?

It’s getting silly now. Your last post is contradictory but let’s assume that we are agreed that you now hold 2.47 ORPH shares instead of 1 HVO share. There’s a really big hint in the offer RNS “Under the terms of the Offer, hVIVO Shareholders will be entitled to receive 2.47 New Open Orphan Shares for every one hVIVO Share”. That’s the numerical difference in old shares v new shares. Would you care to put a monetary value on those 2.47 ORPH shares if, say, a single ORPH share was trading at 26p in Jan 2021?

No. Because in Jan 2021 you have one ORPH at 26p not 2.47 at 26p. As I said, forget HVO. You now hold 2.47 the quantity of ORPH shares than you did HVO shares but that's a numerical difference, not a monetary one.

All clear now!!!! FFS. And who are the three numpties who recc'd your calcs???

Thanks for the reply Earache, let’s try and simplify this, shall we?

Dec 2019 You have 1 HVO share which you can sell for 11.62p
Jan 2020 You get 2.47 ORPH shares in exchange for your 1 HVO share
Jan 2021 You sell your 2.47 ORPH shares @ 26p each = sales proceeds 64.22p
Profit to you is 52.60p or 453% of your original holding 11.62p

All clear now?

MS and Rod. Re the calcs., and I assume the 26p refers to ORPH's sp on the Jan '20 date of post.

First have a look at HVO's 3 year chart from last January to set the scene. hVIVO had been in serious decline for ages: https://www.lse.co.uk/SharePrice.asp?shareprice=HVO&share=Hvivo-Plc

Now check the Offer Update: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ORPH/offer-update-0f2ebhb4sv2tvts.html
"Under the terms of the Offer, hVIVO Shareholders will be entitled to receive 2.47 New Open Orphan Shares for every one hVIVO Share. The Offer represents a value of approximately 15.56 pence per hVIVO Share and a premium of 33.8 per cent. based upon the hVIVO Closing Price on 6 December 2019, being the last practicable date prior to announcement of the Offer, valuing hVIVO at approximately £12.96 million."

The chart shows HVO sp on 06/12/19 was 11.62p (the same, curiously, as at the 31/12/19 date of the above update) so immediately we have a variance between the 11.62p that you've used and the correct 15.56p value of the offer.

On completion of the merger RNS'd on 20/01/20: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ORPH/completion-of-merger-with-hvivo-and-re-admission-83lrnqhg2dz06ci.html HVO, as a ticker and separate share price, ceased to exist. As part of an agglomerated Open Orphan, which since June 2019 had included Venn Life Sciences, never again could a relevant comparison of HVO's final sp and an equivalent current valuation of hVIVO be made. Trying to do so, and with all the changes since then, is utterly pointless on a number of levels.

Apples and pears then, if you like, just as with individual persons and entities. Did you check? No? Here's a starter: https://hallellis.co.uk/separate-legal-entities-meaning/

From the 'Completion' RNS: "Proposed placing to raise £5m - underwritten by up to £2.5m by Raglan Capital - to support the Group's growth plans", and "I am hugely excited by the combination of Open Orphan and hVIVO. We have a fantastic team, substantial revenue potential and the opportunity to grow quickly in the year ahead. I am personally participating in the placing as I believe in the strategy of the business and its ability to deliver substantial returns to shareholders in the next 12 months." and "The Placing is being underwritten by Cathal Friel's vehicle, Raglan Capital, up to £2.5m; Raglan Capital also intends to participate in the Placing."

"Why doesn't he just use Raglan to beef up his ORPH shareholding?" I don't know; you'd better ask him not me.

As for the calcs - I can see how you've arrived at 64.22p but all that multiplication stuff is wrong. If each HVO share of 11.62p (or 15.56p) was worth 2.47 ORPH shares then following the merger each of the converted shares was worth 11.62/2.47 = 4.70p or 6.30p using 15.56p. That's your starting point if want to compare ORPH then with ORPH now, but leave HVO out of it. It's gone.

Earache, what was wrong with the maths on that one?

Ok Earache, let’s tone down the personal stuff and continue the debate, shall we?

Firstly, you state that my post on HVO return from the ORPH takeover was wrong. I set out my calculations so would you mind pointing out where I was wrong?

Secondly, my posts from yesterday were not attacking CF. In fact, I’m in love with CF and I think he’s going to make me very rich! I was merely pointing out that using a limited company as a vehicle for his personal investments would not protect him from pesky regulators. He has recently been bemoaning the fact that he is currently not allowed to buy more shares in ORPH due to his insider status. If your wizard scheme was so foolproof why doesn’t he just use Raglan to beef up his ORPH shareholding?

All the best, Rod.

Rod. Still insisting you're right? From that it's clear you wouldn't recognise a troll if it scared the crap out of you some dark Norwegian night. Look that up at the same time you check the insider definition and rules. As if you will!

In fact, why are you here? I'm not being deliberately snotty, I've tried to help re CF, Raglan and MOGP, but you won't have it. You joined lse chat on 16/11/2020. Since then, in total, you've posted once in January and four times so far this month.

Your first post dug up the past and wrongly argued the value of HVO shares "Why do some people think hVivo shareholders have only got a return of 70% on the ORPH takeover? Closing HVO price the day before the takeover was 11.62 and each HVO share got 2.47 ORPH shares. Therefore 11.62p is now worth 2.47 x 26p = 64.22p. By my calculations that’s a gain of 453% in a year." and the four posts this month have wrongly attacked CF.

I'm always up for a decent debate on my investments but not with closed minds.

I’ll leave it there so, Earache. No point in feeding the troll any more. Have a great weekend!

Rod. If you don't know the structure of Raglan Road then you have no place pontificating on the rights or wrongs of it. Of course they make decisions about which investments the company should make. That's their job at Raglan FFS!

All your waffle about enforcement, insider trading and conflicts of interest is bar room barrister crap. If you can't see the difference between a person and a corporate entity then look it up and learn. And as for CF's wife being seen as CF himself in the eyes of the regulator ..... try exercising your mistaken premises on Philip Green, his wife, multiple retail failures, billion dollar personal bonuses and black holes in workers pension funds instead. Nuff said.

Regarding observing the regs, there's an additional professional/personal reason for the Friel family to be 'squeaky clean' , if this lady is indeed CF's spouse

https://www.linkedin.com/in/pamela-s-iyer-969829b8/?originalSubdomain=ie

Look at her responsibilities at her current employers, PM Group.