Member Info for BlahBlahDoh

Imutex is not a golden goose yet, just a promising egg. ORPH are not a drug development company, don't have the resources to be so, and have multiple other businesses. Also, there is no guarantee that the Imutex assets will work, so retaining control of them until the end is an all-or-nothing gamble which may not be the most sensible or lucrative strategy. To some extent it is of minor importance whether they sell it, license it, or float it, the important thing is just to monetise it in some way, and I believe CF has a strong grasp of the realities of this.

Up until a few weeks ago the SP appeared to be continually held back by institutional selling at around 6p. Today institutions seem to have bitten our hands and forearms off to fill a placing at roughly double the price. Funny old game...
especially with no arms.

To be fair, you're asking for it with that name Rudey. I got called a "subtle deramper" yesterday (subtle!), and I've been called a "retail shorter" on another board (not an institutional one, thank god), but my favourite insult was when someone called me a "vortex of doom".

We're surely overdue an update from CF on the change of plan. He was only supposed to blow the bloody doors off.

"The second tranche of approximately 70,000,000 new Ordinary Shares (the "Conditional Fundraising Shares") will be conditional (amongst other things) on the passing of resolutions to grant authority to the Directors to allot the Conditional Placing Shares, Conditional PrimaryBid Shares and Subscription Shares for cash and to disapply statutory pre-emption rights at a General Meeting."

So we get to vote - I think this represent about two thirds of the placing.

Bronxville is right, it does raise some trust issues maybe, because CF has played with a straight bat up til now, but with all the rapid change I think he can be forgiven, maybe even commended, for seizing a lucrative opportunity? Short term pain for long term gain, hopefully.

Agreed ShinFalls, two years ago virology was far less prominent than today, and CF has obviously revitalised the prospects for hVivo's projects with his sharp business focus: they are now under much better management than when that article was written. It's good to be aware of all the facts though, and not get misled.

It's very flattering of you to make up a false backstory about my posts, holdings and supposed influence moniman.
If you are unsettled by mere factual information I hope you don't have a heart attack when a real deramper appears.

"That's a tremendous article moniman. Potential $10 billion per year is a staggering sum."

Perhaps, but the article is 2 years old, and Stoloff, the man making that claim, seems to have moved on to other things (presumably things worth more than 10bill?). Worth also noting the mention of considerable competition for the universal flu vaccine market, even back then: BiondVax, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, FluGen, Vaccitech.

"Open Orphan (Venn &Hvivo) are the world leaders in respiratory challenge studies including Influenza and others, with an almost unique facility in London, they also have a global database of orphan drugs, they now are also in partnership with a market leading Covid 19 antibody test provider..not to mention two potentially world leading drugs in the Imutex JV"

But apart from that, what have the Orphmans ever done for us?

"So were the monkeys in a "high risk" category"
Rhesus monkeys don't experience the same effects from COVID-19 as humans. Is it "ethical" for misinformed people to call in the Spanish flu inquisition?

Can't believe anyone seriously thinks ORPH is merely a services company. It's like they've only considered the Venn part of the business? They must be completely incurious about the companies name, or think it's just a quaint moniker. Please don't bother doing any research, just post the first thing that pops into your head. Fifteen love, hows that for a service?? Towel!

"When a share goes x div it usually goes down the amount of divi then works itself back. If a divi is cancelled then surely the price of that share should go up by the same dividend amount as the company is saving paying the divi."

Yes, but not all shares are the same. M&G's main attraction is it's dividend: if the prospects for that have diminished, the reason for holding it weakens. The prospects for dividends generally have obviously diminished drastically, with widespread cancellations. M&Gs ability to sustain it's dividend policy, as stated in it's prospectus in October is surely hanging by a thread.

If they cancel the divi there will be a sell off, but if they pay it, there will probably be a sell-off afterwards anyway, so expect downwards pressure on the SP in the short term. As unvrkw says, if they do pay out, reinvesting dividends at depressed prices could well prove a rewarding decision in the long term, but you might want to just spend it before COVID19 gets you?

" how safe is it to invest here when these guys couldn't smell (or did they?) what was happening at Finablr (/NMC) when they were signing those agreements. Their judgement still will be questioned."

Nobody else sniffed problems at NMC at the time, including major international investors and auditors, and even whistleblowing shorters Muddy Waters didn't see anything wrong at Finablr.

AAF didn't mention Finablr once in their long rns about results, so I'm wondering if they were simply replaced by Western Union (because the WU deal was announced on 22nd January, exactly 3 months after the Finablr one, and they seem to offer a similar service?). If so, perhaps they did get a whiff of eau-de-Shetty?

3 part series by ORPH associate Professor John Oxford started today on radio 4:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000j2ty

Well the Pru paid out today, maybe that's a pointer? M&G management have a difficult conundrum figuring out whether their dividend policy (and perhaps their entire business model) is sustainable, or has to fall at the first hurdle due to unprecedented circumstances.

My best guess is that they will stretch themselves to pay this one, honouring the prospectus, but will probably also announce a suspension of future payments and an enforced revision of dividend policy, in recognition that this crisis is probably going to be a very long haul indeed.

"This is a revenue stream we didn't even know existed 1 week ago!"
Exactly, it's a bonus on top of the many other emerging new strands and synergies, which themselves are bonuses on top of the ongoing improvements in the underlying businesses and the fundamental development of the data platforms. That's one reason why Fairview's arguments are wonky: they take one aspect, try to make a mountain out of a molehill, but never bother to put them in context or make an overall assessment of the true value of the company. There is a danger they might create the impression that they are just interested in scoring shallow points and being contrary, rather than having a genuine discussion, which would be awfully upsetting.

Dividend is due to be paid today: 20.84p.
Bragging rights against holders of non-payers should be exercised with restraint. Loadsamoney.

Some contrasting points from the Standard about offline and online sales:

"Its core areas of life and medical insurance remain largely sold face-to-face by its agents in the region, so lockdown rules hit particularly hard."

"On a more positive note, it reported strong interest in its online medical app in the region launched last year with technology from London "medtech" group Babylon. The Pulse app is offered free as a basic service but offers a premium product offering prescriptions and phone consultations with a doctor. App downloads have jumped from 1.3 million to 4 million during the pandemic.

Also, its work last year getting regulatory clearance to sell more products remotely rather than face-to-face has eased some of the hit to sales."

https://www.standard.co.uk/prudential-hit-as-covid-batters-china-and-hong-kong-insurance-sales-a4440281.html

Final dividend of 3 cents is massive - it equates to about 2.44p I think, making the annual yield well over 12% on current price. If sustainable, this suggests the share is massively undervalued, perhaps less than half of its true value? Sustainability is uncertain of course, COVID-19 impact is hard to gauge - people can afford less, but are arguably more reliant on phones.