Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Further to ‘The Naked truths’ earlier post of today I have now updated my post of 6-1-21;
There are now 8 recommendations for 2021 that I’ve seen in the last 4 weeks in respect of ORPH from ‘professional’ investors/bloggers;
- Techinvest. One of their 12 tips for 2021. They also think ORPH will make further acquisitions.
-Value the markets (fantastic write up, as posted by Whouse on this forum on 5-1-21)
-Finncap (rated ORPH at £0.28p but this valuation did NOT include profits from 3rd (or 4th ) facilities, data for wearables, Imutex, or PRep Biopharm.
-Share talk
-Total Market Solutions
-Share soc’s ‘Donald and Dave’ (where Donald recommended ORPH, and Donald is a Footsie 250 Company Director)
- Datadriveninvestor (as Trader 3 post)
- Motley Fool (as today’s post by ‘Naked Trader’)
GLA
Chas - anymore information on that? TIA
M5 on A-d-v-f-n is a reliable and sensible poster there so no reason to doubt him. It makes good reading what he’s posted. GLA
Markshares - Totally agree with your comments from your earlier post.
ORPH represents more than half of my total investments in stocks. I think the core business, if isolated, is valued about right at the moment, or slightly undervalued. Therefore the wearables, Imutex and other parts represent a free carry to me and they look very likely to be worth more than the core business.
The high level of my investment here is therefore underpinned by the non core assets and the free carry these probably represent. By “probably” I deem this to be 80% certain that the non core assets will be worth more than the core business, and hence why I’m loaded up here.
If they cannot be monetised, or only monetised for a relatively small amount, then the I fully expect the share price of ORPH will fall until such time that the core business reveals its hand to the market by way of profitability on the core business. Then the share price would recover in line with normal market multiples for this sector.
On that basis ORPH is a therefore an extremely safe investment from where I sit and why I’m very happy to hold given the 300% plus upside which I firmly believe will be achieved within the next year or so.
GLA
Furthermore, whilst this is frustrating for existing shareholders to see the share price stagnate because of Invesco’s selling, nevertheless I think we have to put ourselves in CF’s shoes.
If we exclude all the non core assets then there is a good case to argue that ORPH is presently approximately fairly valued. To use an accounting term, it is prudently valued.
CF has guided us all in online presentations as to the value he is seeking for the non core assets based upon discussions he’s had. However no RNS’s have been issued at the moment as they are still being negotiated. These non core assets therefore remain potential value only.
If CF had not “suppressed” the share price by moderating near term expectations, then we could now be up to circa 40p. All shareholders would then become very anxious to see that the non core deals are quickly delivered. If there was any delay in timescales (which there already has been) CF would come under an immense amount of shareholder pressure to deliver quickly. This scenario is not ideal for CF, nor for shareholders, as it more likely to lead to a pressurised and hurried deal, particularly if the share price started retreating. The assets could feasibly be monetised at a lesser price in these circumstances.
All things considered, I think the guidance CF has given, in not letting the share price get ahead of itself, is the prudent and sensible thing to do. He’s guided us in the online presentations as to the likely value of non core assets, and has guided us that ORPH is heading towards being a “billion dollar company”. He’s delivered 460% growth in the share price last year and is promising to do the same for the future, albeit it’ll take longer than another year to achieve this.
No doubt all will hopefully be clearer next week when CF makes his next eagerly awaited presentation.
GLA
Markshares and Rusky , further to your earlier posts and the two reports from ORPH’s brokers;
Both brokers, Arden and Finncap are corporate brokers to ORPH so both will have been in dialogue with CF prior to the reports being issued. We assume therefore CF has been happy with what’s been presented and has no doubt “guided” these reports.
The first report was on 5/11/20 from Arden and had a buy recommendation of 32p. The report made no mention of wearables or imutex assets, or other than to say “we anticipate more news flow over the coming months which enhances the earnings power of the business and more than supports our buy recommendation”.
The report had an estimated sales projection for 2021 of £53.2m and pre tax profits of £9m.
This report was a little over two weeks after the share price had peaked at circa 30p on 19/10/20 before falling to 22p on 28/10/10 after the Covid vaccine news hit the markets. I believe CF asked the brokers to prepare the report to steady the ship and give comfort to shareholders.
Ordinarily, we might have expected the share price to climb back to somewhere near its peak given the good news RNS’s that were released in the intervening period, but the selling from Invesco in the last few months has negated this. CF will have been aware of Invesco selling and hence I think he’s put out a few more RNS’s than expected prior to Xmas merely to support the share price.
The second broker report was issued by Finncap on 6/1/21, and stated “we leave forecasts unchanged but with significant room for upside and we reiterate our target price of 28p”.
The report had an estimated sales projection for 2021 of £43.9m and pre tax profits of £6.6m. However the report did say “we have excluded potential revenues from a new quarantine facility, non core assets, monetisation of infectious disease data, development of new challenge models, and potential for licensing challenge agents”.
Therefore both reports are assigning, at present, no value to the non core assets and potential of other deals.
I’m a little puzzled, however, as to why Finncaps reported just two months after Ardens report was issued. And moreover why this report is more negative in its share price/sales/profit forecasts than Ardens. I can only think that CF, knowing Invesco are unloading their shares, has reasoned that keeping the share price temporarily suppressed will attract more purchases of its stock than a higher share price. Ergo, Investco will get cleared out more quickly at a “low” price that they’re obviously happy to sell at, before the big news flow resumes and the share price kicks on. Just my opinion, and aware that the report also may suppress demand from some buyers for the stock.
Continued....
I suspect somebody in the “know” has made that purchase. Oil rig employees are very well paid and how hard can it be to send a message to anywhere in the world? GLA
Hi Jolly, doing a bit of research and thinking of investing here. You mention IAMGOLD have an option for 70% for $8m. What does that mean exactly as I’m reading it that IAMGOLD can purchase 70% of a potentially very valuable asset for a relatively small sum. Am I misinterpreting this? TIA
Thanks Trek, great to see a reasoned post highlighting the risks involved in an investment, and such a post being taken by other investors as being beneficial. Too many other boards are just a forum for mutual back clapping where any reasoned negativity is at best completely ignored or at worst is treated as opportunity for some posters to vent unwarranted anger and personal abuse. Keep up the good and ‘bad’ work! GLA
Extrader - I’d agree with that. Selling off the individual assets separately is more likely to raise more monies that collecting all these assets together and selling them as one. It is also cleaner in that the value of each asset is verified by what the market pays when it is sold. I think it’s likely that Flu-V will be sold/floated first given it looks the only one to have passed stage 2. Unlikely any assets that OO have in this will be brought to stage 3 stage by ConserVbio, given its very expensive to do so, and runs the risk of failure where no value would be realised. A bird in the bush..... GLA
Further to the ‘Trader 3’ earlier post of today I have now updated my post of 6-1-21;
There are now 7 recommendations for 2021 that I’ve seen in the last three weeks in respect of ORPH from ‘professional’ investors/bloggers;
- Techinvest. One of their 12 tips for 2021. They also think ORPH will make further acquisitions.
-Value the markets (fantastic write up, as posted by Whouse 5-1-21)
-Finncap (rated ORPH at £0.28p but this valuation did NOT include profits from 3rd (or 4th ) facilities, data for wearables, Imutex, or PRep Biopharm.
-Share talk
-Total Market Solutions
-Share soc’s ‘Donald and Dave’ (where Donald recommended ORPH, and Donald is a Footsie 250 Company Director)
- Datadriveninvestor (as per Trader 3 earlier post today)
GLA
G100 - my understand of the potential wearables deal is that data already accumulated over many years will be monetised, as well as new data being gathered on an ongoing basis. I therefore don’t think any MHRA approval is necessary in order for the sale of existing data to be made. Happy to be corrected. GLA
Whilst it’s true that it’s almost certainly is Invesco who’ve been selling off recently, I don’t believe they’re a distressed seller, and therefore I don’t think they’ll aggressively sell if it causes too much downward pressure on the share price. To do so hurts themselves also.
They may have even finished selling though this is unlikely as it appears it’s Invesco's policy to rid themselves of any old ‘Woodford’ tainted shareholdings. They’ve been selling aggressively elsewhere too (e.g. IP Group)
Without news, I expect this to trundle along at approximately where we are now as any boost given in the coming weeks by the SPAC rumours will then be sold into by Invesco, and the share price will stagnate.
Of course at some point in the near future, within circa 4 weeks in my opinion, CF should release official RNS news regarding wearables or Imutex. Either of these should provide enough upward momentum to push the share price above and beyond its previous high, though it may be tempered by Invesco then renewing their share sales.
DYOR & GLA
Thanks ST
Interesting find on Stockopedia today where I subscribe.
It’s has a small information section marked shareholder activity. It shows by way of a horizontal bar chart who’s been buying/holding/selling ORPH shares over the last 3 months. The “who” is split into three sections; II’s, Directors, and ‘Community’ (taken from the 10,000 plus PI’s who subscribe to Stockopedia).
It clearly shows that over the last 3 months there has been circa twice as many sells by PI’s than those sells by II’s.
Hence it is predominantly PI sales which have kept the share price in check.
NB The II bar chart shows there was a small amount of buying by II’s too (obviously different II’s to those selling) It also shows there was a lot of buying by PI’s (obviously different PI’s to those selling)
It looks to me therefore that impatient PI ‘traders’ (not investors) have got bored with the stagnation and waiting for imminent news items, and have therefore jumped ship to seek near term gains elsewhere.
GLA
Isn’t this rise more likely to be as a result of Investco temporarily or permantly (hopefully) ceasing their big sell off? GLA
Two more big buys now showing on LSE share trades . One for 500k and one for 340k. Both from 11-1-21. Both definitely buys. One slightly above the ask and one exactly on it.
GLA
Thanks Spence
Earache, yes I’m sure that it was a single purchase as per my earlier post. The 3 No sales were earlier in the day and then the 1m purchase was about 3pm from memory. I also checked the price paid and it was showing above the mid price point. It was also showing in blue as a purchase.
However it was reported late and there is a possibility it was a sale as I’ve noticed that these transactions are notoriously wrong with many sales being reported as purchases and vice versa. My understanding is that it is deemed a sale or price merely by examining the price paid and looking to see where this falls in comparison to the bid and ask prices. (I.e above the mid point and it’s ‘deemed’ a purchase) The problem is the bid and ask reported by LSE prices seems to sometimes to reflect the current (or later) bid and ask prices, so if the share price has fallen then the price paid will be above the new mid point, and it will be deemed a purchase, when in reality it was actually a sale at the actual time of the transaction. Hope that makes sense.
Perhaps somebody on here with an upgraded membership can look back also on today’s reported transactions and check this 1m ‘purchase’ (though dated 8th Jan)
GLA