We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Orchid Dev | OCH | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 1.875 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.875 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 04/3/2014 14:40 by smithie6 "accepting the offer from Bellport"so they thought it was worth having 1) Was the action group 'active' ? eg. did they approach possible buyers ? did they lodge a request with the court to cancel the 2009 dirs. bonus payment as false/illegal ? 2) Why did the action group act so secretly and not post any updates on this message board (the most popular one for UK investors in OCH) ? 3) What did the dirs. buy and how much did they pay ? 4) No interest in lodging allegations vs the dirs. for illegal conduct ? ...conducting the co. for their own benefit and not for shareholders, as reqd. by the law ? ===== Repeated reminder to myself - avoid any company involved with Shore Capital - avoid any company where the dirs. are overpaid - avoid any IPO where the issuing broker is selling in the IPO ! (Shore cap.) - that London markets are a bit like roulette !.....honesty and integrity of dirs. ...often is lacking. |
Posted at 16/12/2012 15:58 by jack1236 C/O R & T - 1st September 2012 share register, again this might not be 100% accurate, but a good indication.MEYOHAS G ESQ 14.99% 14,081,344 MIRETZKY O ESQ 14.99% 14,081,344 MIDAS CAPITAL PARTNERS LIMITED 11.74% 11,035,000 PROGRESSIVE ASSET MANAGEMENT 6.99% 6,565,447 TD DIRECT INVESTING 5.24% 4,927,014 HENDERSON GLOBAL INVESTORS 4.88% 4,581,108 THAMES RIVER CAPITAL LLP 3.62% 3,400,000 VALUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED 3.43% 3,225,000 BARCLAYS STOCKBROKERS LIMITED 3.33% 3,132,333 SELFTRADE 2.80% 2,626,731 SMITH & WILLIAMSON 2.47% 2,320,000 INVESTEC WEALTH & INVESTMENT LTD 2.17% 2,043,081 HALIFAX SHARE DEALING 2.15% 2,023,306 HARGREAVES LANSDOWN 1.70% 1,596,950 CREDIT SUISSE ASSET MANAGEMENT 1.59% 1,498,400 HSBC GLOBAL CUSTODY NOMINEE UK 1.59% 1,498,400 CREDIT SUISSE GUERNSEY 1.59% 1,498,400 SHORE CAPITAL GROUP PLC 1.31% 1,228,973 PERSHING NOMINEES LIMITED SHCLT CLIENTS ACCOUNT 1.31% 1,228,973 REDMAYNE BENTLEY & CO 1.23% 1,157,500 BLACKROCK INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT 1.12% 1,051,985 HSBC WEALTH MANAGEMENT 1.02% 955,640 WINTERFLOOD SECURITIES MM 1.02% 955,598 EUROPEAN CLEARING 0.90% 843,288 LYNCHWOOD NOMINEES LIMITED 2006420 SIX SIS AG 0.90% 843,288 BANQUE PRIVEE EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD 0.87% 822,001 ROY NOMINEES LIMITED 210004 BANQUE PRIVEE EDMOND DE ROTHSCHILD SA 0.87% 822,001 PENTAGON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PLC 0.85% 802,800 GOLDMAN SACHS 0.72% 674,882 UNION BANCAIRE PRIVEE AG 0.69% 648,712 HSBC GLOBAL CUSTODY NOMINEE UK INTERACTIVE INVESTOR TRADING LIMITED 0.61% 571,174 F&C ASSET MANAGEMENT 0.56% 521,800 ABN AMRO BANK NV 0.53% 500,000 HSBC GLOBAL CUSTODY NOMINEE UK COLLINS STEWART WEALTH MANAGEMENT 0.40% 375,000 SINGER CAPITAL MARKETS MARKET MAKER 0.32% 301,306 PERSHING & CO NEW YORK 0.32% 300,000 INDIVIDUALS & PRIVATE CLIENTS 0.27% 255,264 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 0.11% 105,264 BARCLAYS BANK - GENEVA 0.27% 250,000 SHARE CENTRE LIMITED (THE) 0.26% 248,383 JARVIS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED 0.26% 246,478 AJ BELL SECURITIES 0.18 170,399 Regarding the changes to holdings the following have increased since the 1st August through to the 1st September the following holdings increased:- 1.HSBC WEALTH MANAGEMENT (UK) increased within the month by an additional 583,500 2.HALIFAX SHARE DEALING increased within the month by an additional 501,543 3.ABN AMRO BANK NV increased within the month by 500,000 4.WINTERFLOOD SECURITIES MARKET MAKER increased by an additional 339,508 5.HARGREAVES LANSDOWN increased by 320,077 6.SINGER CAPITAL MARKETS MARKET MAKER increased by 301,306 7.INTERACTIVE INVESTOR TRADING LIMITED increased by 220,198 8.STOCKTRADE increased by 157,905 9.SVS SECURITIES LIMITED increased by 100,000 10.JARVIS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED increased by 73,598 11.AJ BELL SECURITIES inceased by 67,227 12.INVESTEC WEALTH & INVESTMENT LIMITED increased by 1,000 Regarding the changes to holdings the following have decreased since the 1st August through to the 1st September:- 38.SHARE CENTRE LIMITED (THE) reduced by -7,654 39.COLLINS STEWART WEALTH MANAGEMENT reduced by -60,000 40.JAMES SHARP & CO reduced by -75,000 41.SELFTRADE reduced by -380,877 42.TD DIRECT INVESTING (EXWATERHOUSE SECURITIES) reduced by -468,600 43.VALUE INVESTMENTS LIMITED reduced by -512,500 to 3,225,000 44.BARCLAYS STOCKBROKERS LIMITED reduced by -682,821 45.GERRARD INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT reduced by -1,010,000 ==================== It clearly shows that it's not the IIs who have bailed but the majority is by PI's. Value Investment have reduced down to 3,225,000 and Gerrard Investment sold their remaining 1,010,000 shares. |
Posted at 16/12/2012 14:07 by markt KnigelThe salaries and bonuses were detailed in the IPO document. ...sadly it is quite common that IPOs are a rip off....over priced..large % held by dirs without having invested any cash (such as OCH)..low chance of a gain on investing....but sadly investors keep getting caught (many dont really understand the IPO doc. conents.....and the IPO doc. text is normally over hopefully and people believe it....and brokers are happy to go along since they get maybe 5% of any money subscribed....) IPO docs. are always a vital document to read imo before investing in any share, even years after the IPO....and are available at company websites. sadly most investors seem too lazy to read documents or do any research ! (partly since the public assume there are regulations and laws and the FSA and regulators to protect them....and sadly in practice it appears that there are not !) |
Posted at 14/12/2012 20:16 by jack1236 As at August 1st 2012Name Number of Shares % Issued Share Capital Guy Meyohas 11,196,344 11.92 Ofer Mirtetzky 11,196,344 11.92 Nortrust Nominees Limited 6,565,447 6.99 Bellport Corporation 5,770,000 6.14 CF Midas Balanced Income Fund 4,900,000 5.21 Henderson Global Investors 4,652,570 4.95 CF Midas Balanced growth Fund 4,635,000 4.93 Nominee Companies used by Smith Williamson Investment Management Ltd 4,390,000 4.67 F&C Asset Management plc 4,535,597 4.83 Value Investments Limited 3,737,500 3.98 BlackRock Inc 3,303,380 3.52 Pershing Nominees Limited Clients Account 3,084,768 3.28 BBHISL Nominees Limited 2,933,500 3.12 The holding info is according to their website. Fund Manager - alan.borrows@mamfund CF Midas Balanced Income Fund 4,900,000 5.21 Director of Institutional Business - anil.shenoy@henderso Henderson Global Investors 4,652,570 4.95 Fund Manager - simon.callow@mamfund CF Midas Balanced growth Fund 4,635,000 4.93 Head of Corporate Affairs - jason.hollands@fandc F&C Asset Management plc 4,535,597 4.83 Value Investments Limited 3,737,500 3.98 andrew.manchester@bl BlackRock Inc 3,303,380 3.52 |
Posted at 30/11/2012 18:26 by markt BTWImho the situation at OCH is not uncommon for listed property companies !! It looks to me like the situation at Inland Homes (INL) is very similar to OCH. - Excessive or very high director salaries -excessive bonuses - excessive IPO valuation - excessive value apportioned in the IPO to the existing assets of the company (well, that is largely the investors fault, unless the IPO doc. is misleading, sadly 90-100% of IPO documents are misleading imo, and give a very optimistic image of the company and its future. The regulators belong to the brokers, dont forget !) - annual accounts with little or no information in the important parts, keeping shareholders in the dark There is a recent critical article from Investors Champion. Hopefully they dont mind me copying some snippets here. Investors Champion, great website, you really should visit it ! www.investorschampio (I get articles, pdf files from them at no cost. much appreciated, thanks.) here is are snippets from their excellent article about Inland Homes, many similarities to the continual demise/fall of OCH since its IPO "We have learned that shareholders at Inland Homes are preparing to question the trading performance and Directors remuneration at the forthcoming AGM. We have taken a closer look at Inland and have unearthed some interesting facts about the value of its shares and their apparent "loss of value"." "In addition to this they were also entitled to a number of very generous benefits and an annual discretionary bonus, up to a maximum of 100% of basic salary. While one can be critical of the generosity of the remuneration package, especially for a business so small, it was there in black and white for all to read right from the outset. This also pails into insignificance compared with the equity stake that had been engineered from private company to listed status for a relatively small cash outlay and for little of true value being added". "This suggests a 'real' loss in value in net asset terms of only 20% which compares with the share price fall of over 60%. The 'gap' in value is effectively largely represented by that premium uplift on IPO - the shares were simply too expensive in the first place!" SAME AT OCH imho. "- Pre-ipo valuation Prior to the AIM flotation the value per share of this small untested business rose swiftly from 10p to 35p and then to 50p over 18 months. It's hard to justify the 42% uplift from 35p to 50p when clearly so much was still in progress. One wonders what questions new shareholders asked of management before investing" same at OCH imo "Despite this business being all about the future 'potential' and with only a limited trading history a pre-ipo value of £33.58m was achieved when the net assets were only £14m, an uplift of over £20m." Same, well worse, at OCH imo. (OCH IPO valued 5M of NAV (16M assets and 11M debt) at 40M ! and raised 18M, to have cap of approx.60M) (there's a fool born every minute imho !, many of them bought into the OCH IPO !) --- "only 6 lines of narrative can be linked to this £43.8m; by comparison one whole page is devoted to 'charity work'. Until investors are provided with the composition of this figure it's surely very difficult to value this business with any accuracy!" same at OCH imo. "In addition to this they were also entitled to a number of very generous benefits and an annual discretionary bonus, up to a maximum of 100% of basic salary. While one can be critical of the generosity of the remuneration package, especially for a business so small, it was there in black and white for all to read right from the outset. This also pails into insignificance compared with the equity stake that had been engineered from private company to listed status for a relatively small cash outlay and for little of true value being added." same at OCH imo. "We appreciate that in the heady days of 2007 many IPO's attracted rich valuations, however, these were largely in respect of businesses that had a longer trading history and had achieved more. In the instance of Inland a great deal of value was attributed to the 'reputation' of the senior management before very little had been achieved with the current business. In management's defence, although funds had been secured before the financial crisis took hold, the market environment obviously then deteriorated substantially and commitments had already been made for land purchases." "Hopefully more will be revealed to those attending the (Inland Homes) AGM on 27th November, it's likely to be eventful!" |
Posted at 29/11/2012 11:25 by markt To Knigel, Bump, Lucky, Joebloggs, Greedfear...et al that make up the 5.2% given in the thread header1) status report .... not seen/heard any new proposals from IIs or any info about what they plan to do or what they plan not to do just that the IIs are not happy about the offer and the resolutions and are talking to the co. broker and I assume to the exec. dirs. 2) Plan of action Because there is at present no image or info that shows any real action ....I propose that we must act if we want to try to protect our interests (note the IIs did nothing in the past about the dirs. claiming there was a profit of 30ME , many of us do not believe that, but everyone voted in favour, except me I think. R & T even now agrees with me on that bonus subject, while before he argued against me) So, I have no faith in the IIs protecting our interests. (if they were going to, then imo the offer document would already have been withdrawn....and it would not have been issued in the first place !; it would have been approved by the IIs in advance, it wasnt) So, I propose that we act. I am not willing to do it all. I propose to act as organiser, motivator. Delegating most stuff. If you want to do anything.....it is up to you to decide. ---- You are all big boys and girls, with wives, contacts, relatives...if you dont have time then you could get someone to help you or prepare an e-mail or message or ....fax...or to make phone calls on your behalf. You are also able to organise amongst yourselves the division of work. I have proposed 5 or 6 blocks of work, A to F. One person could be the lead person for each block of work. Or you can agree amongst yourselves another division of work. ANd/or which blocks of work to do and which ones not to do. I have done a lot of work. And I have explained to you what I think the dirs. are up to (they can have 74% of OCH if the vote is yes to resol. 1 and 2, see my post of yesterday evening) and why imo it is very bad for you/me. If you other shareholders want to do anything to try to protect your interests and stop any possible transfer of the company from you to the 2 exec. dirs., mostly just in return for their salaries ...it is up to you. --- (R & T, you have always opposed my opinions....and supported the dirs..... and hence it looks to me like you are aligned to the dirs...or maybe you are Shore Capital (who get paid for doing the share offer; and funded the creation of OCH "before" the IPO via a property fund of theirs) and you recently complained about the previous bonus for the dirs....yet you voted in favour of it...and argued that people should vote in favour. hence, I propose that you mostly take a step back from this group process.... and leave the people named above to act or not act as they see fit I dont want you putting any poles in the wheels or steering it a direction that suits your opinions, 'friendly' to the dirs; noting that I would like to sack/remove the dirs. for gross misconduct with no 12 month pay off, our views appear opposed). ---- 'I can lead a horse to water, but I cant make it drink' ! ---- A) Press Someone to write and send a message to the press, the financial/shares department FT Daily Mail This is money Mail on Sunday Sunday Times London Evening Standard (a good one) any other others others ---- NY Times, Washington Post, D.Zeitung , Le MOnde - 'is it safe to invest in London markets, lets look at what is happening at OCH and some past cases of fraud ' - ' City Slickers fraud was back in 2000, are London Market now fully regulated or is there still a high risk of fraud ?. Some cases and lets look at OCH' content, author can look at my posts and extract bits and pieces if they think they are correct (they may lap it up, esp. the French and German papers !) papers where the German stk mkt is located B) TV London Local TV Manchester Any financial/shares programmes ? Any financial journalists at TV channels C) Financial/shares Websites Naked Trader DIY Investor Pro active Investor Sharesoc Proactive Investor Investor Champion AIMZINE D) shares authors, that have e-mail distribution lists Naked Trader Micheal Walters (has website, is he still around, I hope. If not, my best respects. He was/is a good bloke imo !) Diy Investor Share soc Proactive Investor Investor Champion AIMzine other writers that appear on ADVFN authors at newspapers very quickly we could inform a good part of the UK investing community E) Regulators e-mail addresses appear in someones post F) Police Lodge a claim of illegality of the offer doc, and/or resolutions and/or offer process. See a specific post from me on this subject. R & T has cried recently about a previous vote. You CAN NOT complain AFTER the vote ! (you can but it 99% sure to be a waste of time, your legal postion will be virtually zero, the vote will/could validate the whole process. If a claim is lodged BEFORE the vote....then the legal situation for any action after the vote is much better. But if the olice, FSA or AN Other stops or retracts the offer doc. or vote then it is much easier/better. |
Posted at 24/11/2012 08:50 by lazarus2010 If the dirs. had spent as much time on running the company as they appear to have on bonus share issue Ts and Cs and the Ts and Cs for this new share issue perhaps OCH would not be in the mess it is in.-------------------- Just like to say that Bulgaria is a very poor country, wages for locals are on average less than 400 Euro per month, they do not get big fat welfare cheques. A lot of the economy has grown due to ex-pats buying apartments and fuelling the property market. With recession back in the UK, many of these ex-pats are stuck with negative equity positions and cannot afford their apartment mortgages and are having to give them back to the bank. Too many investors jumped on the property bandwagon expecting continuous growth. Investors in OCH believed they were immune to the general market, unfortunately you are not. For those that have not been to Varna, there are three malls whcih opened within a few km's of each other. The last one was Varna Towers which was mall, entertainment and offices...I have heard that is has closed already, and was only finished maybe 2 years ago. GTC (google them) who are a very experienced developer, built a mall very near to these three malls but not on the main road entering Varna from Bucuresti/Sofia. They completed it but NEVER opened the mall as they could not lease it. There are a few other malls dotted around Varna, some closed, and there are a lot of high street shopping locations. It was simply never feasible for all these malls to survive. Unfortunately in Eastern Europe they don't care at the planning stage that two 50,000m2 malls can be built next to each other. Hence anybody can come along a year later and build another mall...which is actually what OCH have done with Grand Varna Mall as it was built just down the road from Varna Mall. The Orchid Gardens development is very ambitious for Central London, let alone a small seaside town on the Bulgarian coast. All of these developments were known about 2,3 more years ago and investors jumped aboard without researching the real market. The situation today was not created by the directors spending time on share issues, it was created at the planning stage and enhanced by banks and shareholders lending money for projects which simply cannot work as a commercial venture, and the local planning authorities which are only interested in the jobs created during constuction and the taxes paid by the developers. Good luck to escaping from this 'mare, it seems that the current plan is the only choice that pi's have and fingers crossed the market can turn and more apartments can be sold and offices rented in O/Gdns. |
Posted at 07/9/2012 14:11 by greedfear Alas investors (and banks) are still too much focused on risk and deleveraging. It's only a matter of time until investors realize that one of the best assets to have in inflationary times will be property. It's not a matter of IF inflation will start hitting the world but WHEN! Soon people/investors realise that property investing is the place to be. I'm sure property investors will do fine especially as they can invest today with very large discounts to nav. We just need to survive the deleveraging urge/need of banks. That's all and time will do the rest. Happy investing! |
Posted at 04/9/2012 09:45 by paddyfool the share price is telling you that no one with the ability to invest believes that a fire sale will narrow the gap. The covenants probably prohibit that anyway. In all likelihood the covenants will probably say that in the event that the debt cannot be serviced all assets fall to the bank to dispose of, i.e. they will no longer be owned by Orchid and Orchid will then be worth nothing. There is next to no chance of the Banks putting in more. So the only option is to raise money from somewhere else in a placing, their are probably covenants governing this to, but lets imagine for a moment that there are not. They Orchid have debts of £132 million and illiquid assets valued at £205 million. Lets also assume that the investor is promised an end game in that some two years hence all assets will be sold and that they will realize a gain. The investors will discount the valuation by a number lets say 25%, no one does a deal like this a a book valuation, this lets say towards the bottom of the range for a sale, so £205 million goes to £154 million. the gap is now £29 million. Lets say that the number required to service debts and get to the sale in two years time is £15 million. So the downside for an investment of £15 million is that they the investors get £29 million. But wait its not the investors its the shareholders. But....lets assume the placing is at 1p that will in effect dilute all the existing shareholders by 15 times. Now I know people will challenge all the assumptions above, what I am putting forward is a scenario and also indicating how this stuff works, yes people will say that the directors are shareholders and they too will be diluted, though there is nothing to stop them having a side deal to soften their losses and they are in the same boat as the shareholders with next to no power in this matter as events have overtaken them. The issue is a deal has to be done quickly if it can be done at all, and cash talks very loudly. The board are left with the choice of a fairly massive dilution or insolvency, that my friends is the reality here, all imho dyor etc. |
Posted at 17/8/2012 14:28 by warwick69 Thaaarg you are wrong the income drives the price debt is irrelevant if a buy tio let investor buys a hose for 100,000 on 90,000 mortgage the yield is the rental income less expenses not less interest payment the income pays the interest as long as income less expenses is bigger than interest they have business?depends if the debt is interest only or capitl repayment as to long term profit in most cases why we have had such a problem in the UK was nearly all interest only and investors were banking on property value rising so when they sell they pay back debt and bank the gain in price... but prices have fallen and investors have gone into negative equity so banks in trouble??? you are quite right to highlight this here i do not disagree with you but the valuation is rental les expenses and what yield a client happy to accept the lower the yield the higher the value.. More and more investors will again turn to property whilst cash rates fall? Also the mall rental income will increase as percentage occupancy increases |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
