Zoopla to offer discounted shares to agents as flotation is announced

Zoopla is to go ahead with a flotation on the London Stock Exchange, it was announced this morning.

It will be offering discounted shares to agents and developer subscribers – with the total discount worth almost £20m.

The 20% discount is, said Zoopla, “designed to reward past and future customer loyalty”and will allow each current member to purchase shares now and next year at the discount per branch.

Each will be able to buy up to £2,500 shares per branch or per development this year, and the same again next.

Alex Chesterman, founder & CEO of ZPG, said: “We are delighted to be able to offer our members the opportunity to become shareholders in our business by participating in our IPO at a significant discount.

“This is a great way of thanking our members for their loyalty and support and with almost 20,000 members, the offer equates to a £20m  discount to our loyal agent and developer members.”

The Daily Mail and General Trust announced its intention reduce its stake in Zoopla Property Group.

DGMT currently holds a 52.6% stake in the group, which includes Zoopla itself, PrimeLocation, SmartNewHomes and HomesOverseas, as well as powering the property search function for a number of third-party websites and mobile applications.

Countrywide and LSL also put regulatory news statements (RNS) this morning concerning the flotation.

Both LSL Countrywide said that they intend to sell a proportion of their shares in Zoopla.

It was also announced that Connells and Chesterman will be among other shareholders selling shares as part of the public offering.

Chesterman, who entered the Sunday Times Rich List for the first time this week, said: We are delighted to be bringing ZPG to market following a number of years of strong growth and having built a market-leading proposition for both our users and members (being estate agents, letting agents and new home developers).

“ In addition, we are excited to be able to offer the opportunity to our members to participate in the Offer and become shareholders in the business as part of this process.

“In 2008 we set out to provide consumers with the most useful online property resources and to be the most effective partner for property professionals in the UK.

“Today, with over 40 million visits per month to our websites and mobile applications, generating over 2 million enquiries every month for our members, ZPG has become an indispensable link in the property search process for consumers and the property marketing process for professionals across the UK.

“We have built strong and trusted brands with high engagement levels across our platform as a result of our passion for innovation and differentiation and our mission of becoming the consumer champion in the UK property market.

“I am very proud of what the team has achieved to date and we are incredibly excited about the opportunities ahead to continue to grow our brands and business.

“We’re confident about our future as we embark on the next stage of our development as a public company on the London Stock Exchange.”

Zoopla also announced three new board appointments, including a new non-executive chairman, Mike Evans. Duncan Tatton-Brown has become senior independent director, and Sherry Coutu has become a non-executive director.

Podcasts
x

Email the story to a friend

54 Comments

  1. Paul H

    For anyone who thinks that the agents mutual threat is not a serious one, see this response from Zoopla.
    20% off is clearly an attempt to stop the stampede of agents signing up to agents mutual.
    But its too late the damage is already done the critical mass obtained.
    People will now see this for what it is which is a desperate last ditch attempt to save the business from the impeding disaster. You would be a brave man to buy those shares considering its proposed valuation if £1b and the huge number of agents who will be on Agents Mutual.

    Report
  2. Ivor

    Really Paul H?? As much as I understand your frustrations, these are rational people and if they were that worried about AM, would they risk bringing their business to market now?

    Report
    1. Paul H

      After the dis-proportionate inflation busting annual rate increases you now think that Zoopla are offering a 20% discount out of generosity. Really?

      Report
  3. dave k

    @Ivor

    i see it it a different way…what better time for the founders to float and divest oneself of thy shares ie before the launch of AM….as has been detailed in article. sincerely, have i missed something? seems like pump and dump.

    Report
  4. David Cantell

    I'll pass on the ZPG share option but AM needs more traction at the stage, at least a name, eight months from going live

    Report
    1. James M

      As a BTL investor and a current user of the big two portals, I'm a little bemused by the AM proposition to be honest. Let's be incredibly generous and say that 20% of agents leave RM and 20% leave Zoopla – with no track record for AM, probably generous by any standards. Assuming that the 20% of agents who leave have 20% of available property stock, then I will see 80% of the properties on the first of the big two I go to, and the other 20% when I visit the other. Where does AM get traction? What's the USP? Am I missing something? Are there a large group of agents planning to leave both? Sorry for being a little daft on this one.

      Report
      1. wilko

        Imagine the advert "Not ALL property is found on Rightmove and Zoopla-go to AM, the home of the professional agent."
        Or the fact that AM members will put their new instructions ONLY on AM for the first 7 days before placing them onto RM or Zoopla. The advert could then be "Professional agents put their property exclusively on AM for 7 days…..see your dream home before anyone else at AM.co,uk"
        The site doesnt need any traction until it launches….or a few weeks before. Then the buyers will sit up and take notice….simply because they don't want to miss out on seeing a property first.

        Report
        1. James M

          Thanks for the response Wilko. Will agents really not put properties on Z or RM for a whole week? Would I instruct an agent who promised to keep my property away from the two biggest audiences in that first week? Why would I? What's in it for me? It seems to me that this 7 day thing might be AM's only trick, and I just don't believe that sellers will support it. Plus AM will not have the 2 or 3% of properties from online agents, the 10% of properties from new home builders, and are very unlikely to get the 20% plus of properties from the Z investors – 60% of the properties as a maximum just won't cut it sorry – hardly the whole market is it?

          Report
          1. wilko

            Would YOU look on AM if YOU were seriously looking for a property?…That answers your question.
            Also with demand up 10% and supply down 2% year on year (see other PIE article today) we have 10-15 potential buyers for most of our instructions.
            Ask your next 10 vendors on your valuations if they will only consider their agent if they are on Zoopla…..I (like many others have tried this extensively in the past 6 months) fact is 96% said they would consider an agent that wasn't on Zoopla.
            Your arguments/comments really are "old hat" now. We have all moved on…Zoopla are well in decline…..that is proved by the mass sell off by their owners and the offer of 20% free shares to subscribers….look at the facts and "keep up"

            Report
          2. PeeBee

            Hi wilko

            I'm not 'keeping up' at all, matey, am I?

            Sorry and all that. You and Paul H are just gonna have to keep hitting me with the big hammer… 😉

            Report
  5. Paull

    Reeks of desperation imho, they know that most agents would dump Z and keep RM.

    Report
  6. agentgreen

    I would much rather own shares in Zoola than Agents Mututal. Zoopla is a great business which has a number of wel-established brands, a huge audience, ever-increasing number of sellers and landlords demdinding we are on it. Discounted shares in a business that actually delivers versus a share in a non-prfit that is likely to go nowhere – I know what I will be doing. Good luck Zoopla and thanks for looking out for your cusotmers which Rightmove did not do when it floated.

    Report
    1. Paul H

      "Thanks for looking out for your customers"….why NOW are they "looking out for their customers"…..it's a ***** cheek.

      Report
    2. Graham

      When Rightmove floated I spent £3,000 on shares. I sold 1/2 of them last year for £12,000 and the balance today are valued at nearly £11,000. I would suggest Rightmove looked out for me when it floated!

      Report
      1. Paul H

        Completely different circumstances… when rightmove floated there was no serious threat of an agent rebellion such as agents mutual and most agents were happy with the fees laid and service provided, also rightmove were the market leaders, Zoopla are not. Chalk and cheese.

        Report
        1. Graham

          You miss my point Paul, I was referring to agentgreen who stated that Rightmove did not look out for it's customers. I cant remember the offer but a return of over £20,000 on my initial investment is one of the best share deals I have made.

          Report
          1. MF

            But do take into account how much you have spent with RM since they floated, as compared to before they floated.

            Report
  7. dave k

    "often times instruments of darkness win us over with honest trifles that betray us with deepest consequence"

    Shakespeare knew a thing or two about human beaviour.

    Report
  8. Ric

    Yup Zoopla have now publically shown their fear of AM! love it….. Ivor it is fear make no mistake….. salvage what they can before it all goes **** up at year end.

    Dave: Hi! Do you mean AM should release the proposed portal name? If so, no way! the less everyone knows the better, surely.

    AM need to launch this (the site name) at the time properties are on, agents are on and everyone is shouting about it at the same time (agents windows, TV, papers, valuation letters, sales details everything mass marketing)…. the public will need to be able to visit the site and see value to it immediately, rather than "coming soon" how many sites with coming soon have you not gone back to.

    AM are playing a blinder! if you ask me….. the launch will be spectacular …. and no doubt the member agents will be doing some pretty aggressive marketing of AM themselves.

    Zoopla will have 1/2 the properties over night, AM will have an immediate 2nd market share and then the plan to drop RM by 2016….. exciting times but also our last chance to make this work.

    Report
    1. jon@hiea.co.uk

      Totally agree with both yours and Paul H comments on this. Why would Counrtywide, LSL and Connells all be looking to sell their shares if it was such a great deal.

      Bring it on!!! Well done to AM and the agents who support them.

      Report
      1. Paul H

        "Roll up, roll up, by now for £2500 and we will offer you a buy back guarantee at £500 this time next year"

        Report
      2. Lins C

        Erm – really. Assuming this post isn't an attempt at comedy, how are investors going to buy shares in a company if the current owners don't offer some of their equity for sale?

        Report
  9. Eric Walker

    I think that the assumption Zoopla is running scared, with respect, is a tad naive. A floatation of this size is a not a knee jerk reaction and the intention was well known before AM appeared – its a very long process. Offering shares at a discount to existing customers is not unusual either. Knowing some of the team at Zoopla, I believe their timing is actually impeccable. On the assumption agents will leave one of the big two, this makes their decision that little bit harder and will, I believe be more of a concern to RM. The next 6 months will be very interesting indeed.

    Report
    1. Paul H

      It is hard to believe that Zoopla would be offering these discounted shares if AM was not on the horizon.

      But if your right then this action by Zoopla is a protective measure only…damage limitation to stop agents dropping them over Rughtmove and acknowledgement that AM is going to disrupt the market.

      Report
  10. GilesH

    Given sellers want to be on zoopla, it is a brave agent to go with agent mutual

    Report
    1. Paul H

      If that was the case then everyone would be advertising on Purple bricks at £599/£99 a pop.

      Report
    2. surrey1

      A swift demonstration of the Zoopla valuation tool usually puts sellers off pretty quickly. It's an awful website that they and we will move on from painlessly. Personally I can't wait for Agents Mutual to roll out.

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        surrey1

        I'm NOT, before it all kicks off again, saying you are wrong in what you say above in relation to Zoopla as a site. HOWEVER, you are in essence saying that you can deal with the objections in the living room.

        WHAT IF people make a decision of who to invite into their living rooms based upon which portals they populate with their properties?

        You can't take it on if you don't get over the thresh.

        Just a thought…

        Report
    3. wilko

      Sellers really don't care about being on Zoopla any more…..ask them!

      Report
      1. PeeBee

        Hi wilko

        Again, NOT saying you are wrong.

        But they ARE on there, regardless. Tell them that they AREN'T going to be on there – you are taking something away from what they could have had.

        Replace what they could have had with an alternative they have never heard of – they may just see that as downgrading of service.

        I have previously suggested that 'Savvy Agent' will pounce on that – and use it to any advantage they can to win the instruction.

        I would ask the following of yourself, Paul H and other 'AM loyalists' (and am certain that you will give me your honest responses):

        Will, then, vendors want to know what reduction in fees they will qualify for?
        What will they be told?
        What concession would or could you make?

        Report
        1. Paul H

          Hers my penny worth;
          Will, then, vendors want to know what reduction in fees they will qualify for?……No, I genuinely cannot remember the last time someone asked me if I was on Zoopla or primelocation. What I will be prepared to do however,IF for whatever reason it becomes an issue(which I don't think it will) is offer less of a sole agency period, as said before I don't need two agents to sell properties right not, on that basis it is perhaps the best possible time for Agents Mutual to launch in January.

          What will they be told?….I have awaiting buyers (which I currently do) and that you will receive an extremely high level of service.
          What concession would or could you make?…As stated above less of a sole agency period of required, but I don't think I will.

          Hope that's honest enough for you Peebee mate 😉

          Report
          1. PeeBee

            Hi Paul H

            I know I can ALWAYS rely on you being upfront and honest, matey – as I hope you know you get from me.

            I dare say that some of the time, what you have written will be sufficient for a prospective vendor. I would also suggest, however, that given my scenario above, that
            a) SOME of the time either it won't and they will instruct an Agent that offers Zoopla as opposed to AM**, and
            b) SOME of the time you won't even get the chance because 'Savvy Agent' will blow you off as I said above.

            With the above in mind, let's just throw some daft percentages around. Say that you only lose 10% of instruction opportunities due to scenario a); and, say, 5% of valuation opportunities as a result of scenario b). Obviously you will need to do your own maths based upon your current turnover – but let me put forward an example based upon not ridiculous figures (although some of us would dream to aspire to get somewhere near the average fee… 🙁 ):

            100 completions per annum @ £2500 average fee

            So… in order to get 100 completions, you would need what? 150 instructions, maybe? 200?

            Let's say 175 – split the difference.

            In order to get those 175 instructions, you may need to carry out anywhere from 300 to 500 MAs (maybe even more – but I'm not wanting to make this look ridiculous).

            Let's split the difference again – 400.

            Right. Here goes.

            10% of completions = 10. No surprises there, I guess. 10 'lost' completions.

            ADD TO THAT:

            5% MA 'lost opportunities' = 20.
            Of those 20 lost MAs, you would have been instructed on just under 9 of them. We'll call it 9, though.
            Of those 9 instructions, you would have completed sales on 57% of them – that's another 5 'lost' completions.

            Now the painful bit:
            15 completions @ £2500 Fee
            That's potentially £32,500 lost. Gone. Never to be banked.

            Someone else's income instead of yours.

            Of course, all of the above could be billshut of the smelliest sort. The coin I spin could come up heads instead of tails. I don't know one way or another – neither do you.

            I just worry, matey. I worry for whom I believe to be good, decent Agents like you, like wilko, like ric… the list is not exhaustive. I would worry for wardy but he's sitting on the fence (like me!) waiting for it to succeed before committing!

            Do I want AM** to fail?

            I don't want it to fail the likes of YOU.

            ** Can I just state for the record that I am PIG SICK of referring to The Site With No Name…Yet… as Agents Mutual or AM! Surely, at least a year after it was first mooted, and only SEVEN MONTHS and counting before it is due to hit our screens, it is time to finally unveil what the flippin' thing is actually going to be called…? You know – what its' Member Agents are going to be heralding to the homeselling and buying population as the new 'Hovis'!

            Sorry, bud – and hopefully mores to the point, to those who are actually responsible for the site – but I really, REALLY think that every day that goes by from now on is costing the site (and thereby those that will populate it) credibility.

            And, in my humble opinion, that will lead to my 'Numbers Game' theory above not only becoming reality – but maybe even making the numbers worse.

            I look forward to being wrong. I really do.

            Report
          2. ampersat

            What happenes if the agent is selling at an average of £385k but only selling 40 units a year and because of the huge amount of competition in the area the commission rate is only 0.75%, The cost of losing a single instruction hits far harder.

            Report
          3. PeeBee

            ampersat

            I couldn't agree more.

            That being said – I think the Agents in your scenario all need to bang their heads together and wise up as to what their service is worth!

            As I said somewhere in the text of the above PeeBee version of War & Peace, people will have to do their own maths.

            I am simply concerned that potentially, in many cases (if not EVERY case…and you have served up another nice example…), the loss of only ONE COMPLETION PER ANNUM would probably outweigh the 'saving' made by dropping one (or more…) portals in favour of AM.

            Any more than that – potential disaster zone.

            But, hey – what do I know! 😉

            Report
          4. PeeBee

            Paul H

            Still think I owe it to everyone I know and love to turn up at an AM ra-ra meeting, bud?

            I'd reckon I'd have them all slitting their wrists – don't you think! 😉

            Report
        2. ampersat

          There is a resistance to the maths Peebee, the relief of actually selling something is enough; for the first time in probably 7 years there is more money coming in than going out and as a result turnover feels like profit.

          If one runs the maths on known figures and accepted averages the seasonally adjusted reality is that agency is now running on (at best) a little over 1% profit. With transaction levels running at 60% of 2007 levels, prices back to 2007 levels (ish—some higher some lower). The fixed costs haven't come down but competition levels have gone up and as a result commission levels are on a race to the bottom. The natural reaction is to join the race to the bottom and several respected firms I have spoken to are joining in – Andrews even produced a press release boasting that is what they are doing. It is the wrong long term strategy for any professional business to contemplate.

          Report
          1. Paul H

            "There is a resistance to the maths Peebee, the relief of actually selling something is enough; for the first time in probably 7 years there is more money coming in than going out and as a result turnover feels like profit."….Agreed Ampersat. The timing of the AM launch could not be any more perfect. I can't see anything drastic happening to the market until at least after the election once whoever comes in has to make more cuts again. This won't properly knock consumer confidence until the end of 2015….AM would have been well on it's way by then.

            Report
          2. PeeBee

            Yes, ampersat – there IS a resistance to the maths, as you suggest.

            Unfortunately, it is "the maths" – or at least the effects of its sum – that either keeps us open or closes our offices and takes away our livelihoods, isn't it!

            I recently (6 months ago) uplifted Sale Fees by what equated to 25%. I have analysed that I have lost approximately 10% of the instructions I should have won to cheaper Agents as a result – but some of those Agents are also 'beating' me by ramping up asking prices beyond sensible levels.

            Of those I am being instructed on, I am selling over 80% within 6 weeks – the competition aren't meeting 40% – and the other 60%+ are starting to descend the the slippery slide called "REDUCED FOR QUICK SALE".

            So – 12.5% more income, for 10% less effort and expenditure than if I hadn't donned the bicycle clips.

            MY maths is looking pretty good – through MY rose-coloured specs, that is… 😉

            Report
          3. PeeBee

            "The timing of the AM launch could not be any more perfect. I can't see anything drastic happening to the market until at least after the election once whoever comes in has to make more cuts again. This won't properly knock consumer confidence until the end of 2015….AM would have been well on it's way by then."

            I'm sorry Paul H – but I simply can't correlate this to the matter we are actually chopping on about, which has moved on from AM to the thorny subject of Fee levels and profitability.

            But, I suppose AM is your specialist subject – so you will be ready, willing and more than able to show me that is has TOTAL relevance no doubt, matey… 😉

            I can't wait!

            Report
          4. Paul H

            Peebee, "so you will be ready, willing and more than able to show me that is has TOTAL relevance no doubt, matey"…..
            I do not seem to be able to reply to your comment below but see my reply at the bottom of the page.

            Report
  11. marcH

    Much as I agree with Eric Walker's sensible note of caution, he misses the point: it IS unusual for an IPO to offer share at a discount at some time IN THE FUTURE. Avoid this flotation (or you could always stag it for a quick buck!).

    Report
  12. wilko

    Anyone reckon (with 25% "freebie" shares), that an agent investor could make a quick buck on turning them round straight away?

    Report
  13. wilko

    My own personal view is similar to others here…….Zoopla want to cash in their chips before they crash as a viable portal – and then (when AM is the first portal choice) they will be absorbed by Rightmove (out of desperation).
    The fact is that immediately AM launches Zoopla will lose C £7 MILLION a year in fees…..All those that stay with Zoopla will have to cover those losses to stop the share price from slumping…..All those Zoopla fans who think their vendors must be on Zoopla will have to pay increased rates for it……or join AM.

    Report
  14. ampersat

    An interesting quote from Mr Chesterman in this evening's Evening Standard
    "Zoopla will not be vulnerable if the housing market runs into problems, the property market is still substantially below where it was in the ealy 2000's in terms of transactions and pricing"

    Now while I woould agree transaction levels are down prices are by and large where they were in Spring 2007 very close to the peak of the market. You don't suppose that comment is designed to mislead? I can't see such an informed character being quite so out of touch with prices especially as it his valuation models that are being used to ramp up prices.

    Report
    1. Paul H

      You calling Mr Chesterman a fibber Ampersat 😉

      I take it you won't be taking him up on his fantastic share offer then.

      Personally I don't think the catch(not as if people are asking what's the catch!) has been revealed yet which is that to take up shares you must sign up for at least two or three years, I think this or something similar will be within the long awaited prospectus.

      Report
      1. ampersat

        Not at all I am questioning why a bloke as informed as Mr Chesterman would allow himself to be quoted making an obviously incorrect statement. With no mention of the evaporating goodwill of the client base, no mention of a new and credible competitor charging over the horizon, no mention of the acknowledged over inflated London market and no mention of the likely effects of an interest rate rise, I just feel that the authors of the article in the Evening Standard (part owned by the DMGT ,53% shareholder in Zoopla) have painted a picture that supports and hypes the value of Zoopla well beyond what it is probably worth to a fully informed investor.

        Report
  15. Paul H

    Peebee…I've answered here to your posts of last night.

    Some extremely good points raised as ever Peebee, perhaps you were an accountant in a former life 😉
    And I too appreciate your honesty and it's a testament to you that all along you've been up front with your concerns and justified your cautious view of the AM proposal. I respect those views and concerns now i'll attempt to kick them out the ball park 😉
    To address the two points that you think will hinder someone's chances on a val…
    (a)I always thought that vendors primary concern was that their property was sold and not where there property is marketed. I don't know how it works up norf or in other areas but in greater London, genuinely, no one asks if you are on Zoopla or Primelocation, but let’s say that AM launches in January with a big fanfare being heavily pushed by all member agents and with the help of an initial tv/media campaign, meaning in those first three months the AM name is out there and those looking to sell or buy know of it, what if those vendors then ask if you are also on AM and if not why not?! In any case as stated in my last post above if necessary, I can lower my sole agency period and if required have a few more tricks up my sleeve that can be pulled out if necessary, either way I have complete faith in my ability to overcome the objection. And to deal with your next concern about being blown off by savvy agent…..
    (b)What's to say that come January there are 1000's on AM, what's to say that your scenario is then turnt on its head full circle by the savvy AM agents who on the val advise all vendors that those on Zoopla are only doing so because they were offered cheap shares. What's to say that all those savvy AM agents, some of which being the largest independent agencies in the country with a wealth of experience can't club together to come up with a way to counter these objections on valuations and then turn it full circle on those non AM agents who want to slag off AM agents on the val, don't forget that these agents have signed up for 5 years all with their own money invested, all in for 1000's over a period of half a decade some in for millions, do you really think that they will not do whatever is necessary to make this venture work?!
    There are also many agents out there that deal with split commissions(not me personally) but what if those AM agents decide that they would rather do a split with a fellow AM agent, if those non AM agents wants to get savvy on AM agents. Not saying this will happen but all agents can be savvy and play the same game as others if they have to protect their business. I think there are more than enough ways for even 'small independent' AM agent to even the playing field a bit if required!
    But let's say that in the short term you are right and non AM agents lose out on a tenth of instructions what then if within a year AM becomes such a success that you will have no choice then to sign up but what if your fees as a bronze member over the remaining 5 year period means that you pay a considerable amount in fees by not being a gold or silver member, all for a bit of short term gain?!

    One thing is for sure as each day goes by the AM numbers grow not diminish unlike the duopoly who will eventually lose these agents, it's just a matter of when and I've got to say that I'm getting more and more confident as each day goes by.

    You say only 7 months but we’ve got a long time yet Peebee and for Zoopla it must be an eternity.

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Gor blimey, mate – I'd hate to be up against YOU as a competitor!

      (actually – I think I'd relish it. You have more passion; more drive and more belief in the job in front of you that 99.8% of Agents I have ever come across.)

      That is the beauty of this forum (and WAS the beauty of you-know-which that Ros was previously the driving force behind…) – it allows us to strip away our egos and personalities and actually DEAL with the issues that make our industry what it is. And those 'regulars' that post here with the commitment of yourself, Mr Walker, wardy, wilko, ampersat… and not forgetting many others – but the list would look like the who's who of the industry (that would be primarily due to the fact that we don't know who IS who in a great deal of instances, of course…!), generally have I firmly believe the best interests of the industry and its customers at heart.

      Of course, the flip side of the coin is that discussion sites like this also allows of course those with hidden agendas to prostitute their diatribe. It allows promotion of empty vessels as the new 'Hovis' (sorry – I've been saying it for so long I just can't stop… 😉 ) – and charlatans to appear as saviours.

      But – you ain't any of the latter – unless my instincts are very, very off target.

      MY view is "look after your customers; look after your industry – and in turn you will be looked after by them". That is MY "agenda" if you want to call it that – and in that respect I'm afraid I am very much a one-trick pony.

      Now I had someone give me a proper porking a while back on 'you-know-which' website. Called him/herself 'PeeBee's Conscience' (but only after I suggested the name…) who didn't like me digging, gnawing and otherwise poking my fingers into cracks where they clearly weren't welcome. Tried to beat me down to either back off or show my own Achilles Heel in the heat of debate. Eventually he/she backed off (but I'm certain will resurface one day, in some form or another…) – but I sincerely hope that it was simply because I demonstrated that I'm NOT looking to promote me or anything else other than a wanting to see our industry prosper. Who knows.

      As you will no doubt have read in the recent posts from ampersat that he sees me as some fat, bald Paxman-type character. Two out of three ain't bad, as Mr Marvin Lee Aday blasted out. I see me as more of an annoying, demented Jack Russell that will chew at any- and everybody's ankles if I sniff of anything that doesn't smell of roses.

      Your entire argument stacks up – when looked at through what I would refer to as a "variables filter". Remove the variables, and you are left with the pure, distilled product – and that product would tick all the boxes. ADD IN the variables – you have what I am putting forward as a counter-argument. Maybe I am overblowing the variables – I don't know. The truth is we simply WON'T know until 'AM-Day' – or, more likely I would suggest, AM-Day plus 'x'.

      And, as you touch on (my point also…), many of the variables will vary from one region, town, or street to another.

      In the meantime, matey, I am hugely appreciative of your tenacity to convert me to AM being the bread I should be breaking (if, in fact, 'converting' is what I actually need…).

      The minute I join the converted – you'll be the first to know!

      (me being wheat intolerant isn't helping you a lot though… 😉 )

      Report
      1. Paul H

        I've got to agree with a lot of that Peebee, particularly "look after your customers, look after your industry" and I think for many posters on here there intentions are for the betterment of our industry.

        I look forward to the day you join the converted and I can split my properties with a fellow AM agent, apparently selling properties in London from a call centre in Geordie land is the new craze 😉

        Report
        1. PeeBee

          It'll never catch on, matey… 😉

          Report
  16. Paul H

    Peebee said…"I'm sorry Paul H – but I simply can't correlate this to the matter we are actually chopping on about, which has moved on from AM to the thorny subject of Fee levels and profitability."
    I was referring to Ampersat's comment about transaction levels down compared to 2006, and that agents having to adapt by racing to the bottom. Although I don't agree with this being the solution, agents are having to adapt their model, as you have by raising fees 25% but taking on less stock.
    To bring this back to Am, I was suggesting how AM agencies can adapt their model if they have to still keep good profitability levels.

    Report
    1. PeeBee

      Ahhh…. I see!

      Can you post something on that story about that Financial Research company plugging their new 'report' about how broken everything is (except the price of beans, apparently…)?

      I willing to bet you can even sort THAT article out by bringing AM into the equation, matey! 😉

      Report
      1. Paul H

        I'm sure I can weave my magic….you never got a reply in the end from that Verum research poster, it was the baked beans that done it 😉

        Report
        1. PeeBee

          Yeah, well… maybe baked beans isn't on their radar at present as a major indicator of public spending trends, matey.

          Or maybe they simply overlook them because no-one in their right mind would pay the neck end of a grand for a report into the escalating cost of baked beans?

          I'll not confuse them further with other staple foods.

          Report
X

You must be logged in to report this comment!

Leave a reply

If you want to create a user account so you can log in, click here

More top news stories

Thank you for signing up to our newsletter, we have sent you an email asking you to confirm your subscription. Additionally if you would like to create a free EYE account which allows you to comment on news stories and manage your email subscriptions please enter a password below.