Online agent Purplebricks plans an initial public offering in the second quarter of 2016.
Non-executive director Paul Pindar told Reuters that before launching on London’s AIM stock exchange, Purplebricks plans to raise up to £10m in a third round of financing likely to take place in the third quarter of this year.
Pindar, former boss of Capita, told the news agency: “Our view is that an IPO in 2016 is a natural evolution for the business.”
The company, launched by brothers Michael and Kenny Bruce who previously ran high street agent Burchell Edwards, has attracted considerable investment, including £7m from fund manager Neil Woodford. Wonga founder Errol Damelin is also an investor.
Its first two financing rounds, held in the first and third quarters of last year, raised £3m and £8m.
Have they made a penny profit yet I wonder? Lots of borrowing going on.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I thought they already were a floater?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
IndAgent you miss the point and many others do too – they are not trying to compete against you or me, they are building an empire that will take on Rightmove or whoever else.
They are building something that is so big and could be said first to market that they will be synonymous as that red brand is to cola, but is doesn’t come fast and it doesn’t come cheap.
Laugh now now as no one will be laughing in 5 years time!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
What? Just like OTM? People like Coke which is why Tesco probably don’t sell more of their own brand cola which is significantly cheaper.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ps. I do think the online model has legs and will grow over the years. Purplebricks clearly has an edge on their competition with the quick growth and so on. I still firmly believe that their approach will not take over the entire market – maybe 20% ish in 5 years.
Just like Rightmove…. Get shareholders involved… Prices go up. And the punters who choose this model want the best deal which they will no longer offer.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I’m with Paul-ch…..ish. It is clear that PB are serious players in this sector. Investors have worked out that (albeit eventually) people will confidently sell “online” . In the coming years £millions and £millions will be spent (with little or no return) building a model that the public will be happy to use. It could be that PB will set about purchasing rivals at some point…after all we have seen 2 property portals grow massively by picking off opponants.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
wilko… I’m getting worried about you.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
So the gamble is – Do Bricks Float or Sink?
I’m going with what I learnt when they chucked one in my local swimming baths and made me rescue it in my PJ’s when I was about 10………. fair play it was a black rubber brick; perhaps purple ones are made to float.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Title states “Purplebricks looking to float a year from now”
The current name is too heavy to float – needs less letters.
Removing ‘u’ to ‘b’ inclusive and relaunching under the new, streamlined – and far more appropriate – monicker would be my suggestion…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Haha…. V funny.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Ric, matey – I can probably count on one hand the number of times I have been more serious about anything…
…and have three fingers left!
Take it you haven’t seen the adverts…
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
oh yes….. I now dive for the remote to turn it off, as I worry my TV will not take the abuse much longer.
I was wondering if they be made to say “Not all agents charge the fees we are using as an example” and “remember our comparison is an upfront fee compared to a no sale no fee agent so it may actually be more expensive to use us should your property fail to sell”
Personally they don’t really bother me, cheap attracts cheap BUT I do think the industry should perhaps have a bit of a fight (including the corps) about the suggestion all agents charge a certain amount without being made to offer extra information as from memory the BPR (Advertising and Law) does suggest leaving out certain information could be seen as “not fair”
Just a thought as I recently asked Ms Beeeeenay to quantify her claim she does everything MY company does. I simply asked can her clients walk into an office in the same village 7 days a week and talk face to face with a sales staff member including up until 7pm at night…… no surprise… there has been no answer.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
I should add…. as this is in relation to actual broadcasting advertisement of price comps…..
Other Comparisons
3.38
Advertisements that include comparisons with unidentifiable competitors must not mislead, or be likely to mislead, consumers. The elements of the comparison must not be selected to give the advertiser an unrepresentative advantage.
Price Comparisons
3.39
Advertisements that include a price comparison must make the basis of the comparison clear
Hope this copies okay, but I think a fair point to say a full on generalisation of High Street of Old without anything to substantiate the “dig” on fees.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Gor blimey, Guv – this story is all about grammatical error!
Not only is my suggested change to the company name required – but I’ve also noticed that the title of the article isn’t correct. Please note the amended version:
“Purplebricks looking to remain afloat a year from now”
There – that’s better. Unlikely – but better.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register