Rumours that fund manager Neil Woodford last night looked to be bailing out of Purplebricks have turned out to be without substance.
It could have raised serious question marks over investment into online agents generally and into Purplebricks in particular.
Yesterday evening, after markets closed, Purplebricks issued a statement to the stock market detailing a small reduction in Woodford’s holding.
But a news agency ran a story shortly afterwards saying that Woodford Investment Management had sold 65.3m shares in Purplebricks, allegedly bringing its stake down from 27.06% to just 2.99%.
The story claimed that Woodford, who had previously owned 73.4m shares, now owned just 8.1m shares.
In fact, Woodford has simply tweaked his holding from 27% to 26.9%.
Purplebricks said it was seeking retraction of a story that could have impacted the market at its 8am opening.
Purplebricks this morning issued a second statement correcting a figure given in yesterday’s announcement of 2.99%, and amending it to 26.99%.
The link shows the erroneous news report.
http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/alliance-news/detail/1505320731217099100.html
Well lets hope they don’t get a retraction.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Funny url for the post “is-he-out-fund-manager-neil-woodford-chops-back-hard-on-purplebricks-investment” 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh – look who’s back to sprinkle ducky-dust in order to magic away all the negativity on yet another PB-centric article.
More regular than me granny’s toilet habits.
How’s yer wounds from yesterday’s #duckshoot, by the way, ducky?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>How’s yer wounds from yesterday’s #duckshoot, by the way, ducky?
Not sure what you are on about. No doubt some personal comment you made which would just be water off a ducks back 🙂
I know you prefer personal attacks but If you have anything to say on why you think the article is negative then I’d be interested.
Especially in light of the comment “Rumours that fund manager Neil Woodford last night looked to be bailing out of Purplebricks have turned out to be without substance.”
My post was pointing out that perhaps PIE also thought there was substance to the sale of shares when they drafted the original version of the article. Why? Because the url assigned to the article is “is-he-out-fund-manager-neil-woodford-chops-back-hard-on-purplebricks-investment”
If you still don’t understand then you probably never will.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
You do realise and comprehend, don’t you, that the article was based upon information contained within an official document posted on the LSE website, and was widely reported upon?
May I take it that you are also familiar with the fact that the information contained within said Stock Market Update was incorrect due, seemingly, to a common-or-garden typographical error, and the percentage figure of held Shares was incorrectly inserted as 2.99% when it should have been 26.99%.
I would suggest that it was due to this erroneous information being widely Tweeted that an updated statement has been published, as it is questionable whether it would have been picked up otherwise.
But, based upon the above, I would suggest that it absolutely would be reasonable for EYE to have, as you put it, “also thought there was substance to the sale of shares when they drafted the original version of the article.” It would actually have been most unusual for them or anyone else to have ‘thought‘ along similar lines.
I trust this explanation will assist the penny to drop – as to quote you again,
“If you still don’t understand then you probably never will.”
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>I would suggest that it was due to this erroneous information being widely Tweeted that an updated statement has been published, as it is questionable whether it would have been picked up otherwise.
Of course it would have been noticed. It was being reporting that he’d sold close to 1/4 billion pounds worth of shares. See http://www.iii.co.uk/alliance-news/1505320731217099100-3/woodford-investment-management-dramatically-reduces-purplebricks-stake-alliss-
One section of the form you refer to was incorrect but another section did show correctly that the new position was 26.99%. See https://www.investegate.co.uk/purplebricks-group/rns/holding-s–in-company/201709131714066842Q/
So any journalist who understands these things would see the ambiguity and not jump to conclusions don’t you think?
If you need anything else explaining just ask.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh, dear – it appears I’ve been #duckslapped!
Except… before I simply lay down and accept that as being the case, let’s just take stock.
Let’s have a look at what was actually reported shall we? What was actually said in that Alliance News Detail you give the hyperlink to above, that was published on the Purplebricks Group plc section of the LSE website under “NEWSFEED”.
It goes like this:
Woodford Investment Management Dramatically Reduces Purplebricks Stake (ALLISS)
[ 13 Sep 2017 17:38 ]
LONDON (Alliance News) – Online estate agents Purplebricks Group PLC said Wednesday Woodford Investment Management Ltd has sold 65.3 million shares in the company, bringing its stake down to 2.99% from 27.06%.
Woodford had previously owned 73.4 million shares and, having reduced its holding, now owns 8.1 million shares.
Shares in Purplebricks were down 6% at the close on Wednesday at 388.00 pence.
And that, as they say, was that.
I have said it before innumerable times to those that have an understanding void requiring filling – but I’m clearly going to have to stuff this good’n’proper up the duck’s parsons nose in order to make you take it in:
PROPERTYINDUSTRYEYE IS A NEWS REPORTING CHANNEL.
Although our dear Landlady is an eminent journalist in her own right (which has on many occasions been appropriately recognised by her own profession and – as is frequently seen on these ‘pages’ – can pick up from where she left off on a nanosecond’s notice where the slightest sniff of a scoop is picked up by here journalistic sixth sense and churn out a cracker) in the main Ros and co relies on stuff coming via recognised journo channels and whips them into shape for the hungry EYE audience.
WHY, then – given the fairly precise information contained in the above from what should be seen and accepted as a reliable source, would any journalist go to the ‘n’th degree to validate the information?
So no – I DON’T “think”.
I know.
No doubt you’ll now be too busy to read any further responses – as other EYE readers have noticed be your normal tactic when caught in the crosshairs of a #duckshoot.
I won’t embarrass you further by asking if you need any further assistance grasping the above white-hot penny as it really can’t be made any clearer or cut into smaller bite-size chunks – I will instead simply bid you good evening, Sir.
Save to say ’tis always a pleasure to educate, enlighten and steer you and others along the right path where required… and never a chore!
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Lots of words but what’s your point?
>PROPERTYINDUSTRYEYE IS A NEWS REPORTING CHANNEL.
Are you saying that Property Industry Eye completely ignore the official announcement made by the company via the Regulatory News Service (RNS)? That is the original source of the news?
That would certainly explain why the url claims “neil-woodford-chops-back-hard-on-purplebricks-investment”
Whilst you have my attention, could you also elaborate on what you were saying ” look who’s back to sprinkle ducky-dust in order to magic away all the negativity on yet another PB-centric article” or do you now accept you have completely missed the point?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
In response to your question – and in an attempt to keep this as civil as possible
“Are you saying that Property Industry Eye completely ignore the official announcement made by the company via the Regulatory News Service (RNS)?”
I am of course unable to speak for EYE, and it is not really my place to speculate on the answer…
…however, I believe that the article body above may well contain a clue or two about the why’s and wherefore’s:
“Purplebricks issued a statement to the stock market…”
“…a news agency ran a story shortly afterwards…”
If I was pushed into giving my own view then that view would be that I would imagine that “breaking news” from within the journalistic world would be more likely picked up and reported upon than would be a Stock Market Update – but at the end of the day that is just my view.
If you want to press for answers to questions that only EYE can provide definitive responses to – answers that you may then feel the need to sprinkle the aforementioned ‘ducky-dust’ upon – then I suggest you address them in the first instance to Nick Salmon.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
>I am of course unable to speak for EYE, and it is not really my place to speculate on the answer…
Then why didn’t you say that in the first place? You’ve spent a lot of time and energy jumping to conclusions and wasted a lot of time over nothing. And you wonder why I usually stop checking back to see what you have to say after everybody else has moved on? When in the main, what you say doesn’t even relate to the article but is more of a personal nature or some game of one-upmanship because you have some sort of problem with me?
I refer you back to your original comment ”look who’s back to sprinkle ducky-dust in order to magic away all the negativity on yet another PB-centric article” … “How’s yer wounds from yesterday’s #duckshoot, by the way, ducky?”
Says it all really doesn’t it? Did you even read the article before commenting? There wasn’t even any negativity in the article 🙂
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
Oh, sorry – maybe I should have made the following comment earlier – but I’ve enjoyed your rantlets so much I wanted to keep this going as long as possible.
But now you’re getting to the point where you realise what’s coming – which ain’t nice for you – and make your excuses and do one.
So – let’s cut to the chase on the matter you’re getting your feathers all ruffled over, shall we?
Did I say that the negativity was within the article?
No.
#duckshoot.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
My apologies, I now see what you were getting at. Your comment wasn’t even related to the article whatsoever this time 🙂
>Oh – look who’s back to sprinkle ducky-dust in order to magic away all the negativity on yet another PB-centric article.
So just plain intimidation then. Anybody would think you want me, an actual customer of PurpleBricks, to go away leaving you and other collaborators to your ill informed opinions.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“So just plain intimidation then.”
You know someone’s beaten when they start chucking in the old claim of ‘malice and intimidation’, ducky.
You’ll be quacking that I’ve stuck a horse’s head in your bed next.
And as to the “me… just a sweet and innocent customer of a company I think you’re being weally weally nasty to…” we all know what utter b0ll0cks that is – so I suggest you wrap that up and put it at the back of a very deep closet, pal.
#duckshoot
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
PeeBee, like I said earlier, it’s like water of a ducks back;
“So just plain intimidation then.”
clarification: plain intimidation rather than a comment of relevance to the article, in other words a childish and complete waste of everybody’s time.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
“Childish”? Matter of opinion.
“Waste of everybody’s time”? Only mine and yours, ducky – and I feel mine was well worth the effort expended, which was minimal. And for a man who seems so time-obsessed – you must have felt the same way too. Only it’s taking you far, far longer.
But that’s okay – I’ll just let you play catch-up as I can’t slow down that far.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
By the way, ducky – while I’ve apparently regained your attention for a minute – what say you about the post at the bottom of this thread?
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
perhaps Purble should complain the the ASA? informal resolution springs to mind…..
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
No retraction necessary “purplebricks this morning issued a second statement correcting a figure given in yesterday’s announcement of 2.99%, and amending it to 26.99%.” it was there mistake….force of habit I expect !
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
One wonders, that share sale may be raising cash to invest in a recently floated, formerly mutual property portal.
Only 0.1% required. As a certain magican commented “you’ll like this, not a lot”.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
The possibility of Woodford buying AM would be a gift to Purplebricks and the members have just voted to allow such a situation to arise.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register
SHOCKER: Corporate Failures and Censures – the red flags at Purplebricks you ignore at your peril
By Tom Winnifrith, The Sheriff of AIM | Thursday 14 September 2017
If you like this, please share this article using the buttons below
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
Neil Woodford, Paul Scott and the man who compares himself to Warren Buffett, Roger Lawson, have no doubt done full due diligence on the manangement at Purplebricks (PURP), notably its founders, the Bruce brothers. Or maybe not…
Most investors realise that it’s important for a company to have a good management team. In that respect, if you really dig, the form of the founders and management of Purplebricks does not appear overly promising.According to paragraph 5.5 on page 81 of the IPO prospectus.
“Michael Bruce was a director of Be Moved Limited (company number
05751900
) and Cornerstone The Midlands Limited (company number
03095041
) when the companies entered administration on 11 November 2008. The assets of the companies were sold to Burchell Edwards (Midlands) Limited on 31 October 2008. Michael Bruce was a director and shareholder of Burchell Edwards (Midlands) Limited until it was sold to Connells estate agency in November 2011. Be Moved Limited was dissolved on 27 July 2010 and Cornerstone The Midlands Limited was dissolved on 29 January 2011. Michael Bruce was not the subject of public criticism in connection with the administrations.”
Both Be Moved and Cornerstone The Midlands, managed and controlled by the Bruce brothers, went bust in 2008. They bought some of the assets back out of administration, but as per their previous attempt at running the businesses, future prospects did not end well either.
The Administrator’s Reports for Be Moved and Cornerstone The Midlands reveal some interesting details. One section highlights how upon inspection, the reported debtors of the business were difficult to recover, not helped by the fact that there was no clear or evidential paperwork to substantiate the claims. For example, the Administrator highlighted (emphasis added):
Further to comments made in the Administrators’ Proposals, realisations from the Company’s book debts have not been as significant as previously anticipated. The Company’s books and records indicated that the sum of £303,807 was owed to the Company in respect of trade debts at the date of Administration, which were estimated to realise £200,000. However, a number of the Company’s book debts which the directors indicated were collectable have not been realised to date, mainly as a result of a lack of supporting documentation in the Company’s books and records.
In 2010, the Bruce duo incorporated JKM Property Solutions Limited (company number 07293371). This appears to have been a concept business, focused on a niche area of the property market whereby JKM Property Solutions would assist vendors with properties that required renovation. If a property required a face-lift such as a new kitchen, bathroom, redecoration, etc, then JKM Property Solutions would liaise with the vendor and buyer to ensure that the works were carried out between exchange and completion.
Similar to both Be Moved and Cornerstone The Midlands, JKM Property Solutions also ran into difficulties and was wound up in late 2012.
And again, similar to the Administrator’s Reports for Be Moved and Cornerstone The Midlands, some of the comments, purportedly from persons familiar with JKM Property Solutions at the time make for interesting reading.
One commentator highlights (emphasis added):
Essentially no surprise at all. I had first hand experience at JKM and whilst the period was highly interesting professionally, the organisation (I mean that in its loosest sense) and total lack of accountability and management was remarkable. Without any clearly defined leadership or direction, the only prognosis in my opinion for this organisation has been realised. In the interest of a balanced opinion however I do concur with Mr Hill that there were a certain few individuals who appeared to try hard but given that they lacked any significant previous experience in their respective roles, one could accuse them of being busy fools and that they were destined to fail without any significant support from “senior management”.
On a more practical note, I personally witnessed some of the most appalling workmanship I have come across in my career to date, mostly due to the apparent lack of any meaningful site supervision. Again though there was one exception to the rule which I saw. Had this been the general standard of installation I think the business model stood a chance.
Funny how the blame game seems to be played. If it was indeed a result of the PD’s not achieving the sales, I would ask who was managing the situation? In summary, a great principle, ruined in practice by misguided, inexperienced and ineffectual management and a generally undirected sales force.
I dare say that there will be certain individuals that will argue that my experience was not representative of what was actually happening but my counter argument would be that its academic, the above is of course my perspective on events but nevertheless the outcome for JKM remains unaltered.
Ends
Another states:
Michael Bruce did not have a grip on the reality of what was happening.
When you have national agreements with the big corporates it should have been easy…… only we were continually told to push them and push them to the point of self destruct. The corporates were always worried about sales completing (and who could blame them) so did not allow business to come our way.
Michael should have listened to the sales professionals who could have made this company work.
Ends.
There seems to be a common theme throughout the Bruce brothers’ history. Of course, there are two sides to every argument and much like the copious five star Trustpilot reviews for Purplebricks today, there are also some fan type reviews for the Bruce brothers’ historic approach to management. However, one may wish to err on the side of caution when also reflecting on the fact that as recently as June 2015, and when at Purplebricks, Kenneth Bruce was censured by the National Federation of Property Professionals (NFOPP) for conduct involving “unprofessional practice or practices that is unfair to members of the public” and failing “not to mis-describe class of membership”.
It is not clear from the NFOPP’s censure what unprofessional practice was committed but failing not to mis-describe class of membership appears to indicate that Kenneth Bruce misled others into believing either himself or another person was a member of the NFOPP Association, or a member of any particular class.
According to the NFOPP it was also alleged that among other rule breaches that Kenneth Bruce was involved in “dishonesty or deceitful behaviour”. However, some of these allegations were subsequently withdrawn.
With such a record of recent public criticism, it is hardly surprising that Kenneth Bruce resigned as a director of Purplebricks, literally just a month prior to Purplebricks’ IPO in December 2015, thereby allowing the prospectus to accurately state that at the date of the Admission document that none of the Directors “has been the subject of any public criticisms by any statutory or regulatory authority (including any recognised professional body) …”.
Kenny Bruce had already exited stage left … at least in an official sense.
You must be logged in to like or dislike this comments.
Click to login
Don't have an account? Click here to register