A report in the Sunday Telegraph about OnTheMarket’s proposed stock market flotation centred on estate agent Graeme Lumsden’s Vote No campaign.
But the story – which made the first page of the paper’s Business section under the headline “OnTheMarket’s £50m float plan causes tempers to flare” – made an assertion which has now been corrected online.
The original story said that Lumsden “has started a campaign to vote against the float, arguing that the demutualisation would take power away from the original members of the mutual because the board and new investors would control roughly 50% of the company”.
However, the 50% figure has been changed to 37% in the online version while Lumsden himself said he had never made that argument.
A spokesperson for OnTheMarket said that the 50% was incorrect, and told EYE: “OnTheMarket.com’s strategy is to issue equity to further agents to attract them to join it over the coming years.
“This will increase the proportion of the company owned by agents.
“All agent and management shares will not be able to be sold for five years (save that 10% can be sold after 12 months and another 10% after 24 months).
“Only if the strategy succeeds will any shareholder agent or management shareholder realise any gains.”
Lumsden meanwhile told EYE that he had not mentioned anything at all about the extent to which new investors would have a stake in OnTheMarket, let alone state a figure.
He sent us a copy of the statement he sent to the Telegraph in proof.
What he did say was that members had been given a ‘float or fail’ proposal, jeopardising the support of high street agents who had originally signed up because of the mutuality principle.
He also said in his statement that he had started his campaign because “it became clear to me that the Vote No voice of the members had no outlet”.
Separately, a prominent agent in South Wales, where Zoopla is the dominant ‘one other portal’ choice, has said why he has already voted Yes to the float.
Chris Hope, senior partner of 15-branch Dawsons, said: “I share most people’s disappointment that OnTheMarket has not taken off as originally planned.
“But it is a case of ‘with me or without me’. We must keep OnTheMarket in the industry.
“If OnTheMarket was not here, I think we would already be paying significantly more in subscriptions to Rightmove and Zoopla.
“That is why I have already sent my Yes vote off.”
Comments (22)
With a valuation of 200M would this then mean that Springett is worth 10% of the overall company? And with shares, unlike with a mutual, share ownership translates to voting power. The long term aim will be to turn this OTM into a RedFin or Purplebricks where the agents all share a common OTM brand.
Agent V…
You can read the Latest Newsletter Update on the Q & A which I had with Ian Springett in my capacity as an AM Member…. I asked for agreement to circulate my questions/Ian’s answers to which he agreed, provided they were circulated in full – which I have done. Ros has received them.
….have a look on theestateagencyindustry.co.uk or teai.co.uk (for those that get tired typing all those letters! lol – a 4 letter word! teai.co.uk)
I’m well documented with my absolute Vote NO however I am trying to avoid any debate that becomes mud slinging. This debate is a combination of facts/assumption/personal views & opinions and for me “actual OTM/AM Member experience” of what has taken place up to this point.
I posed direct questions and Ian Springett answered them, in part covered my Member Booklet info already out there and some additional detail.
Voting Members will or have made up their own minds.
I remain categorically Vote NO.
I respect Chris Hope’s view…
However, picking up on his apparent comment
“If OnTheMarket was not here, I think we would already be paying significantly more in subscriptions to Rightmove and Zoopla”.
Personally I have seen no change in the charging behaviour from Rightmove – their juggernaut rolls on unabated.
The one change from Rightmove after OTM’s arrival? …..RM cleaned up the visual look of their website to mimic aspects of OTM’s site
Rightmove has always turned the screw just enough each year, just inflicting enough financial pain.
Hi Graeme
I wonder if the Telegraph picked up the 50% from my post on Friday, if so and it caused you any difficulties then apologies.
With regards to Chris Hope, although you can respect his view it would have been nice if he had been more open and indicated that with 15 branches his firms potential shareholding would be a nice addition to their pension scheme.
This is of course the problem, in that multi branch members will always look at the number of potential shares. It is only the smaller Independents who think that the benefit is not enough to warrant selling your soul.
No Problem Brand New… that’s why I would only issue a Written Statement to Press Enquiries – I wanted proof of what I actually said on behalf of myself and other Vote NO Members, knowing that whatever one says it will edited down to a few small paragraphs with a headline to catch the attention, which in the Telegraph’s case was “Member Anger?” …..when it should have read, “Members sheer frustration”!
On Chris Hope… I had that very conversation at The Roadshow I attended with a well known multi member branch who was supporting a Yes Vote – I openly said that I wasn’t surprised at his stance as he/his company stood to gain much more financially than smaller members – he stated his case otherwise and we shook hands at the close of the meeting. It is what it is…. real Yes Votes for whatever reason will be counted, likewise the Vote NO’s.
I sincerely believe the VOTE No Members are NOT voting for OTM to fail, merely for CHANGE and a real collective support of a New Beginning for OTM, in whatever form that is Mutually agreed. As it stands now, to me, and others? …..it’s Duopoly Basic Edition Proposal and if it’s just that then we’ve danced down this road already.
I understand Zoopla are already making appointments to take more OTM Members back with huge sweeteners…. so, AM is already handing the No 2 Portal an early gift!
Surely as a mutual organisation, isn’t it up to the members to agree what share allocation the members and management get in the event of a successful IPO? I cant recall there being a discussion on the matter and I for one do not think handing £20 million in shares to an already very well person WITHOUT any kind of performance-related structure in place is unacceptable. Same goes for the rest of the management.
That appears to be a benefit of this particular “Mutual Member Company” – “self-reward” packages voted only by those receiving them?
Amazing?!
‘How To Become A Multi-Millionaire’ For Dummies
i never realised in all my days how easy it could be!
Separately…
I asked Ian 4 specfic questions a few days ago, which he duly answered…
Dear Ian,
As there has been extended Member debate on various issues and it seems a considerable number of unanswered questions I wanted to ask you, as Chief Executive of Agents Mutual, 4 specific questions which most would view as being entirely reasonable in this IPO process.
I’m sure you would agree that there is no valid reason for any “cloak n’ dagger” secrecy surrounding who at any level/relationship will benefit from “Share Rewards”.
1) Why is there any secrecy whatsoever surrounding the identity of the “Undisclosed Share Reward Beneficiaries”.
2) What are the names of any “Undisclosed Share Reward Beneficiaries” and what, if any, is their relationship with you or any members of The Board.
3) Will you personally benefit from any other “Share Reward Allocation” if a successful IPO is achieved, other than the circa 3.9 Million Shares stated.
4) Will any of your family/relatives or any company, trust or similar which you have any connection to benefit from any additional “Share Reward Allocation”, if a successful IPO is achieved.
I have been quoted as “being a leader of a mob” by one party which is entirely disingenuous.
I am no more than someone simply giving the Vote NO debate a voice, amidst the “Float or Fail” rhetoric.
I have been at pains to ask Members to cast their vote whether it is Yes or No.
I would been surprised if you are unable to answer the aforementioned questions with clarity & transparency, thus sweeping away the air of “cloak n’ dagger”.
I look forward to your early reply.
Kind regards, Graeme Lumsden
—————————————————–
What were the answers again?
Briefly on The Telegraph Story, Isabelle Fraser journalist contacted me & subsequently asked me on the phone for comment about the “Vote NO” aspect. I sensibly declined to make any off-the-cuff comment instead ageeing to issue a statement.
This ” Old Dog ” ensured that he had proof of exactly what he said. I had no interest in mentioning any new percentage ownership figure because I don’t have the facts on the figure.
What I have experienced with OTM V1 is a “Mutual Member” owned Agents Mutual that had apparently, “Mutual Ownership” ….which seems to have had “Zero Influence”.
It appears we may as well have signed up to being part of a “Mutually Owned” Traffic Cone lying at the side of the road.
I have contacted Ian Springett on several “issues” which I have raised and surprisingly he has answered me promptly and directly – which I have never found in the last 3 Years. Go figure why that might be?
The Vote NO Newsletter is simply a “communication channel”, “a voice” ….in contrast to the lack of a “Member Voice” or real ” Member Communication” channel from AM, it allows those Voting NO to have their voice/reason heard above the ” Float or Fail ” Message/Roadshow.
OTM V1 was sold as being FOR the industry and to push the value/USP of Our Industry – the current AM proposed OTM V2 is Rightmove or Zoopla Starter Edition… it effectively comes down to that sentence.
I will ask Ian to confirm exactly what the percentage ownership answer is in the event if a successful IPO.
It does amaze me the inability of some agents to look beyond the end of their nose to see where they are going. You can debate the pro’s and cons of the OTM IPO, but what you cant debate is that it needed to change direction to succeed. I do actually think that they have come up with a credible plan for that and one that the informed agents will go with.
Those no campaigners are the same agents that believe that the internet is not important, hybrid / online agents should not be taken seriously and their world of estate agency resolves around their office in the High Street.
Wake up and start investing in the future otherwise you may get consigned to past.
Agents do not need another “For Profits” portal.
We already have 2!
We need an agent owned portal which was what was promised.
Floating OTM will not help agents in anyway.
NO!
We entered into something that we believed in, a portal for agent by agents. Control of our own destiny, control of prices, no shareholders to make a profit for etc etc..
The proposal we are being offered is a complete u turn and does not mean we are ‘dinosaurs’!
I for one strongly object to the ‘directors’ share allocation and am voting no in the hope that we can come up with a more equitable solution with which to move OTM forward.
It is highly likely that the floated portal will be used by a large shareholder to heavily promote YOPA. Before you know it you will be up against online listers claiming that they ‘sell better and for more’ because they market properties on alll three of the major portals.
You may well then be effectively commercially blackmailed into paying for YOPA licences to compete with ‘an online offering’ which will overnight give YOPA a high street presence and highly experienced local experts working for a pittance.
Imagine what that will do for YOPA’s share price? Making a few very rich indeed……could this have been one of the plans of the OTM directors all along?
Mmmmm….. What if?
YOPA/ Daily Mail bought all those circa 12,000,000 MIP board shares in a corporate event /take over as defined on page 17 of the membership document?
A much better deal than easyproperty’s reverse take over of The Guild?
Are not Daily Mail Z’s largest backer and has also recently sunk £15 million into YOPA?
Game set and match to whom?
Industryview17….
“Those no campaigners are the same agents that believe that the internet is not important, hybrid / online agents should not be taken seriously and their world of estate agency resolves around their office in the High Street.
Wake up and start investing in the future otherwise you may get consigned to past.”
Okay, I understand that you have opened the “sweeping statements drawer”
….just to offer balance, your aforementioned comment is not an accurate portrayal of so called High Street Estate Agents.
…and on “investing in the future”? ….we did, with OTM V1 – it just turned out that it wasn’t what we were told. The “All New” OTM V2 apparently will be…
…we just have to believe… again?
There’s a reason you’re not on Rightmove isn’t there Chris?!
We all remember the message in the 1980’s from the great philosopher Zammo
“Just Say No”
chant with me “Just Say No, Just Say No, Just say No” *banners waving, fists pumping* “Just Say No”
I can’t get my head around this . 37% of the company at the valuation given is far more than the £50 million that is planned to be raised . In effect Ian is saying OTM is in negative equity and he’s had the quick sale guys around
What is Chris Hope on about? You reckon that Zoopla and Rightmove have both kept price increases lower than usual, because OTM have got a 2% market share!?
That’s delusional!
No wonder you’re voting for Springett to line his pockets.
If you think Zoopla haven’t slashed their rates to keep agents or to get back those that left for OTM you’re the one that’s delusional chum.