Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Purplebricks Group LSE:PURP London Ordinary Share GB00BYV2MV74 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -5.00p -3.83% 125.60p 415,364 16:35:13
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
126.00p 127.00p 134.40p 126.20p 130.60p
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Real Estate 93.70 -26.18 -10.00 380.7

Purplebricks (PURP) Latest News

More Purplebricks News
Purplebricks Takeover Rumours

Purplebricks (PURP) Share Charts

1 Year Purplebricks Chart

1 Year Purplebricks Chart

1 Month Purplebricks Chart

1 Month Purplebricks Chart

Intraday Purplebricks Chart

Intraday Purplebricks Chart

Purplebricks (PURP) Discussions and Chat

Purplebricks (PURP) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Purplebricks trades in real-time

Purplebricks (PURP) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
19/4/2019
09:20
Purplebricks Daily Update: Purplebricks Group is listed in the Real Estate sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PURP. The last closing price for Purplebricks was 130.60p.
Purplebricks Group has a 4 week average price of 114.80p and a 12 week average price of 99.80p.
The 1 year high share price is 411p while the 1 year low share price is currently 99.80p.
There are currently 303,090,347 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 699,780 shares. The market capitalisation of Purplebricks Group is £380,681,475.83.
21/2/2019
18:00
stantini: Rog an earlier thought of mine from December 2018 - warning of the impending clouds that were about to envelope PB - the last line is very apt. For a kick off the share price of of PB has fallen from 320p in Jan 2018 to 154p in recent days, so that speaks volumes about the value of the company. And Neil Woodford's fortunes with his other top companies he has invested in such as a major housebuilder Keir have seen the share price drop by over 25% in the last week. Also Axel Springer paid 125M for 37,722,221 PB shares at a cost of 125M, so £3.07p a share – now 8 months later they are getting £1.50p a share – they are going to be very upset, as that is only 63M. Also, at start of year when share price was £3.22p a share Michael Bruce’s shares were worth 33.218,147 x £3.22p = £106M – now same shares worth £49M so he is not poor on paper but the second he or Neil Woodford tries to sell the price will get hit further. Neil Woodford whose investors holds 88,446,245 shares had in Jan £265M – now worth £132M. If Woodford sells more than 0.75% of a share this triggers an automatic red flag at the Alternative Investment market AIM, so he is unlikely to do this. In terms of inward funding, there was an initial investment of £7M, then through share raising they raised 25M and then another 75M when they decided upon the idea of going into other markets in the world. On top of this they have had positive cash flow (pay upfront model) in 2016, 2017 and 2018 of 18.6M, 46.7M and 93.7M last accounting year (ending in April 2018). Plus the 125M earlier this year from Axel Springer for 12.5% of the company, which after tax and other costs nets down to 100m THE 100m THEY ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT. So scores on the doors, 7M, 25M, 75M, 125M = 132M money invested in, plus 18.6M, 46.7M, 93.7M, positive cash upfront = 159M Grand total of money = 291M – and still they made 26M loss last financial year (off of 93.7M cash flow in) And they had a few months ago about 150M cash in the company, which sounds a lot, but a year ago they had 70M cash in the company, and if Axel Springer had not injected 125M, they might be sitting on 25M. 70M to 25M shows they are burning through capital very quickly, yes they have bought other online brands in other parts of the world – but they are generating zero profit, so on a spread sheet they are liabilities rather than assets. If the pay upfront/online model becomes a NO GO as trading standards think Emoov and Tepilo clients were stung, in the sense that according to WHICH they only converted 35% of instructions to completed sales, but had a fee upfront on most instructions anyway, then PB might have to go no sale no fee which would make their cash flow go from 100% positive to 50% in 18 weeks, ie half stock sells and it takes 18 weeks to get the completion money in - if you are lucky. Now it may not be smoke and mirrors but saying you have 100M to spend so that makes you untouchable is a dangerous gambit, especially if you have never made profit and your model is based upon cash upfront and in 2019 there will be less instructions for all so declining market, and less upfront fees. Remember also that other financial burden of the online model, you have to pay millions and millions on tv and other media because the second you stop your marketing spend your brand is forgotten and you do not have a single office in the high street. I think that costs and lowering revenues, and the reversals that PB are getting world wide may make them more vulnerable, and if that share price continues to drop - it was once in excess of 500p a share to the original 93p level then things are going to get interesting.
17/12/2018
10:40
stantini: I THINK HMRC WILL LOOK AT THE 'SELF EMPLOYED' status of LPE's, and as less property comes on generally in 2019, there will be less LPE's which means less revenue flowing into the company. Also if the collapse of Emoov and Tepilo sparks a PPI style mis-selling of services in advance investigation - and the daily mail are looking at this - then there may be a rout very soon. Maybe YOPA and other might think now is the time to exit rather than continue to pour millions in, after all 3 of the big 7 onliners have ceased trading since September 2018, more may follow. I am not sure that in 5 to 10 years you will see a share price well above what you have paid and I think it unlikely there will be any dividends, a brand new traditional agency breaks even in 24 months and makes profit in 36, 4 years plus on and despite 100M of cash flow in still 26.4M losses. A typical estate agency that is successful trades on a 28% gross profit margin. I think Purple Bricks and other pay upfront online agencies are going to come under increasing scrutiny as many vendors appear to be paying upfront and receiving nothing in return, and the figures appear to be very large. If you look very closely at this independent analysis commissioned by Purple Bricks by the data experts twentyci which cover the financial year 2017 to 2018, available online on the Purple Bricks website under investors on the title page, there seems to be some contradictory claims. In the twentyci report, and I quote 'Purple Bricks were looking for a reliable, respected and independent data source to establish answers to a set of questions about their performance in the financial year 17/18′ And Purple Bricks are … ‘No1 at selling houses: 81% of listings sold within 12 months’ Then there is a helpful graph in the same report which shows an annual picture of Purple Bricks results, it shows 64,000 new instructions, 48,000 properties sold subject to contract and it shows 38,000 properties exchanged. Now the ratio of exchanges to new instructions 64,000 to exchanges 38,000 is 59%, so Purple Bricks are not selling 81% of the instructions. But the worrying thing is, if the company gets 59% of vendors exchanged, it fails to get 41% sold or exchanged but still charges them on average £1,100 as an upfront non refundable fee, which is 41% of 64,000 vendors at £1,100 or 28.86M of fee for nothing. Readers of this are going to say the figures are wrong and skewed etc, but twentyci also did a similar report on Emoov and Tepilo, post the recent failure of these two online companies. And the WHICH organization recently had sight of this twentyci report and said that the conversion rate of the online pay upfront company was 53% of instructions to sold subject to contract, if you then discount the 53% by 30% the usual industry fall off for cancelled sales you get to an exchange rate of around 37%. This is available on the WHICH site online. In this piece by WHICH, it is stated that the ‘Major online estate agent Emoov, which also owns Tepilo, has gone into administration, potentially leaving thousands of home-sellers out of pocket by as much as £2,995. James Cowper Kreston, the firm appointed to act as administrators for Emoov, says the company currently has 5,000 properties listed for sale or sold subject to contract. Of this total, around 80% have paid upfront for the service and are at risk of losing money from the collapse.’ Also, WHICH states, ‘Exclusive data provided to us by TwentyCi shows that over the past 365 days, Emoov had approximately 8,000 new instructions. The firm accounted for approximately 0.5% of the estate agency market in 2018. Around 53% of new instructions received by Emoov typically went on to be ‘sold subject to contract’ and the average price of a property listing was £375,000. Tepilo’s figures are rolled into this data as its activity is merged with Emoov. Now for a very long time I have been saying that online pay upfront agents should be telling potential clients the true conversion rate of their service, and I wrote a recent article using data from Rightmove on – Tuesday November 13 – (prior to the collapse of Emoov and Tepilo). As it roughly gives a market snapshot of the then six major online brands (two under the ownership of Emoov). These were the figures from Rightmove. Doorsteps – 2,054 properties listed, 1,321 for sale, 733 under offer not exchanged, 28% conversion of listed to sold subject to contract. Yopa – 5,501 properties listed, 3,539 for sale, 1,962 under offer not exchanged, 35% conversion rate. Purplebricks – 37,531 properties listed, 21,142 for sale, 16,389 under offer, 43% conversion rate. Emoov – 2,504 properties listed, 1,696 for sale, 808 under offer, 32% conversion rate. Tepilo (owned by Emoov) – 1,740 properties listed, 1,162 for sale, 587 under offer, 33% conversion rate. HouseSimple – 1,140 properties listed, 763 for sale, 341 under offer, 30% conversion rate. You will notice that Emoov and Tepilo, had a conversion rate around 32%, which if you take the 53% figure being instructions converted to sold subject to contract as in the twentyci report, and then say the normal fall through rate for the property industry of 30% between sold subject to contract and exchanged was slightly higher for these two brands, say a 35% fall through rate you get to the 32% exchange rate, reflected in the Rightmove figures which would mean 68% of Emoov/Tepilo vendors mostly paid upfront for nothing.
16/12/2018
09:33
stantini: On the 31st of Jan, 2018, Purple Bricks had a share price of 489p, this was its highest value per share in 2018. On the 12th of December 2018, its share price was 129p - so a drop of 74% in its share price value. And the share price seems still to be dropping. What is more remarkable is that the company actually had a cash fillet of 125M in April 2018 from Axel Springer the German publisher, and this failed to raise the share price, it actually lowered to 346p a share in April. Profit and dividends are what makes a company a sustainable enterprise, not enormous losses and continuous rounds of cash injections from selling shares on a projected value of what a company may be worth in the future. Purple Bricks used to have a 'value' of a thousand million it now has a 'value' of less than 500 million, and it has no asset base. As Emoov & Tepilo have shown, once shut the assets of an online agency with no bricks and mortar offices is the stock of unsold vendors, who have already paid a fee so no value here, and all the technology that is on the now turned off computer screens of the defunct companies, of zero use to anyone. The best that the administrators of Emoov/Tepilo could do is get an Auction house to take the 5,000 ex vendors on board, no other takers were found, why? As the Auction house said with many clients being lured in with fees lower than £1,000 upfront, with bolt on services such as 'viewings' they had already shelled out £1,500, so hardly a low cost affair and it was to be seen if they would now be open to selling. So I think Purple Bricks and other pay upfront online agencies are going to come under increasing scrutiny as many vendors appear to be paying upfront and receiving nothing in return, and the figures appear to be very large. If you look very closely at this independent analysis commissioned by Purple Bricks by the data experts twentyci which cover the financial year 2017 to 2018 there seems to be some contradictory claims. In the twentyci report, and I quote Purple Bricks were looking for a reliable, respected and independent data source to establish answers to a set of questions about their performance in the financial year 17/18′ And Purple Bricks are … ‘No1 at selling houses: 81% of listings sold within 12 months’ Then there is a helpful graph in the same report which shows an annual picture of Purple Bricks results, it shows 64,000 new instructions, 48,000 properties sold subject to contract and it shows 38,000 properties exchanged. Now the ratio of exchanges to new instructions 64,000 to exchanges 38,000 is 59%, so Purple Bricks are not selling 81% of the instructions. But the worrying thing is, if the company gets 59% of vendors exchanged, it fails to get 41% sold or exchanged but still charges them on average £1,100 as an upfront non refundable fee, which is 41% of 64,000 vendors at £1,100 or 28.86M of fee for nothing. Readers of this are going to say the figures are wrong and skewed etc, but twentyci also did a similar report on Emoov and Tepilo, post the recent failure of these two online companies. And the WHICH organization recently had sight of this twentyci report and said that the conversion rate of the online pay upfront company was 53% of instructions to sold subject to contract, if you then discount the 53% by 30% the usual industry fall off for cancelled sales you get to an exchange rate of around 37%. In this piece by WHICH, it is stated that‘Major online estate agent Emoov, which also owns Tepilo, has gone into administration, potentially leaving thousands of home-sellers out of pocket by as much as £2,995. James Cowper Kreston, the firm appointed to act as administrators for Emoov, says the company currently has 5,000 properties listed for sale or sold subject to contract. Of this total, around 80% have paid upfront for the service and are at risk of losing money from the collapse.’ Also, WHICH states, ‘Exclusive data provided to us by TwentyCi shows that over the past 365 days, Emoov had approximately 8,000 new instructions. The firm accounted for approximately 0.5% of the estate agency market in 2018. Around 53% of new instructions received by Emoov typically went on to be ‘sold subject to contract’ and the average price of a property listing was £375,000. Tepilo’s figures are rolled into this data as its activity is merged with Emoov. Now for a very long time I have been saying that online pay upfront agents should be telling potential clients the true conversion rate of their service, and I wrote a recent article using data from Rightmove on – Tuesday November 13 – (prior to the collapse of Emoov and Tepilo). It is roughly gives a market snapshot of the then six major online brands (two under the ownership of Emoov). These were the figures from Rightmove. Doorsteps – 2,054 properties listed, 1,321 for sale, 733 under offer not exchanged, 28% conversion of listed to sold subject to contract.(Minus 30% cancellation rate gives exchange rate.) Yopa – 5,501 properties listed, 3,539 for sale, 1,962 under offer not exchanged, 35% conversion rate. Purplebricks – 37,531 properties listed, 21,142 for sale, 16,389 under offer, 43% conversion rate. Emoov – 2,504 properties listed, 1,696 for sale, 808 under offer, 32% conversion rate. Tepilo (owned by Emoov) – 1,740 properties listed, 1,162 for sale, 587 under offer, 33% conversion rate. HouseSimple – 1,140 properties listed, 763 for sale, 341 under offer, 30% conversion rate. You will notice that Emoov and Tepilo, had a conversion rate around 32%, which if you take the 53% figure being instructions converted to sold subject to contract as in the twentyci report, and then say the normal fall through rate for the property industry of 30% between sold subject to contract and exchanged was slightly higher for these two brands, say a 35% fall through rate you get to the 32% exchange rate, reflected in the Rightmove figures which would mean 68% of vendors mostly paid upfront for nothing. If you are charging 68% of vendors nearly £1,500 upfront and then fail to sell their home that is a recipe for disaster - it damages your brand and is a very questionable business model, you should as a minimum tell clients before they sign up they have a 68% chance of losing their money.
13/12/2018
12:54
stantini: For a kick off the share price of PB has fallen from 320p in Jan 2018 to 154p in recent days, and as low as 134p today so that speaks volumes about the value of the company. And Neil Woodford's fortunes with his other top companies he has invested in such as a major housebuilder Keir have seen the share price drop by over 25% in the last week. Also Axel Springer paid 125M for 37,722,221 PB shares at a cost of 125M, so £3.07p a share – now 8 months later they are getting £1.50p a share – they are going to be very upset, as that is only 63M. Also, at start of year when share price was £3.22p a share Michael Bruce’s shares were worth 33.218,147 x £3.22p = £106M – now same shares worth £49M so he is not poor on paper but the second he or Neil Woodford tries to sell the price will get hit further. Neil Woodford whose investors holds 88,446,245 shares had in Jan £265M – now worth £132M. If Woodford sells more than 0.75% of a share this triggers an automatic red flag at the Alternative Investment market AIM, so he is unlikely to do this. In terms of inward funding, there was an initial investment of £7M, then through share raising they raised 25M and then another 75M when they decided upon the idea of going into other markets in the world. On top of this they have had positive cash flow (pay upfront model) in 2016, 2017 and 2018 of 18.6M, 46.7M and 93.7M last accounting year (ending in April 2018). Plus the 125M earlier this year from Axel Springer for 12.5% of the company, which after tax and other costs nets down to 100m THE 100m THEY ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT. So scores on the doors, 7M, 25M, 75M, 125M = 132M money invested in, plus 18.6M, 46.7M, 93.7M, positive cash upfront = 159M Grand total of money = 291M – and still they made 26M loss last financial year (off of 93.7M cash flow in) And they had a few months ago about 150M cash in the company, which sounds a lot, but a year ago they had 70M cash in the company, and if Axel Springer had not injected 125M, they might be sitting on 25M. 70M to 25M shows they are burning through capital very quickly, yes they have bought other online brands in other parts of the world – but they are generating zero profit, so on a spread sheet they are liabilities rather than assets. If the pay upfront/online model becomes a NO GO as trading standards think Emoov and Tepilo clients were stung, in the sense that according to WHICH they only converted 35% of instructions to completed sales, but had a fee upfront on most instructions anyway, then PB might have to go no sale no fee which would make their cash flow go from 100% positive to 50% in 18 weeks, ie half stock sells and it takes 18 weeks to get the completion money in - if you are lucky. Now it may not be smoke and mirrors but saying you have 100M to spend so that makes you untouchable is a dangerous gambit, especially if you have never made profit and your model is based upon cash upfront and in 2019 there will be less instructions for all so declining market, and less upfront fees. Remember also that other financial burden of the online model, you have to pay millions and millions on tv and other media because the second you stop your marketing spend your brand is forgotten and you do not have a single office in the high street. I think that costs and lowering revenues, and the reversals that PB are getting world wide may make them more vulnerable, and if that share price continues to drop - it was once in excess of 500p a share to the original 93p level then things are going to get interesting.’
10/11/2018
15:24
cowtrader: LOL ROG GETTING HAMMERED AGAIN :D :D TRIPLE WHAMMY THIS TIME BY SWEET KAROLINA, LTCM1 AND THE PURP SHARE PRICE LOLOLOL....HOW LONG YOU GOING TO LET THIS GO ON FOR ROG...... ITS NOT GOOD BURYING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND IGNORING THE PLETHORA OF GREAT ADVICE ON HERE LOLLLOLOLOLOL GET OUT WHILST YOU CAN AS SUB 150P IS INCOMING LOLOLOLOL :D
20/9/2018
21:05
bbmsionlypostafter: Https://www.afr.com/real-estate/residential/speechless-and-horrified-purplebricks-in-firing-line-over-discount-contest-20180920-h15n5w 'Speechless and horrified': Purplebricks in firing line over discount contest by Larry Schlesinger Real Estate Institute of NSW president Leanne Pilkington said she was left "horrified and speechless" over an "outrageous" competition run in NSW by fixed-fee agents Purplebricks to pressure vendors to lower their asking prices. As revealed by The Australian Financial Review, Purplebricks offered $5000 cash prizes to agents who secured the most 5 per cent or more price reductions from their clients as the company tried to clear a growing list of unsold homes amid the slowing housing market. In some instances agents of Purplebricks, which is not a member of the REINSW, pressured vendors into reducing asking prices by as much as 20 per cent in the space of a week as they competed for the $5000 prize "generously supported" by co-founder Kenny Bruce. In total more than 100 price reductions were secured as part of the "NSW Raffle". Amid the revelations, Purplebricks' share price crashed 6.5 per cent in London on Wednesday to an 18-month low of £2.226. It has fallen 25 per cent over the past month. Ms Pilkington, who is also managing director of estate agency Laing + Simmons, said her jaw dropped when she read about the Purplebricks competition. "I am speechless. I am horrified. Asking prices dropping is something we all accept but trying to get a [minimum] 5 per cent reduction from everybody without discriminating at all, that's outrageous. "I'll be having conversations with the NSW Office of Fair Trading and seeing how this sits with them," she said. "Estate agents are paid to act in their clients' best interests by law. How can this be in their best interests?" Purplebricks initially threatened to go to court to seek an injunction to prevent publication of the Financial Review's exclusive story. The company later defended the competition as "entirely normal". 'Really bad experience' Further trouble could be brewing for Purplebricks with a number of vendors coming forward on Thursday to describe how Purplebricks agents pressured them to reduce their asking prices in NSW and other states. "I'm currently listed with their Victorian division, and yes, my agent has been hassling me to drop my asking price," said a vendor who asked not to be named. Another former Purplebricks vendor in NSW, said he was looking into a class action following revelations about the vendor discounting competition. "We were pressured pretty quickly to reduce our price ... it was a really bad experience." A spokeswoman for NSW Fair Trading said it was not currently investigating Purplebricks but was "working with Purplebricks to ensure it is compliant with state and federal legislation". Recently, the Financial Review revealed that WA's Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, which is leading a joint examination of Purplebricks by state regulators, was investigating "suspected contraventions" of real estate, business and consumer laws by Purplebricks in WA. Purplebricks has sold more than 4200 homes in Australia since launching two years ago, but this year has battled an exodus of "broke" agents amid accusations – strongly denied by the company – of a toxic work culture. Purplebricks recently announced it would increase its fixed fee to $8800 – the third increase this year – with half to be paid up front and the rest on settlement. Agents who currently earn just over $1000 per listing, can earn a second fee if they negotiate a sale. The new fee model, brought it in under Kenny Bruce, is designed to make the offering more palatable to vendors while offering a financial incentive to agents to get a sale, as well as encourage new recruits to join. But the latest revelations of a competition to get vendors to cut their prices will likely have the opposite effect. 'No motivation to sell' Ben Reid, managing director of Ian Reid Vendor Advocates, called the Purplebricks vendor discounting competition "disgraceful". "It is clear their modus operandi is not to get the highest and best price, but to get the listing and then get the property off their books quickly. "This is what happens when you operate with an upfront fixed fee. There's no motivation to even sell because you have already been paid," Mr Reid said. "Simply slashing the price" is not necessarily the only way to get a result in the current market, said Mr Reid whose firm takes a cut of agent's commission as payment for advising on behalf of the vendor. He said presentation, marketing strategy, method of sale and having the right agent were all factors in getting the best outcome.
08/3/2018
09:42
ltcm1: Good luck with your long rog. Like their listings, the Purp share price is only good for 10 months. Caveat emptor!!!
02/2/2018
07:50
bobmonkeyhouse: Purplebricks blames City consultancy for sharp share price fall Purplebricks has this morning issued an unusual statement to the Stock Exchange blaming a City report for the sharp fall in the agency’s share price yesterday afternoon. The report alleged the agency sold fewer than 52 per cent of its listed homes in one particular month. The agency's share priced dropped around 40 points - some nine per cent - during yesterday's trading. This morning's statement says: Purplebricks Group plc (AIM: PURP) ("Purplebricks" or "the Group"), the hybrid estate agent, notes its share price decline yesterday afternoon. Purplebricks knows of no reason for the share price fall other than the research note published by Jefferies International Ltd. ("Jefferies") after market close. Purplebricks contests the findings of the Jefferies research report. Jefferies estimated Purplebricks' completion rate is based on a single month's data and does not include properties that have completed but have yet to be uploaded to the Land Registry, which can take several months. Equally the research does not take into account properties which have exchanged, have reached sold subject to contract (SSTC), or are on marketing breaks. Purplebricks reiterates its most recently published sales conversion rate from instruction to sale agreed of 78 per cent, which it believes more accurately reflects its sales performance, although this figure itself does not include those properties in the sales pipeline at the end of the period which will in due course sell. Purplebricks firmly refutes the criticism in the research note of its revenue recognition policy and stands behind both the fully audited results and the accounting policy itself. Yesterday we reported the Jefferies report, in which equity analyst Antony Codling looked at the stock Purplebricks took on board in November 2016. By looking at what happened to those properties over the following 10 months, Codling concluded that Purplebricks’ 51.6 per cent sales figure was “”a similar success rate to the overall market.” Codling then took issue with the agency over its claim, made in 2016, that it sold 88 per cent of its stock; he also said the odds for customers using the agency were “finely balanced” because 48.4 per cent of homes did not sell. Purplebricks this morning also provided an update for what it called “the start of the important spring market”, claiming: - 6,160 instructions in January 2018, up 66% year-on-year resulting in further overall market share growth; - agreed sales in January 2018 alone on 4,618 UK properties; - online market share increased in January 2018 to 77%; - Purplebricks has now sold and completed on over £10bn of UK property; - Australia continues to build and remains on-track; - The US is proceeding to plan and work continues at pace towards launch in New York; - "With a few key months remaining the Board of Purplebricks is pleased with progress and confirms trading is in line with the Board's expectations for the year ending 30 April 2018”.
15/12/2017
09:10
elcapital2017: Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures Here it is - the industry’s verdict on the latest set of figures from Purplebricks. The agency doesn’t play by any of the rules we’re familiar with: who worries about completion rates in the UK when expansion in Australia and the US are priorities? In return, the market doesn’t quite know what to do either: Purplebricks’ share price quickly rebounds from public criticism of the company on the BBC, yet drops two days in a row after what most people regard as a successful first six months of the trading year. Either way, the firm now has 74 per cent dominance of the online sector, hugely increased revenues, and appears well on the way to meeting its ambition of becoming Britain’s largest estate agency by stock. So once again Estate Agent Today has assembled its panel of experts to give considered, authoritative opinions on the most controversial company in agency today. Our thanks go to our contributors, and thanks to you, too, for reading - and please feel free to add your views. Ian Wilson, chief executive officer of The Property Franchise Group: Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures “I’d say it’s a good set of results where it counts - which is the size of the LPE footprint and the trading volume. The rest of the online players are not getting any traction and Purplebricks is probably one-year away from becoming uncatchable.” “There is no evidence yet that customers are (en masse) dissatisfied with what they have purchased. Purplebricks remains a textbook example of the power of a single, national brand and clear customer proposition." "The industry has to wake up and smell the coffee.” Mike DelPrete, a US-based PropTech expert and consultant at media firm AIM: “Purplebricks should be commended for two things: its large scale and strong growth. Doubling the number of instructions at that scale is no easy task, and is unmatched by its peers.” “Purplebricks is doing more business, in a shorter time, than similar models [US portal] Redfin (which has raised $300 million and is listed with a valuation of $1.98 billion) and Compass (which has raised over $750 million and is valued at $2.2 billion). Redfin launched in 2004 and Compass in 2012.” “But make no mistake, success in the US market is far from certain and will be achieved along a different path than that taken in the UK and Australia.” Anthony Codling, equity analyst at Jefferies International: “The success or failure of Purplebricks will rest on their ability to sell homes, whilst charging a non-returnable upfront fee. Until they are willing to disclose those statistics, which as a data driven company they must have, I believe the jury remains out with respect to the effectiveness of their model.” Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures “I do not doubt that Purplebricks is the clear market leader of the non-traditional agents, which suggests that in terms of winning listings their strategy has been more effective than their peers." "Basing growth on TV regions, growing from a regional player to a national one was a canny plan. Most of the others attempted a national footprint from day one, which stifled growth as they spread themselves too thin.” “Purplebricks is no longer just about the LPEs – you actually have around one person back at base for every LPE on the road – most of whom sit in one big office rather than in a network of offices close to the customers they are trying to serve.” “To my mind, this is more about Purplebricks having to strengthen its infrastructure and adapt its model, putting in more lifeguards if you will rather than traditional agencies being able to treading water.” James Dearsley, PropTech influencer and partner in PropTech Consult: “On a top-level look, these results are looking positive for Purplebricks, further validation that the online/hybrid sector is gathering steam with a few major players leading the pack.” “I am concerned that still there is no mention of sale numbers. However, perhaps some conclusions can be drawn by their claim that they have now have 20 people in staff support. If they are selling that many, surely they would need more than this to cope with the sales progression?” “The outlook on Australia shows great growth and perhaps in the US it is too early to tell at this stage. There are signs that this model could possibly work elsewhere which paves way for others to enter, but I fear for the long term in the US.” “The money needed to scale that operation up successfully and gain some form of brand equity, which is obviously forming well in the UK, could cause a serious hole in their balance sheet in coming years.” Chris Wood, industry campaigner and managing director of PDQ Estates: Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures “Michael Bruce repeatedly stated that they sell (complete) on 88% of all property listed. They have since made statements that this figure is higher. Independent data from GetAgent suggests a rather different figure. A lack of evidence to substantiate a claim made by the CEO of a PLC suggests that they do not have the evidence to substantiate the claim made. “The statement is clever in that it avoids mentioning any growth into the traditional market which, last year, showed call-centre agents were losing or, at least relatively static. Purplebricks clearly dominate the call-centre market share (circa 5% of the UK market as a whole) however, if they are to achieve the growth they promised to investors (albeit outside of the timescale advertised) they will have to start eating into the remaining 95% of the market which will require more spend and, I would suggest, much more transparency in the success they make much of.” Iain White, industry consultant and mentor at Agency Mentors: “If the results were good, would the sales data be published or would it still be too early to have representative completions data? I believe they are shying away because the results are not convenient for them and would allow a real cost comparison between the upfront fee model against payment on results model.” Purplebricks: Estate Agent Today's experts look behind the latest figures “The media spotlight on Purplebricks has given the customer food for thought about transparency and it does look like their instruction volumes are not increasing despite the reported increase in the number of LPEs.” “These figures show us that Purplebricks’ marketing message has worked better that the rest and that they are the dominant force for those choosing the upfront payment model." "Logic suggests consolidation or collaboration is inevitable among Purplebricks’ competitors and perhaps new models and tech are being readied to fill the obvious gap between the traditional and upfront consumer options.” “Traditional agents are entering an era of collaboration, consolidation and transparency. This, coupled with great tech will signal a whole new breed of lean, capable and genuinely local experts who know their area and have the tools, marketing budgets and back-up to service customers properly.” “That said, recruitment is a big problem for all estate agents. The trick isn’t having lots of people, it’s about having effective people who are passionate about what they are doing. Work-life balance is a real issue that our industry needs to face up to, and at present is largely ignoring.” Jeremy Leaf, north London estate agent and a former RICS residential chairman: “Not surprisingly, Purplebricks appears to be taking a growing share of non-traditional online agency business. However, the lack of real evidence of its inroads into traditional agency via sale completion numbers, as well as the proportion of listings it actually sells, continue to cast doubts on the proposition.” “My personal view is that Purplebricks may find favour with sellers of similar houses or flats in blocks where a ‘going rate’ is established but will struggle on larger, more individual properties, especially as the property market softens. Traditional agents will then have a better opportunity to demonstrate value and service to their customers and potential customers.” hTtps://www.estateagenttoday.co.uk/breaking-news/2017/12/purplebricks-estate-agent-todays-experts-look-behind-the-latest-figures
20/9/2017
10:20
hpcg: The main thing which will come out of this is that the currently unreasonable estate agent commissions will finally be reduced to something which is more in line with the skill, training and work involved. PURP may get a small part of this smaller pie, but really it is just an introduction agency for sole traders to work through - after all they are the ones doing the work. The PURP share price rise is a story which has been repeated many times before and will be many times again. The narrative is that newco breaks existing business model, takes 90% of market share, and we all live happily ever after in dividend city. The reality, in this case, is there is no new business model. It is exactly the same business just with a different pricing model. The existing players can instantaneously react by reducing their prices. Actually a more effective model would be one based on fixed fees and bonuses rather than straight flat fees. This would also sharpen listing prices to better represent the property and the market conditions, and lead to a keener market because the incentives are in the right place. People are correlating this with RMV when the latter was a new business model. It replaced the printed press who could not compete on price, local papers were largely free by then, and provided functionality which could not be provided by a paper. Network effects were beneficial to RMV, but are at best neutral, and possibly detrimental to PURP as relies on third parties to conduct its operations. As an aside, at this time the PURP business is not so relevant. The market structure where there are no active institutional buyers and one very large shareholder with big profits to lock in and at the same time redemptions to fund.
Purplebricks share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
LSE
PURP
Purplebric..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20190420 04:44:39