Purplebricks Share Price (PURP)

Share Name	Share Symbol	Market	Type	Share ISIN	Share Description
Purplebricks Group Plc	LSE:PURP	London	Ordinary Share	GB00BYV2MV74	ORD 1P

	Price Change	% Change	Share Price	Shares Traded	Last Trade
	-0.80	-0.71%	111.20	141,237	16:35:22

Bid Price		Offer Price	High Price	Low Price	Open Price
112.60		114.40	114.40	110.00	110.20

Industry Sector	Turnover (m)	Profit (m)	EPS - Basic	PE Ratio	Market Cap (m)
Real Estate	136.51	-55.95	-18.00		338

Last Trade Time	Trade Type	Trade Size	Trade Price	Currency
17:03:06	O	1,916	112.185	GBX

Related Shares
Countryside Properties (CSP), Crest Nicholson (CRST), Onthemarket (OTMP), Hunters Property (HUNT)

Purplebricks (PURP) Latest News

Purplebricks News

Date	Time	Source	Headline
17/10/2019	14:55	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR HOLDINGS
15/10/2019	15:02	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Notification of Major Holdings
03/10/2019	14:02	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Results of AGM and Notice of Trading Update
01/10/2019	17:52	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR HOLDINGS
01/10/2019	15:55	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Notification of Major Holdings
19/9/2019	16:14	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Notification of Major Holdings
11/9/2019	15:47	ALNC	TAKING AIM: Purplebricks Takeover Remote Amid Brexit Uncertainty - UBS
06/9/2019	16:37	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Notice of AGM
27/8/2019	06:53	ALNC	Online Estate Agent Purplebricks Considers New Pricing Strategy
08/8/2019	15:59	UKREG	Purplebricks Group PLC Issue of Equity and Total Voting Rights

More Purplebricks News

Purplebricks Takeover Rumours

Purplebricks (PURP) Share Charts

1 Year Purplebricks Chart

1 Month Purplebricks Chart

Intraday Purplebricks Chart

Purplebricks (PURP) Discussions and Chat

Purplebricks Forums and Chat

Date	Time	Title	Posts
22/10/2019	13:11	Purplebricks discussion thread / moderated	939
16/10/2019	14:09	Purplebricks changing the experience of property transacting	9,711
21/9/2017	15:28	Purplebricks Group (PURP) Huge demand for houses in the UK says Analyst	5
10/6/2017	21:37	Sales of Ј5m in 5 months, market cap Ј240m Prrrpppppppp smelly zeus float	468

Add a New Thread

Purplebricks (PURP) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time	Trade Price	Trade Size	Trade Value	Trade Type
16:03:08	112.19	1,916	2,149.46	O
15:54:54	112.18	789	885.06	O
15:35:22	111.20	8,373	9,310.78	UT
15:28:55	112.80	822	927.22	AT
15:28:55	112.80	178	200.78	AT

View all Purplebricks trades in real-time

Purplebricks (PURP) Top Chat Posts

Date	Subject
22/10/2019 09:20	Purplebricks Daily Update: Purplebricks Group Plc is listed in the Real Estate sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PURP. The last closing price for Purplebricks was 112p. Purplebricks Group Plc has a 4 week average price of 104.80p and a 12 week average price of 104.80p. The 1 year high share price is 229p while the 1 year low share price is currently 88.50p. There are currently 303,838,246 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 227,765 shares. The market capitalisation of Purplebricks Group Plc is £337,868,129.55. Read Full Thread Reply
16/10/2019 14:09	stantini: As posted today in The Negotiator - the estate agency trade online magazine. 'The final death throes of City stock picker and Purplebricks backer Neil Woodford’s controversial Woodford Equity Income Fund were played out yesterday as the fund announced that it would shut down permanently in January some four months after being frozen. It has also been announced that Woodford has been fired from his eponymous £3.2 billion fund despite resisting the move, it has been reported. The equity fund got into trouble after investing heavily in Purplebricks which, although the gamble paid off initially when its stock price sky rocketed, later brought it to grief when the hybrid estate agency’s misadventures in the US and Australia led its share price to nosedive, dragging the fund with it. The Woodford fund is now attempting to liquidate all of its assets so that investors can be repaid. “After careful consideration, the decision has now been taken not to re-open the fund and instead to wind it up as soon as practicable,” its administrators Link Fund Solutions have told investors. Purplebricks shares sold Yesterday the fund sold two thirds of its remaining holdings in Purplebricks realising approximately £35 million, leaving it with just 5% of the company’s shares. Not so long ago it held nearly a fifth of all the publicly-listed Purplebricks shares. The collapse in the agency’s share price, which has dropped from a peak of £4.72p two years ago to £1.11 today, has been blamed for playing a significant role in triggering the closure of the Woodford Equity Income Fund. Fund manager BlackRock and investment banking firm PJT Partners have been appointed to wind-up the fund.' Read Full Thread Follow Reply
03/5/2019 13:58	stantini: Purplebricks shares could dip back to £1 launch price, warns bank May 3, 2019 \| Rosalind Renshaw Property Eye' 'Analysts at investment bank UBS have slashed Purplebricks’ share price target from 285p to 100p – the price at which Purplebricks launched in December 2015. UBS also said Purplebricks might have to embark on another round of fundraising to bring in £100m. The bank has specifically raised concerns about Purplebricks’ performance in Australia and America. Purplebricks itself warned that it is performing behind expectations in both markets. Earlier this year it downgraded its global revenue expectations for this year by £35m, and parted company with both its UK and US bosses, parachuting co-founder Kenny Bruce back into Britain. In response to Purplebricks’ warnings in late February, £100m was wiped off its market value, with shares plunging almost 8% in a day. In its new report, UBS said that Purplebricks Australia was expected to break even at the end of 2022, three years later than originally expected. Its US business might not break even until 2025. UBS analysts said: “Operations in Australia and the US are characterised by having very limited visibility on the business’s development and break-even horizon – Australia keeps being postponed and losses in the UK are expected to worsen.” They also said that changes to Purplebricks’ pricing structure in both Australia and the US “raised concerns about the future of online agents and the upfront fee model”. The UBS report also notes that in the UK “momentum has worsened, market share gains have slowed and risks are skewed to the downside”. UBS is forecasting revenues in Australia of £26m in 2020, but a pre-tax EBITDA loss of £12m. UBS said that to fund these losses, Purplebricks is likely to have to raise £100m capital in the next financial year. UBS’s report follows warnings from investment bank Berenberg that Purplebricks might have to get out of the Australian and US markets, for its business to survive in the UK. Last month, Berenberg slashed Purplebricks from ‘buy’ to ‘sell’ and cut its target price for the shares from 470p to 80p. Yesterday, Purplebricks shares were seemingly unaffected by the UBS report: its shares bobbed up about 3% during day, finishing at around 137p. They were as low as 118p about a fortnight ago – a long way from their high of 511p in August 2017.' Let them eat cake ... Read Full Thread Follow Reply
25/4/2019 20:43	stantini: A PropTech analyst insists that the tumbling share price of Purplebricks on the London Stock Exchange does not indicate that the agency is anything other than a success. Purplebricks’ share price at the start of the Easter long weekend was 125.6p - up from its 100.0p launch in December 2015 but barely a quarter of its 498.5p high of July 2017; in recent months it has been falling gradually, with few exceptions. Mike DelPrete - former head of strategy at the portal Trade Me in New Zealand and a long-standing analyst of portals and online estate agencies in the UK, the United States and elsewhere - admits that Purplebricks has recently been on the receiving end of adverse market conditions. “The stock price is significantly down from the highs of last year, the US and UK chief executive officers are out, and revenue guidance has been repeatedly downgraded” he says. However, DelPrete describes stock market trading as “irrational221; and says that while Purplebricks' stock has faced a turbulent three years “its underlying revenue has consistently grown by impressive margins.” He insists the 2017 share price high was driven “by unrealistic optimism for international expansion, on the back of 100 per cent growth in the UK. In 2018 it was clear international markets were a tough nut to crack, while UK growth slowed considerably.” And he insists: “It's a mistake to confuse Purplebricks' stock price with its overall success. The only challenge facing the UK business is growth, which is clearly slowing down as the company saturates the market. All online agents are not doomed to failure because of some fundamental flaw.” DelPrete - who last summer revealed he had played “a small part” in Purplebricks’ acquisition of a Canadian online property listings platform - says the agency’s problems in the US are different. “The company recently pivoted its business model in the US, from an up-front fixed fee (paid regardless of the home selling), to a success fee paid only when a home sells -- both at a discount. This move brings Purplebricks squarely in line with the traditional industry it was attempting to disrupt” he says. DelPrete continues: “Purplebricks is still dangerous: it has deep pockets, a willingness to spend, and the self-awareness to pivot when things aren't working. I wouldn't count them out of the US quite yet. “The biggest implication, however, could be the massive amount of money being spent on marketing by disruptive players (over $100 million between Purplebricks and [rival US service] Redfin alone in 2019). And what's the message of that marketing? Traditional agents are expensive, we offer the same service at a discount, use us instead.” Read Full Thread Follow Reply
25/4/2019 20:41	stantini: Well Sweet Karolina - funny you should mention the poor long suffering LPE's who are self employed - because I posed this issue to of all people the Senior solicitor heading up the estate agent trading standard committee that has just been formed, here is my question to him, and these were his thoughts back to me. If HMRC think LPE's are employees then Kenny is in line for a cake in the face, if HMRC go the other way then the LPE may get 5 years in prison and a hefty fine or both, so I forsee a drove of LPE's leaving. Here is the email and reply conducted in the last few days ... From: stantini Sent: 18 April 2019 09:09 To: Estate Agency Subject: Ref - Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, Powys County Council, The Gwalia, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6AA, estxxx.xxxxx@xxxx.gov.uk. 18/04/2019 Ref - Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. Dear Sirs Clarity regarding referral fees, transparency and online agents like Purplebricks Having read through your guidelines on referral fees for estate agents, would you be so kind as to unravel how these guidelines embrace Purplebricks and the way they trade? As I understand it under the new transparency guidelines you have set out, set out in your comprehensive report of February 2019, Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. If I am a traditional estate agent and I take a property to the market, and I charge a no sale no fee of 1% + VAT, I would inform the vendor of this. If I recommended the services of a solicitor, I would make the vendor aware, that if they used the solicitor, I would receive £75 as a referral fee, and annually the company receives in excess of £25,000 from such a fee. If I recommend other services and a referral fee is payable, I need to make the vendor aware, of the referral fee amount and the annual cumulative fee involved. How then should an online agent such as Purplebricks now be conducting their business, and what should they be disclosing to the potential vendor at point of instruction? I ask this because the business model is different from traditional agency, and I am unclear how your regulations are meant to be adhered to. Purplebricks markets itself online and on TV and via other media, it has no bricks and mortar branches. The marketing provides leads, potential vendors and Landlords wanting to sell or let. Purplebricks then passes these leads to its ‘self-employed’ army of Local Property Experts. These LPE’s are trained by Purplebricks and work only for Purplebricks and have work supplied to them by Purplebricks, but they are self-employed, (I am not sure HMRC would agree). When an LPE arrives at a vendor’s property, if the property comes to the market, the LPE gets a set fee from Purplebricks for getting the client to use Purplebricks. So, is this fee that the LPE gets a referral fee from Purplebricks? If so, should the LPE disclose prior to instruction that he/she gets a referral fee from Purplebricks the moment they sign up to sell? Should the LPE also disclose how much annually they receive from Purplebricks from referral fees, eg £35,000 +? OR Should the LPE, state to the vendor that 75% of the fee they are going to charge the vendor is given as a referral fee to Purplebricks (who is a separate company to the LPE, who is a stand-alone sole trader or private limited company in status). Eg, From the £995 fee you have just paid to me £750 is paid as a referral fee to Purplebricks, who this year will receive 70M + in referral fees from LPE’s it has an association with. The point I am trying to get to the bottom of is this, if an estate agent signs up a client for a fee/commission it is not a referral fee, as the agent is not giving any element of this fee to a second part as a referral fee. But, the self-employed LPE is either getting a referral fee at point of sale from Purplebricks, or Purplebricks is getting a referral fee from the LPE. In either case the vendor should be made aware under the transparency rules of your new guidelines. At present I do not feel that LPE’s are telling vendors of the ‘hidden’ referral system that exists, or indeed that they are self-employed and not part of the main company. Another point I would also like your guidance on, and this strikes to the heart of transparency - is the concept of Purplebricks taking a fee upfront regardless of whether they sell the property. As I think (and I could be wrong) that only 48% of vendors get their home sold and exchanged and completed when they use Purplebricks, and there is no refund policy. This means that as last year Purplebricks received over 80M of fee upfront from vendors, possibly 40M was made up of fees paid in good faith, but the vendor did not get their home sold. This sounds curious situation, because if a double-glazing company said I have 100 clients and I am taking £1,000 upfront to put windows in your home, and only 48% got windows and the others failed to have an installation I think TS would feel this is unfair. So, should Purplebricks either have a refund policy, or at point of instruction warn vendors they have a 48% chance of getting sold using Purplebricks? If you want to check the accuracy of this statement go on Rightmove today and see how many properties Purplebricks has listed nationally and they see how many are under offer, it will be 48%. Purplebricks have never divulged their data, but in an annual company report they have intimated they convert instructions to completed sales at a rate of 83%, which is to my mind impossible, but if data proves otherwise, I would be happy to change my view. Your thoughts and guidance would be most appreciated on all points raised. Stantini (Name withheld) REPLY Dear Mr. S (Stantini) I have been passed your email dated 18th April concerning your query over referral fees. I must first point out that as a solicitor for the team I cannot provide legal advice to persons outside of the team. The issue concerning the employment status of Purplebricks LPE’s is contentious however this team takes the view that LPE’s are “employeesR21; of Purplebricks due to the significant element of control exerted by them. This opinion is also being scrutinised by HMRC but ultimately the employment status is a matter for the judiciary to determine – see for example the court decisions involving Uber drivers and Pimlico plumbers. My personal view is the onus is on Purplebricks and not the LPE’s to disclose the referral fees (as it is not the responsibility of employees but the employer) and should there be an absence of disclosure then it may well be the case trading standards, locally or this team, become involved. The issue you allude to concerning “listing fees” (payable whether the property sells or not) is different to the application of “commission221; (payable only upon sale) and as such as long as consumers are duly informed the listing fee is payable irrespective of sale there is no issue. I trust this answers your queries. XXX XXXX xxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.gov.uk Principal Solicitor – Regulatory Enforcement Solicitor-Advocate (Crime) Affiliate Member of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute NATIONAL TRADING STANDARDS ESTATE & LETTING AGENCY TEAM I trust Rog, you now understand that within the estate agency industry there is an ever increasing level of transparency and punitive actions open to the regulator of the system. As I type this Rog, you are not by any chance a board member of PB, if so I would advise you to 'ease' the situation that Kenny has seemed fit to throw a hand grenade into (if the remarks are actually his) before that share price hits the 96p that it started at 4 years ago. And if LPE's are employees there will be 4 years worth of national insurance and holiday and sickness pay that PB will have to find in a hurry, plus a penalty and interest, so maybe 500 new employees (counting the ones who left) that is a tidy sum to pay out to the HMRC in a hurry. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
25/4/2019 20:36	stantini: Well Sweet Karolina - funny you should mention the poor long suffering LPE's who are self employed - because I posed this issue to of all people the Senior solicitor heading up the estate agent trading standard committee that has just been formed, here is my question to him, and these were his thoughts back to me. If HMRC think LPE's are employees then Kenny is in line for a cake in the face, if HMRC go the other way then the LPE may get 5 years in prison and a hefty fine or both, so I forsee a drove of LPE's leaving. Here is the email and reply conducted in the last few days ... Dear Mr. Stanton I have been passed your email dated 18th April concerning your query over referral fees. I must first point out that as a solicitor for the team I cannot provide legal advice to persons outside of the team. The issue concerning the employment status of Purplebricks LPE’s is contentious however this team takes the view that LPE’s are “employeesR21; of Purplebricks due to the significant element of control exerted by them. This opinion is also being scrutinised by HMRC but ultimately the employment status is a matter for the judiciary to determine – see for example the court decisions involving Uber drivers and Pimlico plumbers. My personal view is the onus is on Purplebricks and not the LPE’s to disclose the referral fees (as it is not the responsibility of employees but the employer) and should there be an absence of disclosure then it may well be the case trading standards, locally or this team, become involved. The issue you allude to concerning “listing fees” (payable whether the property sells or not) is different to the application of “commission221; (payable only upon sale) and as such as long as consumers are duly informed the listing fee is payable irrespective of sale there is no issue. I trust this answers your queries. Rob Brown robert.brown@powys.gov.uk Principal Solicitor – Regulatory Enforcement Solicitor-Advocate (Crime) Affiliate Member of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute NATIONAL TRADING STANDARDS ESTATE & LETTING AGENCY TEAM Powys County Council, Legal Services, Neuadd Brycheiniog, Cambrian Way, BRECON, LD3 7HR Tel.: 01874 612209 Fax.: 01874 612046 From: stantini Sent: 18 April 2019 09:09 To: Estate Agency Subject: Ref - Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. National Trading Standards Estate Agency Team, Powys County Council, The Gwalia, Llandrindod Wells, Powys, LD1 6AA, estxxx.xxxxx@xxxx.gov.uk. 18/04/2019 Ref - Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. Dear Sirs Clarity regarding referral fees, transparency and online agents like Purplebricks Having read through your guidelines on referral fees for estate agents, would you be so kind as to unravel how these guidelines embrace Purplebricks and the way they trade? As I understand it under the new transparency guidelines you have set out, set out in your comprehensive report of February 2019, Guidance on Transparency of fees involving property sales. If I am a traditional estate agent and I take a property to the market, and I charge a no sale no fee of 1% + VAT, I would inform the vendor of this. If I recommended the services of a solicitor, I would make the vendor aware, that if they used the solicitor, I would receive £75 as a referral fee, and annually the company receives in excess of £25,000 from such a fee. If I recommend other services and a referral fee is payable, I need to make the vendor aware, of the referral fee amount and the annual cumulative fee involved. How then should an online agent such as Purplebricks now be conducting their business, and what should they be disclosing to the potential vendor at point of instruction? I ask this because the business model is different from traditional agency, and I am unclear how your regulations are meant to be adhered to. Purplebricks markets itself online and on TV and via other media, it has no bricks and mortar branches. The marketing provides leads, potential vendors and Landlords wanting to sell or let. Purplebricks then passes these leads to its ‘self-employed’ army of Local Property Experts. These LPE’s are trained by Purplebricks and work only for Purplebricks and have work supplied to them by Purplebricks, but they are self-employed, (I am not sure HMRC would agree). When an LPE arrives at a vendor’s property, if the property comes to the market, the LPE gets a set fee from Purplebricks for getting the client to use Purplebricks. So, is this fee that the LPE gets a referral fee from Purplebricks? If so, should the LPE disclose prior to instruction that he/she gets a referral fee from Purplebricks the moment they sign up to sell? Should the LPE also disclose how much annually they receive from Purplebricks from referral fees, eg £35,000 +? OR Should the LPE, state to the vendor that 75% of the fee they are going to charge the vendor is given as a referral fee to Purplebricks (who is a separate company to the LPE, who is a stand-alone sole trader or private limited company in status). Eg, From the £995 fee you have just paid to me £750 is paid as a referral fee to Purplebricks, who this year will receive 70M + in referral fees from LPE’s it has an association with. The point I am trying to get to the bottom of is this, if an estate agent signs up a client for a fee/commission it is not a referral fee, as the agent is not giving any element of this fee to a second part as a referral fee. But, the self-employed LPE is either getting a referral fee at point of sale from Purplebricks, or Purplebricks is getting a referral fee from the LPE. In either case the vendor should be made aware under the transparency rules of your new guidelines. At present I do not feel that LPE’s are telling vendors of the ‘hidden’ referral system that exists, or indeed that they are self-employed and not part of the main company. Another point I would also like your guidance on, and this strikes to the heart of transparency - is the concept of Purplebricks taking a fee upfront regardless of whether they sell the property. As I think (and I could be wrong) that only 48% of vendors get their home sold and exchanged and completed when they use Purplebricks, and there is no refund policy. This means that as last year Purplebricks received over 80M of fee upfront from vendors, possibly 40M was made up of fees paid in good faith, but the vendor did not get their home sold. This sounds curious situation, because if a double-glazing company said I have 100 clients and I am taking £1,000 upfront to put windows in your home, and only 48% got windows and the others failed to have an installation I think TS would feel this is unfair. So, should Purplebricks either have a refund policy, or at point of instruction warn vendors they have a 48% chance of getting sold using Purplebricks? If you want to check the accuracy of this statement go on Rightmove today and see how many properties Purplebricks has listed nationally and they see how many are under offer, it will be 48%. Purplebricks have never divulged their data, but in an annual company report they have intimated they convert instructions to completed sales at a rate of 83%, which is to my mind impossible, but if data proves otherwise, I would be happy to change my view. Your thoughts and guidance would be most appreciated on all points raised. Stantini (Name withheld) REPLY Dear Mr. S (Stantini) I have been passed your email dated 18th April concerning your query over referral fees. I must first point out that as a solicitor for the team I cannot provide legal advice to persons outside of the team. The issue concerning the employment status of Purplebricks LPE’s is contentious however this team takes the view that LPE’s are “employeesR21; of Purplebricks due to the significant element of control exerted by them. This opinion is also being scrutinised by HMRC but ultimately the employment status is a matter for the judiciary to determine – see for example the court decisions involving Uber drivers and Pimlico plumbers. My personal view is the onus is on Purplebricks and not the LPE’s to disclose the referral fees (as it is not the responsibility of employees but the employer) and should there be an absence of disclosure then it may well be the case trading standards, locally or this team, become involved. The issue you allude to concerning “listing fees” (payable whether the property sells or not) is different to the application of “commission221; (payable only upon sale) and as such as long as consumers are duly informed the listing fee is payable irrespective of sale there is no issue. I trust this answers your queries. XXX XXXX xxxx.xxxx@xxxxx.gov.uk Principal Solicitor – Regulatory Enforcement Solicitor-Advocate (Crime) Affiliate Member of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute NATIONAL TRADING STANDARDS ESTATE & LETTING AGENCY TEAM I trust Rog, you now understand that within the estate agency industry there is an ever increasing level of transparency and punitive actions open to the regulator of the system. As I type this Rog, you are not by any chance a board member of PB, if so I would advise you to 'ease' the situation that Kenny has seemed fit to throw a hand grenade into (if the remarks are actually his) before that share price hits the 96p that it started at 4 years ago. And if LPE's are employees there will be 4 years worth of national insurance and holiday and sickness pay that PB will have to find in a hurry, plus a penalty and interest, so maybe 500 new employees (counting the ones who left) that is a tidy sum to pay out to the HMRC in a hurry. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
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. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
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 Read Full Thread Follow Reply
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. Read Full Thread Follow Reply
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!!! Read Full Thread Follow Reply
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”. Read Full Thread Follow Reply

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

ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil

ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico

ADVFN France ADVFN US Finance Manila

P: V: D:20191022 19:20:53