x

Andrew Goldthorpe

CEO

3645 Profile Views

About Me

CEO of PropertyMutual.com, "An incredibly disruptive blueprint that takes the agent/portal relationship back to its pure play mutual roots" - Jefferies.com.

CEO & founder of CREVALA Ltd, est. 2013, a company limited by guarantee, with a charitable assignment condition to preclude sale, which owns and operates PropertyMutual.com. PropertyMutual.com, the world first ethical mutual and property platform, was launched January 2014. 100% independent residential, commercial and agricultural real estate data listing, aggregation and export. Committed to business doing well and doing good. Only our members benefit from surplus revenue, not investors or shareholders!

my expertise in the industry

Chartered Surveyor, Land Agent and Estate Manager - Residential, Commercial, Agricultural property management.
10 years as Land Agent and General Manager of various private (HNWI) and institutionally owned UK property estates.
Fund raising
Public affairs
Privatisation of Government Agency
Business banker
Property Development
Relationship Management
Business Development
Manager of large complex projects
Managing to a project timeline
Project risk management.
Strong negotiation skills
Strong verbal, presentation and written communication skills
Ability to communicate across all levels of an organisation

Member of the Society of Technical Analysts

Andrew's Recent Activity

Agreed Charlie Lamdin. All Murray and others need to do is give PropertyMutual a chance, where 100% of revenue goes to the 100% member owned Mutual and its members, and 0% of revenue goes to investors!

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 17 February 2021 10:44 AM

I am afraid this is nothing radical. It is still owned and controlled by investors who will take back their invested £millions, and then more ad infinitum. A big blow out on initial advertising will always come back and bite you when the investors want to profit from agents' data. Rightmove 2.0.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 03 November 2020 09:43 AM

Lifetime revenue has been offered by PropertyMutual, the only portal owned and controlled 100% by agents, not investors, since it was launched.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 02 November 2020 14:30 PM

OTM PLC should have been a "wholly" owned mutual forever, but it is now only a "majority" agent-owned PLC. At launch, OTM PLC was approximately 70% agent owned, but already, depending on whose numbers you believe, that is down to 60% - 65% agent owned. A PLC Board must work solely in the best interests of shareholders so seeking "assurances", as agents did from Rightmove PLC, is by no means certain. Who do you think has more sway, financial institutions promising to invest millions in return for more profit, or independent agents? 35% - 40% of OTM PLC is already owned by institutions and non-agent investors. They only need 51% to have majority control. Because it is a PLC, OTM is undoubtedly driven primarily by the interests of its institutional shareholders. These investors have a say in setting the direction of the business which has implications for revenue targets and thus subscriptions. Should OTM PLC make future profits, these investors will be entitled to 35%-40% of these profits. Crucially, OTM PLC and its shareholders also have control over agents’ data, an extremely dangerous thing in my view, if agents want to avoid being owned outright by a "for-profit" business. Zoopla may have "re-positioned itself" and been forced to become more competitive, but it is 100% private equity owned so 100% of profits go to investors, not agents, and agents control 0% of the data they are giving away. Of course Zoopla has positioned itself as a supporter of independent agents... I believe, that as sure as night follows day, OTM PLC will have to go the same way as Rightmove PLC and Zoopla PLC did. When a company is listed on the stock market and starts gaining momentum, institutions pile in, agent share ownership gets diluted, ultimately below 50% as happened with Rightmove PLC (100% investor owned) and Zoopla PLC (100% investor owned), and greed always wins. It is my view that agents should only support a 100% agent owned business and simply STOP propping up corporate portals. Investment in such a wholly owned mutual would allow agents to create virtually whole of market inventory, have a year on year multi-million marketing budget without giving away any ownership or control and, who knows, even engineer a reverse takeover of OTM PLC and take it back to being the 100% agent owned mutual it should always have remained. This report, as I feared, is very disappointing for the challenger portals. SNTRM appears to be focused entirely on making a more competitive "corporate" portals market. These exciting and disruptive new challengers, all of whom no doubt think they have the solution to the portal crisis, are effectively dismissed with a token mention based on the premise that if three corporate portals decide to behave themselves (don't hold your breath), these challengers are expected to compete for the crumbs left over out of agents already hard pressed marketing budgets. Please can all future SNTRM announcements start with a disclaimer breaking down the per centage of OTM shareholders making up their office membership so far? It is not enough for Mr Sargent to announce that only his business is an OTM shareholder.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 16 June 2020 17:47 PM

To quote Mandy Rice-Davies, "Well he would, wouldn't he". With respect, it would come across better if Mr Abrahamson sold his shares in OTM and came off Zoopla and Rightmove. Mr Abrahamson's apparent belief that "institutions" are the only means of getting a challenger up and running simply confirms, in my mind, that OTM was set up from the start to be floated, particularly with regard to the reference to a former employee who had no experience of Mutuality but plenty experience of floating a portal on the stock market. This, along with marketing conditions and long term lock-in contracts made OTM about as un-mutual as you can get and rang sufficient alarm bells for so many agents that OTM was a car crash as a mutual. To claim that, as a PLC, it is the agent's friend when institutions now have significant control (well over 25% but currently less than 50% but for how long?), when agents were sold the same line by Zoopla and Rightmove does not float anymore. I agree it is not easy to get appropriate backing for a Mutual, which is why PropertyMutual has remained stubbornly 100% independent, but there are plenty of Social Impact, Mutual and co-operative institutions that are available to assist Mutuals from start-up through to sustainability. Indeed, I have been approached by a co-operative society this morning. Quite frankly, if the AM Board had genuinely wanted to create a long-term mutual, they could have done it. I believe legitimate and ethical Mutuality is a model whose time has come as my interview in The Negotiator today with Chris Watkins attempts to explain, albeit in a 10 minute soundbite.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 20 May 2020 10:43 AM

OTM was started by agents because they thought they were getting a mutual. This is just another PLC, trying to convince agents they won't become another Rightmove. Agents have the power, it’s their listings, it’s their data. They can control who the winners and losers are in the portal market. It must not be a PLC.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 12 May 2020 13:05 PM

The Covid-19 crisis has brought technology into the spotlight and shown that if it does not already have a solution to problems of the past, it can very quickly adapt and produce solutions for emerging situations. Agents not only need to be planning for the technological and practical challenges of conducting a service oriented business in a post lockdown economy, they also need to keep in mind Lord Best's recent warnings, should RoPa also become a reality. He says, “I think it should be dawning on agents that after RoPA they will become part of a profession". "Gone will be days when anyone including rogue operators can set up and become an estate agent overnight. It’s a huge change for the industry". "Agents should remember that once licencing starts, it will a criminal offence to trade as an estate agent without a licence". Agents are dealing with a double whammy for which the industry must plan and adapt, as there will be a significant reduction in agent numbers and offices as a result. Agents have begun to show that they recognise the benefits of co-ordinated collective action as the best means of pushing back against corporate disregard for customer satisfaction and service. In a rapidly evolving, post crisis economy, it is more essential than ever that agents also come together and mutually control their profession, data and costs in order to determine their own future.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 06 May 2020 10:21 AM

If agents agree to back the SNTRM campaign in large numbers, such collective action will empower Rob to negotiate price reductions across all three corporate portals for everybody's benefit. I think the objective is to ensure the corporates listen to agents from now on and reduce their excessive charges back to a level that is not self defeating. The obvious outcome of any price reductions SNTRM can negotiate is more cash available to agents, which equals more choice how they spend it. Such freedom of choice will enable agents to spend it how they see fit, rather than every spare penny being hoovered up by the corporates. They can choose to spend it on more corporate portal add-ons if that serves their business need, or have the funds available to look at other PropTech alternatives.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 30 April 2020 10:07 AM

As I say Angus, a legitimate mutual makes it part of their terms and conditions of membership. It just takes a transparent and accountable Board. e.g. Members are balloted on executive remuneration etc. That is what accountable mutuality in the real estate industry could look like.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 29 April 2020 09:42 AM

Hi Angus It is straightforward to legally structure a mutual to never be capable of being sold to benefit founders and members. It just takes the will. It is called a Charitable Assignment Condition and all legitimate mutuals have them. e.g. NFU Mutual which has been around for over 100 years, having good years and bad years, but building cash reserves so it is still able to pay an annual bonus and look after its members. If it folded for any reason whatsoever, all the proceeds of the sale of the business are gifted to charity. This is a public statement of intent that a mutual with this condition is around for the long term and has no IPO agenda.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 29 April 2020 09:29 AM

This article identifies the purpose of Mutuality. Even if it were true that Rightmove PLC, Onthemarket PLC and Zoopla private equity would ever go free, they would own and control agents outright and forever. The only way for agents to control your marketing costs, control and monetise your own data, and take back control of your own destiny once and for all is to fund, own and run a platform for mutual benefit that is entirely independent and limited by guarantee.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 29 April 2020 09:22 AM

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 28 April 2020 17:23 PM

If a PLC has to induce potential customers to lock themselves into exclusive contracts with the offer of shares, doesn't that say more about the model of the PLC? Surely that is limiting the options of the agent to market where they see fit? How is the agent able to act in the best interests of their client and market where and how they see fit? Haven't we been here before?

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 27 April 2020 12:55 PM

Hi Paul OTM launched a year after I pitched PropertyMutual to the RICS, NFoPP, and PIE. As a social impact entrepreneur, advocating a legitimate, ethical mutual, I could not get traditional investors onboard as it would compromise the 100% independence and neutrality that the "limited by guarantee" PropertyMutal retains. Believe it or not it is far easier to attract "traditional" investment, be it crowd funding or a VC, but they ALWAYS have an exit strategy and they ALWAYS compromise your independence. So what PropertyMutual is advocating is essentially crowd funding by agents for agents, protected by a legal framework, so that we can always operate in the best interests of our members. This is why I developed what I hope is a pretty transparent and generous business model.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 13:02 PM

Hi Hit Man, You are entitled to be a fan of OTM. A lot of people invested a lot of time and money in it. My article makes the point: "It is naïve to think that Rightmove PLC or Onthemarket PLC is under any obligation, nor should it be, to consider itself the agent’s friend. I believe it is misleading to propose that any PLC Board should feel obliged to acquiesce to the demands of a pressure group to reduce its revenue. Agents sold that right, like Turkeys voting for Christmas, when they voted to sell ownership of these businesses to the public and institutional investors." I apologise for the word naïve and assure you I did search for other synonyms! my point is as soon as we emerge as an economy from the other side of this crisis the discounts will cease, and subscriptions will have to rise to satisfy PLC imperatives - investor driven increases in revenue, dividends and market capitalisation. Every agent knows that promises have been broken by corporate portals in the past, agent shares have been diluted by cash raises, and revenue always grows at the expense of agents.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 12:51 PM

Hi Property Pundit. I am happy to engage in healthy open debate but not with anonymous handles. My so called "agenda" is transparent, who are you and what is yours? What I will say is that this is a soft launched platform that has not yet charged anybody a penny to list. In its current form it provides a solid foundation to start mutually shaping and building the next-generation property platform in co-ordination with UK agents and other PropTech providers. The business is also limited by guarantee. I have not added in any extras yet as I am trying to establish a Board of interested agents and Regional Representatives to run the business at the moment. The development of the platform will be moulded exclusively by the mutually owning agents, informing their Regional Representative, informing their Regional Board Director. If agents want stuff in or out, they will tell me what to do. It is also worth a mention that I have invested years and lots of money in my transparent "agenda" but I am perfectly willing to allow the mutual to kick me out as a service provider after the initial contract term is up and we have had a fair chance to work together as a team. Nobody appeared to have a problem with Springett trousering £m's from OTM and yet as CSP, I am willing to gift the version number of the platform at expiration of the contract to the mutual if they decide to kick me out after the contract term has expired. Anybody else out there willing to do that?

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 12:33 PM

Hi Hit Man. I hope to have a meeting with Rob next week to discuss these very points and broaden the remit of SNTR and collectively define some long term strategic objectives that will benefit the entire industry.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 09:21 AM

Hi Angus. Spot on! The primary purpose of both Rightmove PLC and Onthemarket PLC is to increase revenue, dividends, and market capitalisation, year on year, for their investors. PLC’s are not the agents’ friend, at any price.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 09:18 AM

Hi Chris. I get that agents are exhausted by portal wars and probably see me as just another opportunist. In my defence, I advocated and launched an ethical mutual portal before OTM that was free for years so at least have been consistent! I truly believe that if agents can understand the message that a mutually owned, funded and run portal can gain traction, we are the only business model that is legally obliged to operate solely in our members' best interests. As the full article says: The end-result might be a single marketplace which provides a gateway for estate agents to earn additional revenue. It might ultimately incorporate block-chain. It might send traffic back to estate agents own websites or regional mutual hubs. It might use Geolocation. It might integrate with social platforms and other property API web services. It might ultimately discard subscriptions if alternative revenue can be generated for the benefit of the Mutual by the CSP. It might adopt the latest technology or create partnerships to maintain more ‘social distancing’, i.e. ‘smarter’ CRM systems, virtual tours, digital conveyancing, Ai based valuations systems etc. But importantly, the development of the platform will be moulded exclusively by the mutually owning agents, informing their Regional Representative, informing their Regional Board Director. The possibilities are endless and could include joint ventures with other PropTech businesses offering technology of benefit to our members, so I am not advocating another monopoly. The key difference is the financial and technological benefits will be retained inside the Mutual for the benefit of its members, not external investors or third parties.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 09:16 AM

Morning Murray. I disagree about the SNTR movement not pushing OTM. It is narrowly and explicitly defined in supporting OTM in the core objectives which were emailed to every OTM shareholder. It is no coincidence, after tanking, OTM's shareprice has doubled in a week. The core objectives in that communication were: 1. Increase pressure on Rightmove to deliver change to their pricing regime 2. Avoid a return to a duopoly 3. Support OnTheMarket and Zoopla to ensure choice and a free market I absolutely agree with 1 and 2, but my objection to 3 is the crux of the article. No mention of a long term strategy, no mention of a non corporate controlled market place. In no way am I having a dig at Rob here - he has had much more important priorities on his mind than talking to another challenger portal. The point is that this is a watershed moment, we are in a crisis, crucial decisions are being made and, in my view, Rob was advocating retention of the status quo. He has always tried to negotiate fair fees with all three of the corporate portals so what will be different in the post crisis portal market? I hope to at least re-ignite that debate that the corporate portals have no obligation to be the agents' friend, at any price; the efficiencies of data aggregation require fewer rather than dozens of competing portals (a fact Zoopla dealt with comprehensively in their growth stage); and that with the threat of a well supported mutual portal, working in the background solely for the benefit of agents, he no longer has one arm tied behind his back and can negotiate from a position of genuine strength. I have not advocated agents leaving the corporate portals as, at the moment, I believe it would be an unnecessary act of self harm. It is a shame the link to my article was not published as it says the strategy of leaving corporates for a mutual offering will never be a seismic shift – more so a considered, gradual transition of continuing to use the corporate platforms in parallel with the Mutual platform until the day that the Mutual members are generating meaningful leads. Hopefully PropertyMutual can then embrace or replace. As Jefferies.com reported, PropertyMutual is an incredibly disruptive blueprint that would take the agency-portal all the way back to its pure-play mutual roots.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 09:10 AM

Who owns the data? Homesearch. By all means correct me if I am wrong, but I cannot see anything on the website about the initiators of the data (vendors, landlords etc.) or their intermediaries (the agents) retaining ownership and control of all the "digital oil" agents are unthinkingly pumping into these so-called "free" portals. This is the key point about all these "free" portals. They are all "limited by shares" and are jumping on an opportunistic bandwagon and their shareholders, not agents, will get the benefit. Agents need to realise that the only way they own and control their data and costs for ever is by supporting the only mutual - PropertyMutual.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 06 April 2020 11:32 AM

Agents are welcome to get in touch with PropertyMutual and subscribe for free until the Covid 19 scare is over.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 13 March 2020 08:44 AM

As soon as Rightmove announced its sale all those years ago, the original "contract" for mutual betterment between agent and business was broken. Despite this, the corporate propaganda juggernaut has been incredibly effective in persuading agents that the only way of marketing real estate is the 20 year old Rightmove model i.e. pay through the nose for the "privilege" of giving control of costs and data to investor led corporations. This behaviour is now so ingrained that agents are even gifting their data to unaccountable, so called "free" portals, and exit-strategised start ups, all of whom claim they will be the next Rightmove. Certainly since its de-mutualisation, OTM was locked on course to go the same way as Rightmove and Zoopla. The difference with OTM is that five years of cash burn, forgotten promises, and failure to overtake Zoopla has left not just a tainted legacy but most importantly a crystal clarity that copying the same IPO model successfully pitched to agents by Rightmove years ago and subsequently exploited by Zoopla is now old news and doomed to failure. As Mike DelPrete recently put it, trying to beat Rightmove is “at best expensive, at worst futile“. I would amend that statement to say, "trying to beat Rightmove at its own game is at best expensive and at worst futile". Whilst enormously saddened that agent members are the ones affected and disillusioned by the OTM de-mutualisation, the writing has been on the wall for some time. OTM v1 agents are now jumping ship, albeit back into the arms of the same investor led corporations they thought they were leaving five years ago. However, what Mr DelPrete missed in his recent article on UK portals and yet what Jefferies.com recently recognised, in their laser focused analysis of Rightmove and the UK portal market, is that only PropertyMutual's hybrid mutual business model has "an incredibly disruptive blueprint that would take the agency-portal relationship all the way back to its pure-play mutual roots"- Jefferies.com (12/2019). They go on to say, "New entrants like PropertyMutual have exactly the construct needed to return the industry back to a sustainable agency-backed model. But the challenge is to drive collective action: we think the cycle could be about to do just that." - Jefferies.com (12/2019). However, Jefferies most telling advice concerns Rightmove. "It is really only the agent’s fear of losing an instruction from not being on Rightmove that holds back the churn - the greatest threat to Rightmove is therefore collective action across the estate agency industry to communally break free of what has been described as “an abusive relationship”. Unless PropertyMutual rapidly can drive such groupthink, this isn’t imminently likely." - Jefferies.com (12/2019). In other words, agents must accept that nothing will change until they are willing to collectively abandon old methodolgies and start doing things differently. Agents have talked about taking collective action against the corporate duopoly of Rightmove and Zoopla for years but lacked a model capable of delivering it. At the start of a new decade and in a particularly challenging market, I believe PropertyMutual's hybrid mutual business model is the idea whose time has come. After all, highly respected Mutuals have been delivering returns to members and yet retaining independence for over a century. Agents have a safe haven in PropertyMutual, as we are structured to never be for sale. Agents need to put OTM out of its misery and fund, own and run PropertyMutual, the original legitimate and ethical mutual that will always put its agent members first, is 100% independent and accountable, and is structured to deliver #collectiveaction by agents for #collectiveimpact. After all, the definition of insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting a different result.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 09 March 2020 11:01 AM

If Agents adopt Facebook MarketPlace it will be yet another example of self sabotage, first gifting and then paying for the privilege of giving their data to Facebook. The point of PropertyMutual is to enable agents to come together in the original 100% independent platform that cannot be sold and that will curate on their behalf their most valuable asset - their data. Why did the founders of Primelocation want a second bite at the cherry after they sold Primelocation? They wanted the data but they had a flawed business plan and floated OTM, becoming LocationPrime or RMv2. This is the path for every non-mutual platform, all of which shift the focus from their members to their investors, driving up costs over time.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 25 November 2019 09:40 AM

Thanks Velgram As you correctly identify, we need member funds to market properly so we need agents to sign up on mass for the princely sum of £10 per month per office. The problem could be solved so quickly.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 20 November 2019 13:43 PM

Hi Velgram The only website 100% funded, owned and run by agents for agents is PropertyMutual. It is there and waiting to serve the industry.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 20 November 2019 09:59 AM

Hi Nick, you are correct about the fees text which needs amending and is in the development programme to be done this week. With regard to look and feel of the website, the appearance of a website is not the most significant cost in running a platform and is always subjective. Bells and whistles can also be added cost effectively and are always in our project management cycle. So our main focus and challenge is growing inventory via a nominal subscription to cover operating costs. AM and OTM took the decision to call their business a mutual but based it on expensive lock-in contracts, creating different categories of members and making big promises to their agent investors. Those promises were rewarded with de-mutualisation, loss of independence and the need to raise external investment so I still maintain our approach is legitimate but it brings its own challenges, in particular marketing budgets. So, we have the chicken and egg of how to attract investment into a mutual. The only way is to grow organically and for individuals like you to "invest" the price of a cup of coffee a week so that we can grow inventory and numbers to critical mass and move onto stage 2 funding the growth of the business with our staged subscriptions based on member numbers. That is the only way to avoid burning cash to achieve unrealistic promises that end up being broken.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 19 November 2019 12:32 PM

Hi Hit Man Surely the only way agents can negotiate with RM is if sufficient agents come together as one as there is safety in numbers? In order to enable the discussion, do agents not require the comfort and backing of their own, 100% independent business? I started PropertyMutual believing that the pricing and principles spoke for themselves but another business corrupted my vision of true mutuality and grabbed all the attention by locking agents into expensive contracts and spending huge sums of money. I believe there is still a massive appetite for the "right" alternative and that my original vision is still achievable, particularly for any disaffected OTMv1 members who can now see light at the end of their tunnel and who believed in a never-to-be-sold mutual.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 19 November 2019 12:12 PM

Hi Marcus It is down to what agents consider the right price. Is giving data gratis to a "free" portal the right price? What happens to that data when the advertisers and investors of that portal want to cash out? Most exit strategies for non-impact investment are of the order of three years. PropertyMutual curates and silos our agent's data in our data lake so that it cannot be exploited by unauthorised third parties. What about the investors in Agents' Mutual who signed five year contracts on the promise that they would never pay more than newcomers? What about the de-mutualisation and all the other broken promises, the cash burn and the increasing likelihood that more cash will need to be raised? This is why I believe the industry is looking at RMv2. OTM is on exactly the same journey. A legitimate mutual cannot and will not make rash promises and raise funds from any outside source as that would immediately de-legitimise the mutuality. That is why we grow organically, without locking agents into five year contracts at high subscriptions, burning through their cash, and then having to say "sorry, we ran out of money again". So is our current inventory growth subscription of £10 per month per office, the equivalent to a cup of coffee a week, the right price, the right investment in your future? The math, and our transparent staged subscriptions based on member numbers, suggests that if the industry would adopt PropertyMutual en-masse, the "right" solution to raising sufficient funds, entirely independently, on an annually recurring basis is in the industry's hands right now. Finally, PropertyMutual is a member of Social Enterprise UK and has a charitable assignment condition meaning we cannot be sold to profit individuals. We therefore trust that our ethics and credentials speak for themselves and are sufficient motivation for agents to subscribe, in the realisation that there is a better way to run a property marketing platform.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 19 November 2019 11:27 AM

PropertyMutual launched its legitimate mutual platform, 100% free of investors and advertisers, five years ago. Agents' Mutual, a pseudo-mutual business model, with its investors, de-mutualisation and cash burn requiring further cash raise and share dilution is Rightmove v2. It successfully diverted the attention away from PropertyMutual but we have continued with the only business model that can work solely in the best interests of agents as we remain 100% independent and cannot be floated. We recently converted from free listing to a nominal subscription to cover the costs of growing inventory prior to members voting on increasing transparent, staged subs. Any non-mutual, particularly the so called "free portals" and any listed or private equity portal have to work in the best interests of their investors and advertisers - its as simple as that. Take a look.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 19 November 2019 10:17 AM

Data is the hidden value for the investors behind the "free" portals which is why they will always keep popping up. Investors always have an exit strategy. The "free" portal will be sold on for profit or sold to another unaccountable owner and nothing that benefits agents in the long term will have been achieved. Of course agents are entitled to give away their data for free but I question what agents are actually achieving in the long term. An agent owned and controlled data pool is an enormous potential asset for the long term benefit of the partners of a legitimate, accountable mutual.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 04 September 2019 10:04 AM

Absolutely! There is no such thing as a "free" lunch and no such thing as a "free" portal. Giving your data to them for free, with no accountability, for them to monetise and profit from is madness. And stop paying for the privilege of giving your data to the corporate and listed portals like RM, ZPG and OTM for them and their external shareholders to monetise and profit from. The only solution that works solely in the agents' best interests is the original mutual, PropertyMutual.com - accountable, ethical, independent. Our partners data = our partners data lake. Our profits = our partners profit.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 04 September 2019 09:45 AM

This is the key point. "He also said that agents had the opportunity to influence OTM policy as they formed 70 per cent of the shareholders currently. " But he warned: “In due course they’re all going to be able to sell … and if the majority of the agents’ holding is reduced and reduced and reduced then the influence the agents have will be more limited.” So in a nutshell, OTM is a third unwanted corporate portal which will go the same way RM and ZPG went, will ultimately be controlled by external investors as increased ARPA is the only way to keep them happy, and the whole charade will be exposed for what it was - an IPO agenda from day one with no long term benefit to the industry.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 26 November 2018 09:34 AM

Simon knows his stuff. Probably the most respected individual who has been there and done it in the portal world.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 12 January 2016 07:13 AM

I cannot understand why all the other paying members are not up in arms about another example of mate's rates in OTM. Was a vote put to the membership by this 'mutual' or was it a case of the management pleasing themselves and communicating their decision from on high?

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 11 December 2015 08:14 AM

Before OTM launched, Mr Hayward personally told me he thought the 'one other portal' rule was 'ridiculous' and that there was no way NFoPP could endorse it. I would love to know what changed his mind.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 28 November 2015 14:43 PM

I believe it does matter as this is suppossed to be a non-profit mutual. Also, I believe transparency was implied in all the pre launch publicity. Are the stories of a £500k salary true? They are neither confirmed nor denied. Is £500k salary appropriate for a start up, non-profit business? IMO, no. If I was a member of this or any other mutual, I would expect transparency regarding the directors salaries as well as a say in the significant decisions.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 05 November 2015 13:21 PM

I would love to know how many directors and members were involved in this decision as well as get some answers to questions like what actually is IS's salary; how many were consulted on the Country Life hook up that benefitted the AM founders and not many other members. The list of questions piles up...

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 05 November 2015 11:06 AM

Trevor, sorry to see the bully has banned your portal thus providing more proof they are anti industry and anti consumer choice.

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 05 November 2015 11:04 AM

Sorry Harry, but I would have thought it was bleeding obvious when you look at the Board, the CEO, their joint history together and the fact their recruitment events publicised the fact that even though it is a sham 'mutual' , 'by the way guys, we can sell it if enough of you vote to do so'...

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 22 October 2015 14:06 PM

I wonder how 'mutual' the Country Life and International decisions were? One assumes they were pushed through by the London and International centric AM Board? Can any OTM members say if they were actually consulted on this major policy issue which, presumably, was only of value to a minority of the overall membership?

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 17 October 2015 12:57 PM

And exactly as I predicted, the founders of Agents Mutual have got the ordinary members to pay for their second bite at the Primelocation cherry. We can all now truly call it LocationPrime.com!

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 05 October 2015 09:16 AM

Breaking News