By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.
Andrew Goldthorpe
Andrew Goldthorpe
3158  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

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

Andrew Goldthorpe

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 28 April 2020 17:23 PM

Andrew Goldthorpe

From: Andrew Goldthorpe 24 April 2020 12:33 PM

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

Andrew Goldthorpe
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

MovePal MovePal MovePal