Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies

Kristjan I think you would cry if you knew what the lowest rate that an agent pays with Rightmove for the volume of business you do, perhaps you should ask them. And if they tell you, ask why you are paying a great deal more - my thoughts are you will not be told the lowest rate for 'commercial and GDPR reasons'.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 17:18 PM

Hi Andrew, I am not sure that Emoov Mark II would want to acquire the reputation of the previous incarnation of Emoov, or the Trust Pilot reviews that are currently displayed, belonging to the old or new Emoov. Which are still being displayed despite assurances to the ASA and myself a fortnight ago that they would be taken down. And I quote one of the Trust Pilot reviews dated 28th Oct 2018 (so previous Emoov) 'Emoov has failed to deliver the service I have paid for. As it stands I am 10K out of pocket ... the bidder thought we were not interested in their offer and bought another house. (They) did not call the highest bidder to confirm acceptance of offer as we requested ... Watch dog contacted regarding my complaint' 6th Dec Trust pilot review 'Emoov has gone into administration … so don't bother using their website which is still live'. In fact under the new ownership as of 24th of Jan, Emoov II seems to be following in the footsteps of the original company, Trust pilot 24th Jan 2019 - 'Run by clowns, they feed you a bunch of lies. Horrible communication. Have no idea where the positive feedback comes from, very suspect. Do trust pilot delete negative reviews?' As an observation - it does seem strange that if you were looking to generate new business - you would populate your own website with such reviews, unless of course your business model was to lose money. Especially if you had the ASA breathing down your neck, maybe the ombudsman might take an interest.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 17:02 PM

IS RIGHTMOVE MAKING THE WRONGMOVE? First published 22nd October 2019 There are many agents grumbling about the way Rightmove is treating them, and some commentators have actually used the term abused. This seems a harsh term but looking more closely - the real possible abuse that is arguably at play, is the fact that Rightmove possibly charge agents different amounts, for the same service. So a new agent that wants to use Rightmove, pays more than an existing client for the identical service, and though it would seem sensible to discount to a multiple branch enterprise, many agents would be staggered at how little some agents in their town, village or city are paying, when they are paying substantially more for the same service. Now Rightmove can use any model they choose - if agents are unhappy - well they can choose not to list on Rightmove, but this economic advantage/disadvantage plays fast and loose with agents who are at present under considerable financial pressures. Maybe agents should set up an anonymous forum and post how much they are charged per branch/office and what level of service they are provided, I think this would be enlightening for all. No-one minds paying for a product or service, but some argue that the many customers at Rightmove may be subsidising the minority. Personally, I think that within three-years Zoopla who are re-aligning their model and who are substantially cheaper than Rightmove, may well offer 'self-listing' for the general public. As one of the online property portals jockey for market share and domination. Given the cost, I think many agents would 'eat' the fact that they are listing on a site with the 'self-listing' general public, as Zoopla's cost base is much lower than Rightmove. If Rightmove tried to launch this iniative, it would possibly cause a rebellion as agents would not want to pay a premium rate and compete with self-listing vendors. Estate agency, and by this I mean the whole property sector - is undergoing a period of change, just as other industries are. New technology is pushing this along and the customer or consumer is king (or queen) once again and they want service at the click of a button. And if enough of them want to market their own homes, because it is easy (obviously I know it is anything but easy) then this sentiment may change things. Lastly, the imminent departure of Scott Forbes , the present Chairman of Rightmove, who has been in place for nearly a decade and a half, may be the sign that things may not stay on the up for Rightmove for ever. Maybe, producing profits of over 65% a year, can not be sustained, especially in the property sector where many agents are trading on a margin as low as 3 or 4%, and in some cases a serious minus number.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 10:25 AM

It’s good to see graham that you read my posts on this subject, maybe this is the start of agents becoming a collective and getting a portal price that is fair, rather than late joiners bearing the cost for multi branch corporates. I somehow feel that you will not be getting too many CEO’s giving you the rate they pay, maybe there is need for a website where agents can post there charging rates, that would really get the momentum going, perhaps OTM will be seen in a new light, no-one likes to pay over the odds or subsidise the costs of competitors.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 09:15 AM

Well hopefully not - you see Axel will take them private and they will hoover up the vendors who want a cheaper fee and sell in the 230 - 270k price range, in large towns and cities, there is a place for the model. If they change the model, they might have something, but the fees need to be much higher and instead of just listers LPE's they need SELLERS - which means more cost to the business even if it is 'self-employed' status and off the balance sheet. Also, they have done millions and millions for no return, if they had used it to build a Proptech solution - not a digitization of the traditional agency model they might have made, but a system that made the sale journey easier, and quicker, rather than the model they have, where vendor and buyer are almost a peripheral afterthought, rather than prime drivers.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:31 AM

It's me I am back again, I have just had a look at Purplebrick's annual accounts, and they have gone from their last year end April 2018m 152.8M cash in the bank to only 62.8M cash in the bank in April 2019, since which time they have had some hefty bills to pay to close down operations overseas. So that is a 90M burn in a year, which given they had income from upfront fees of probably 100M plus is not good news, that's a burn of 7.5M a month, I bet the executive toilets are made out of gold. Also, and I find this fascinating the way the company sets out its spreadsheet, Revenue 136.5M, cost of sales (56.6M), gross profit 79.9M, gross profit margin 58.5%, BUT THEN THEY ADD IN ADMIN AND MARKETING COSTS admin costs 61m, marketing costs 70.7M, and we get the operating loss of 52.3M. Call me stupid and many do, but the admin and marketing costs (Purplebricks adverts on multi-media, all the head office staff costs) are costs before any profit, just as in a traditional agent where you have income, expenditure and gross profit, you do not record a profit in the accounts and then add in the incidentals like your 60% staff costs or your advertising budget of 15%. Maybe, Purplebricks shareholders are not familiar with balance sheets. With only 60M in the war chest it will be interesting to see the interim accounts mid December and the full accounts next April, I think that mountain of cash at the bank may well be down to 20M, and then we will see if Purplebricks wins any golds at the Olympics.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:11 AM

It's me I am back again, I have just had a look at Purplebrick's annual accounts, and they have gone from their last year end April 2018m 152.8M cash in the bank to only 62.8M cash in the bank in April 2019, since which time they have had some hefty bills to pay to close down operations overseas. So that is a 90M burn in a year, which given they had income from upfront fees of probably 100M plus is not good news, that's a burn of 7.5M a month, I bet the executive toilets are made out of gold. Also, and I find this fascinating the way the company sets out its spreadsheet, Revenue 136.5M, cost of sales (56.6M), gross profit 79.9M, gross profit margin 58.5%, BUT THEN THEY ADD IN ADMIN AND MARKETING COSTS admin costs 61m, marketing costs 70.7M, and we get the operating loss of 52.3M. Call me stupid and many do, but the admin and marketing costs (Purplebricks adverts on multi-media, all the head office staff costs) are costs before any profit, just as in a traditional agent where you have income, expenditure and gross profit, you do not record a profit in the accounts and then add in the incidentals like your 60% staff costs or your advertising budget of 15%. Maybe, Purplebricks shareholders are not familiar with balance sheets. With only 60M in the war chest it will be interesting to see the interim accounts mid December and the full accounts next April, I think that mountain of cash at the bank may well be down to 20M, and then we will see if Purplebricks wins any golds at the Olympics.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:09 AM

If tracksuit Vic, is correct, and his company sells three times as many properties than any other agent - why has the company made ‘a full-year operating loss of £52.3 million.’ this year? Vic is a little prone to throw away lines - 'the company is not for sale’, just at the point Axel Springer is likely to take the company private. Maybe the three times was just another off the cuff comment. For me, and I have been crusading on this point for two years, is what is the conversion rate of listings to exchanges? I have read Purplebrick's company statements in the past boasting of a 73% and the 81% conversion rates, but no proof. The reason this is important to know is that in a pay upfront model, sale or no sale, if half your clients get no exchange on their property - shouldn't that be something that Vic talks about. I even offered a £1,000 of my own money for anyone from Purplebricks to prove this 81% conversion rate, not a single taker. Why? because I feel it likely they complete on average on every second property they list, in line with industry norms. My proof - click on rightmove today - see how many Purplebrick properties are listed for sale and how many are sstc - the ratio around 50%. Is this a true figure well, given that 28% of the sstc will fall through and rightmove keeps sstc on site for a number of months, any skewing of data about balances out. Put it this way, if you were selling 80% of your stock then around 80% of your stock on rightmove would have a sold sticker on it - that is not the picture I can see. I am more than happy for someone to prove me wrong, any takers?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 09:38 AM

Rightmove may well be out of step and be seen as the Wrongmove. There is definitely dissent being muttered by many of my clients, with many agents grumbling about the way Rightmove is treating them, and some commentators have actually used the term abusive when describing their relationship with the portal. This seems a harsh term but looking more closely - the real possible abuse that is arguably at play, is the fact that Rightmove possibly charge agents different amounts, for the same service. So, a new agent that wants to use Rightmove, pays more than an existing client for the identical service, and though it would seem sensible to discount to a multiple branch enterprise, many agents would be staggered at how little some agents in their town, village or city are paying, when they are paying substantially more for the same service. Now Rightmove can use any model they choose - if agents are unhappy - well they can choose not to list on Rightmove, but this economic advantage/disadvantage plays fast and loose with agents who are at present under considerable financial pressures. Maybe agents should set up an anonymous forum and post how much they are charged per branch/office and what level of service they are provided, I think this would be enlightening for all. No-one minds paying for a product or service, but some argue that the many customers at Rightmove may be subsidising the minority. Personally, I think that within three-years Zoopla who are re-aligning their model and who are substantially cheaper than Rightmove, may well offer 'self-listing' for the general public. As one of the online property portals jockey for market share and domination. If you look at other countries, agents do list against self-listing vendors on main portals it is just that at present the UK does not. Given the cost, I think many agents would 'eat' the fact that they are listing on a site with the 'self-listing' general public, as Zoopla's cost base is much lower than Rightmove. If Rightmove tried to launch this iniative, it would possibly cause a rebellion as agents would not want to pay a premium rate and compete with self-listing vendors. Estate agency, and by this I mean the whole property sector - is undergoing a period of change, just as other industries are. New technology is pushing this along and the customer or consumer is king (or queen) once again and they want service at the click of a button. And if enough of them want to market their own homes, because it is easy (obviously I know it is anything but easy) then this sentiment may change things. So, maybe the real battlefield is not the annual rise in subscription to Rightmove and their 60% profits each year, it is making sure that your agency is adopting the new wave of proptech tools and systems to future proof your business. Yes, Rightmove is causing a chill out there and agents are cooling towards them, but there may well be a far colder arctic winter coming for agencies who wait too long to prospect the new way of doing business. Which will be high levels of face to face service backed by technology which allows an omni-channel service to the ever demanding general public, who are turning their backs in droves on businesses based on old trading models rooted in the last century.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 November 2019 06:43 AM

Maybe some people feel that the day will just be a talking shop, but I will be listening to find out the direction of play within the property community. It is very rare to get all of these polymaths under the same roof, and their views are just that - views to excite debate and move things on, especially as the landscape of agency is changing. Bercow is my local MP and I have met him, and he is a straight talker, so taking politics out of it - I am sure he alone will be a class act to watch and listen.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 November 2019 06:27 AM

Will there be tax-breaks for this innovation?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 07 November 2019 12:13 PM

Perhaps, Graham agents need to get on board with this and realise that Proptech is already in their business, and is not going away and is a power for good. Reapit have decided they want to be very much in the mix of what is about to evolve, and yes it is a risk, but doing nothing also could in 24-months see them isolated. Gary Barker is a brave man, and it will soon be 2020, and the increasing customer base of Millenials and Gen Z, will even more want a quicker level of service, value for money and everything at a tap of a button on their mobile. Perhaps the 'Apps store' will move this forward?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 07 November 2019 12:11 PM

James I totally agree with you; companies who stand still wither, often companies who would most benefit from your expertise feel want you to 'perform' like a novelty act, rather than embracing the opportunity to make their company more profitable, and the Proptech revolution is all around and is an undeniable force for the future. So, it is not a case of deciding to be part of it - all agents are part of it - they just need to decide if they are going to welcome in the technology and strategy that exists, or build the barricades and hope that it will be business as usual. Perhaps, the biggest point you make is - just do something - as you can always tweak the decision later, the biggest mistake as a certain large corporate agency is finding, is to give out soundbites that they have a three-year plan, and the plan is to change nothing and hunker down in a bunker.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 November 2019 11:29 AM

Hi James, how does the reporting stink? If you read all of the documentation on the case, it goes like this, Countrywide between 2008 and 2018 had in place a policy agreed at CEO level to keep the money in the company account, all 10M of it. Paul Creffield when alerted to it, fully co-operated with the RICS investigation, but - Paul Creffield did not become CEO discover the deceit and report it as a whistle- blower. No it was an outside audit that picked up on the situation, which if let undetected may well have continued. In fact if you look closely at Paul's statement in mitigation he seems very much to make the case that because Countrywide does billions of pounds worth of mortgages a year, have a massive RIICs prescence, and has a huge 800 (?) strong office presence with many branches in all the towns and villages, it would be a travesty if Countrywide were too badly damaged by the affair as it would possibly upset the property industry as a whole. (TOO BIG TO FAIL). In other words - Countrywide had in place by its own admission a questionable practice, the internal transfer of client funds, which was company policy. Then by chance an outsider found out about it, and of course if your are the CEO of the day you are going to be as helpful as you can, but I think that to play the card of TOO BIG TO FAIL, is a dangerous one, because if Countrywide is founded upon financial services and has within in very notable and trustworthy RICCS personnel, shouldn't the bar be set higher rather than lower, as a warning to all. The panel in their judgement under mitigating and aggravating matters, actually states that Countrywide were using the fund to inflate their profit provision. As a matter of balance I am told by those who know that Paul is a very good at what he does, but I wonder if the matter had not come to light, would anyone at Countrywide have seized the nettle. Also where does the leave the likes of former CEO's Amanda Platt for example, and the auditors and the Chief financial officers? You may not think it but I actually love Countrywide, it is just a shame that all the talent was sacrificed during various regime purges, maybe they should invite some of those who can do the job back, as I feel unfortunately there are other icebergs about to present themselves in front of HMS Countrywide.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 05 November 2019 12:39 PM

Any measure to reduce failed sales is to be embraced including reservation fees, which many in the industry have seen before. Fundamental buyer’s remorse though is a harder thing to overcome, and no study has been done to quantify this factor and there seems little chance to remove it from the property sale equation. On the positive, due to advances in the proptech arena, companies like Offr are putting together solutions to minimise both the period of time taken to get to exchange, whilst equally as importantly having buyers fully qualified at point of sale, and the property pre-packaged conveyancing wise, with a fully transparent offer process leading into a seamless post sale agreed process where vendor seller and the agent and the conveyancing process is front and centre. It is not a criticism but a sad reality that many agencies have become front loading, win the instruction, list it, sell it to a buyer, send out the memo of sale, and then... there seems often - a black hole of nothingness for weeks, and it is at this point the sale process is at its weakest and the fall throughs occur. RoPA are keen to see the fuller adoption of pre-conveyanced property prior to point of sale, some may mutter it is HIPS mark 2, but the difference is with proptech innovations which were not around before, far from hindering the sale process, motivated vendors can meet motivated buyers, on a business model where an omni channel approach of accountability means that post sale being agreed there is no longer that mysterious black hole where nothing seems to be going on. With dashboards, and mobile phones, the stakeholders in the sales, the agent who carries the cost of aborted sales, the vendor and the buyer and the conveyancer who also have to absorb lost costs when sales fail, will actually in real time be interconnected, rather than sitting waiting for ‘something’ out of their control to happen. Whilst not all sales can be saved, pre- qualification of buyers, and pre-registration of properties, and an integrated, interconnected and transparent process which the agent and the other stakeholders are equally a part of, may well with the new technology that the millennials and generation z take for granted, move the industry away from the old model. A model where agents sell property, solicitors do the legals, to a more enlightened, transparent and collectively biased process where all parties board the train at the same point and have a ticket to the same destination. Now that is a train ride that most estate agents whose margins are being squeezed would definitely like to be on.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 05 November 2019 06:36 AM

Is it time that Countrywide got rid of its rotten apples. Back in August 2018 Himanshu Raja - Chief financial Officer at Countrywide, was until it was voted down to receive £7M of company shares, and Paul Creffield Group GMD was to receive £8M of shares. This was at a time that the scandal of the £10M funds was known to the company, but not disclosed to the shareholders. Then in early Spring 2019, Countrywide were fined £215,000 for Anti Money Laundering lapses, and now they have been fined another £100,000 for financial irregularities. Given that Mr Creffield is himself fully supportive of RoPA, and a single regulator. Is it not time for him and Himanshu to do the honourable thing? Two months ago Mr Creffield when asked about RoPA said, … 'We're really supportive of regulation because we believe it will help create a level playing field with all agents expected to have the same expertise, It'll be good for the consumer too.' More worryingly for all parties, including perhaps Baron Best who heads up RoPA is Mr Creffield's further comments regarding RoPA, ' Because of Countrywide's scale, we've been consulted frequently (by RoPA) on proposals during their preparation, and we've conducted some pilot projects.' Now if the new regulatory framework that a forthcoming government may back comes into being in the form of RoPA, should some of its architects be coming from Countrywide's top management team. For me they would be the last people I would look to. If Paul Creffield advocates root and branch industry regulation - then Countrwide should itself be a beacon of this industry change, at present it is a bonfire of vanities, which given the proximity of November the 5th is very apt. Matches anyone.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 27 February 2019 07:15 AM

Well, I am surprised that it has taken this long for the poor investors in PB to realise that despite increasing revenue every year, a company that does not make profit, can never generate a dividend. The true cost of a sale for any estate agent, be it a corporate, a person trading out of their bedroom, or an online agent is the same - over £2,000. So if you let vendors have the service for less than this, you never make profit. After years of being in the wilderness, explaining to everyone that PB do not 'sell' 81% of the stock they take on - and only convert about 48%, maybe someone will ask the company to publish their true instructions to completions ratio, and maybe refund the poor vendors who paid up front and got nothing extra. Thoughts?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 21 February 2019 17:30 PM

Stephen, I am sure it was a typo but it is only £7,500 annual gross profit per branch I am afraid - 850 branches x £7,500 gross profit a branch =6.375M gross profit. So that is £625 gross profit a month per branch, time to sell coffee and sandwiches perhaps? Or maybe not with Patisserie Valerie having a bad time … is nothing sacred?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 February 2019 10:38 AM

A 5.26% gross profit is not a sign of success, most successful one branch agencies trade on a gross profit margin of 28%. A national company should be aiming for 12% to 14%. If sold prices reduce nationally by 5% in 2019, then Countrywide fees will reduce in line, which is very likely. Also, if the government bans referral fees from mortgage finance, solicitors and survey business, this lost revenue will also impact on Countrywides bottom line, as I think solicitor referrals alone is worth a large sum each year. I hope that Countrywide do weather the storm, but I would advise closing branches that have never made profit or marginal profit, and put resources into the profit making offices, and perhaps, develop staff and employ great mangers at branch level. Put it this way, if you went to a crowdfunding site and said I have great idea, we are going to generate 627M of revenue in 2018, but only see a 5.26% gross profit, you probably would not have any takers especially if you said the brand was a mature one dating back decades. Thoughts?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 February 2019 10:31 AM

Whilst I do not think online agents can be seen as a Ponzi scheme, in that some vendors have seen a return on their investment, eg they got sold and completed having paid into the scheme, for many though that is not the case, and increasingly some people are feeling that paying upfront may be the next PPI scandal in the sense that vendors are paying upfront for no return. 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%. WHICH states 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. Also the auction/estate agent who 'bought' the Emoov/tepilo listings has said that many vendors actually paid nearly £1,500 upfront, rather than less than a £1,000 as was the low headline figure being offered by the onliners. The added upfront fees were for viewings and other services.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 18 December 2018 10:28 AM

I think that is a brilliant idea … surely there must be plenty?

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 December 2018 18:52 PM

The Purple Bricks data is on their website, scroll down to investor on the bottom of the front page and find the twentyci report it shows their conversion rate. It talks about 81% conversion but then you look at the graphs a few pages on and you see that exchanges are not 81% or anywhere near. Hope that helps.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 December 2018 18:51 PM

I think Purple Bricks and other pay upfront online agencies are going to come under increasing scrutiny as many vendors appear to be paying upfront and receiving nothing in return, and the figures appear to be very large. If you look very closely at this independent analysis commissioned by Purple Bricks by the data experts twentyci which cover the financial year 2017 to 2018, available online on the Purple Bricks website under investors on the title page, there seems to be some contradictory claims. In the twentyci report, and I quote 'Purple Bricks were looking for a reliable, respected and independent data source to establish answers to a set of questions about their performance in the financial year 17/18′ And Purple Bricks are … ‘No1 at selling houses: 81% of listings sold within 12 months’ Then there is a helpful graph in the same report which shows an annual picture of Purple Bricks results, it shows 64,000 new instructions, 48,000 properties sold subject to contract and it shows 38,000 properties exchanged. Now the ratio of exchanges to new instructions 64,000 to exchanges 38,000 is 59%, so Purple Bricks are not selling 81% of the instructions. But the worrying thing is, if the company gets 59% of vendors exchanged, it fails to get 41% sold or exchanged but still charges them on average £1,100 as an upfront non refundable fee, which is 41% of 64,000 vendors at £1,100 or 28.86M of fee for nothing. Readers of this are going to say the figures are wrong and skewed etc, but twentyci also did a similar report on Emoov and Tepilo, post the recent failure of these two online companies. And the WHICH organization recently had sight of this twentyci report and said that the conversion rate of the online pay upfront company was 53% of instructions to sold subject to contract, if you then discount the 53% by 30% the usual industry fall off for cancelled sales you get to an exchange rate of around 37%. This is available on the WHICH site online. In this piece by WHICH, it is stated that the ‘Major online estate agent Emoov, which also owns Tepilo, has gone into administration, potentially leaving thousands of home-sellers out of pocket by as much as £2,995. James Cowper Kreston, the firm appointed to act as administrators for Emoov, says the company currently has 5,000 properties listed for sale or sold subject to contract. Of this total, around 80% have paid upfront for the service and are at risk of losing money from the collapse.’ Also, WHICH states, ‘Exclusive data provided to us by TwentyCi shows that over the past 365 days, Emoov had approximately 8,000 new instructions. The firm accounted for approximately 0.5% of the estate agency market in 2018. Around 53% of new instructions received by Emoov typically went on to be ‘sold subject to contract’ and the average price of a property listing was £375,000. Tepilo’s figures are rolled into this data as its activity is merged with Emoov. Now for a very long time I have been saying that online pay upfront agents should be telling potential clients the true conversion rate of their service, and I wrote a recent article using data from Rightmove on – Tuesday November 13 – (prior to the collapse of Emoov and Tepilo). As it roughly gives a market snapshot of the then six major online brands (two under the ownership of Emoov). These were the figures from Rightmove. Doorsteps – 2,054 properties listed, 1,321 for sale, 733 under offer not exchanged, 28% conversion of listed to sold subject to contract. Yopa – 5,501 properties listed, 3,539 for sale, 1,962 under offer not exchanged, 35% conversion rate. Purplebricks – 37,531 properties listed, 21,142 for sale, 16,389 under offer, 43% conversion rate. Emoov – 2,504 properties listed, 1,696 for sale, 808 under offer, 32% conversion rate. Tepilo (owned by Emoov) – 1,740 properties listed, 1,162 for sale, 587 under offer, 33% conversion rate. HouseSimple – 1,140 properties listed, 763 for sale, 341 under offer, 30% conversion rate. You will notice that Emoov and Tepilo, had a conversion rate around 32%, which if you take the 53% figure being instructions converted to sold subject to contract as in the twentyci report, and then say the normal fall through rate for the property industry of 30% between sold subject to contract and exchanged was slightly higher for these two brands, say a 35% fall through rate you get to the 32% exchange rate, reflected in the Rightmove figures which would mean 68% of Emoov/Tepilo vendors mostly paid upfront for nothing.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 December 2018 18:46 PM

For a kick off the share price of of PB has fallen from 320p in Jan 2018 to 154p in recent days, so that speaks volumes about the value of the company. And Neil Woodford's fortunes with his other top companies he has invested in such as a major housebuilder Keir have seen the share price drop by over 25% in the last week. Also Axel Springer paid 125M for 37,722,221 PB shares at a cost of 125M, so £3.07p a share – now 8 months later they are getting £1.50p a share – they are going to be very upset, as that is only 63M. Also, at start of year when share price was £3.22p a share Michael Bruce’s shares were worth 33.218,147 x £3.22p = £106M – now same shares worth £49M so he is not poor on paper but the second he or Neil Woodford tries to sell the price will get hit further. Neil Woodford whose investors holds 88,446,245 shares had in Jan £265M – now worth £132M. If Woodford sells more than 0.75% of a share this triggers an automatic red flag at the Alternative Investment market AIM, so he is unlikely to do this. In terms of inward funding, there was an initial investment of £7M, then through share raising they raised 25M and then another 75M when they decided upon the idea of going into other markets in the world. On top of this they have had positive cash flow (pay upfront model) in 2016, 2017 and 2018 of 18.6M, 46.7M and 93.7M last accounting year (ending in April 2018). Plus the 125M earlier this year from Axel Springer for 12.5% of the company, which after tax and other costs nets down to 100m THE 100m THEY ARE NOW TALKING ABOUT. So scores on the doors, 7M, 25M, 75M, 125M = 132M money invested in, plus 18.6M, 46.7M, 93.7M, positive cash upfront = 159M Grand total of money = 291M – and still they made 26M loss last financial year (off of 93.7M cash flow in) And they had a few months ago about 150M cash in the company, which sounds a lot, but a year ago they had 70M cash in the company, and if Axel Springer had not injected 125M, they might be sitting on 25M. 70M to 25M shows they are burning through capital very quickly, yes they have bought other online brands in other parts of the world – but they are generating zero profit, so on a spread sheet they are liabilities rather than assets. If the pay upfront/online model becomes a NO GO as trading standards think Emoov and Tepilo clients were stung, in the sense that according to WHICH they only converted 35% of instructions to completed sales, but had a fee upfront on most instructions anyway, then PB might have to go no sale no fee which would make their cash flow go from 100% positive to 50% in 18 weeks, ie half stock sells and it takes 18 weeks to get the completion money in - if you are lucky. Now it may not be smoke and mirrors but saying you have 100M to spend so that makes you untouchable is a dangerous gambit, especially if you have never made profit and your model is based upon cash upfront and in 2019 there will be less instructions for all so declining market, and less upfront fees. Remember also that other financial burden of the online model, you have to pay millions and millions on tv and other media because the second you stop your marketing spend your brand is forgotten and you do not have a single office in the high street. I think that costs and lowering revenues, and the reversals that PB are getting world wide may make them more vulnerable, and if that share price continues to drop - it was once in excess of 500p a share to the original 93p level then things are going to get interesting.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 December 2018 09:39 AM

Hi 43% of the online estate agents sector has ceased trading since September 2018. As the latest headcount on online agents listing more than 1,000 properties in 2018 is now just four companies, instead of seven. So the magnificent 7 is now in just 15 weeks reduced to the fantastic four, Doorsteps, Yopa, Housesimple, Purple Bricks. If 163 agencies have failed, that is a tiny percentage of the 17,000 estate agents now trading in the country. Also, there have been hundreds of new start ups, mostly from home, many so sole traders. The real contraction has been in the online sector, as 43% of the online estate agents sector has ceased trading since September 2018. As the latest headcount of heaveyweight online agents listing more than 1,000 properties in 2018, is now just four companies, instead of seven. So the magnificent 7 is now in just 15 weeks reduced to the fantastic four, Doorsteps, Yopa, Housesimple, Purple Bricks. Hatched, Emoov and Tepilo are no more- and although there are new online creations popping up, their lack of critical mass - or new properties to sell means they have hundreds rather than thousands of clients on their books. So without fresh capital injections they are going to be financially strapped very soon.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 11 December 2018 10:34 AM

With Pre-Tax (£ m) profit last year of minus 212.75M and a share price bobbling around 8.6p, I think a lot of deckchairs are going to be moving around the deck of HMS Titanic very soon, sad as I have fond memories of working at Countrywide in the mid 1980's. They should have stuck to high fees, high service, market dominance, and high paid staff which encouraged 'big sales hitters' to want to work for the brand, instead they have retained loss making offices for years, and played at being PB and offer loss making fee deals. They can change the top management but they should go and see the junior management in the branches - they are key, they are on the front line.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 December 2018 09:36 AM

Estate agency is a cottage industry, and will continue to be, good estate agents are divesting themselves from offices, and making good profit, and also there are many established bricks and mortar agents in towns villages and cities that have a great team who make massive profits year on year. The biggest revolution though is the agent working from home - and Rob Bryer's approach is brilliant - it is just what a confident sales person needs, freedom to list and sell with support on a daily basis. But, the estate agent working from home is really no surprise as many industries, surveyors etc have been doing this for a long time. Giving a choice if I started again would I have an office and sit in it on a Saturday or a Sunday, no I would rather be networking whilst having a coffee at the local, in between appointments a much better life balance which is why staff retention is such a problem in the industry at present. And working from home should mean bespoke service should mean the highest level of service and highest level of fees as Simon says. And the term Hybrid? all agents are hybrid, changing daily, all are online, all have to conform to new red tape, all have to adapt to the new property tech and communication channels that the public chose to use. Rant over where is my coffee? And then meeting with Zara (my dog) and some blue sky thinking whilst we trail over the countryside. Yes agency is changing - but it is still a service industry, customer is king and you can not get around those trading overheads, so which ever model you are working, build in at least 28% gross profit or probably you are doing a lot of hours for a small return.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 December 2018 09:05 AM

If there is enough pressure from the 2,000 plus vendors who have jointly lost over £200,000 of upfront fee, plus any upfront Tepilo lost fee, and Purple Bricks had to move to a no sale no fee model that would be game over. As PB get 100% of fee on every instruction at present and their average fee is now around £1,300. If they moved to no sale no fee they would only get paid on 50%, as they list 10, sell 7, cancel 30% and exchange on around 50%. And they would have the 16 week wait from point of sale to money in on completion that most agents suffer. The only reason PB keeps rolling on is that it has zero liabilities, LPE's who are 'sel employed' and lots of cash rolling in, the fact they never make profit seems to be a non factor, but in time investors will want a dividend on their shares. Given that market analysts including Motley fool who comment on the Purple Bricks 58% share price drop this year since Jan, things are not rosy at all. As Roland Heald from The Motley Fool put it today in his article ' The Purplebricks Group (LSE: PURP) share price has fallen by 58% so far this year. Should we ignore mounting losses? My colleague Graham Chester reviewed Purplebricks’ half-year trading update recently. I agree with his view that we don’t yet have enough information to know whether the firm will hit its growth targets this year. What I do know is that the near-term outlook for the firm seems to be worsening. One year ago, analysts expected the firm to report earnings of 2.3p per share on sales of £169m in 2018/19. Today, forecasts indicate a loss of 10.8p per share on sales of £173m. It’s a similar story in 2019/20. Forecasts for earnings of 10.4p per share have been replaced with an expected loss of 4.6p per share. One reason for these downgrades is that the group’s international expansion has been ramped up. In the short term, this means that profits from the UK business are being swallowed up by operations overseas. Is PURP a genuine disrupter? If the group’s global expansion is successful, this business could become a genuine disrupter, like Amazon. Personally, I don’t think this is likely. Purplebricks’ business model seems more like evolution than revolution to me. Its sales and property listings still depend on a small army of estate agents (630 in the UK). The only difference I can see is that they don’t have offices. Although the firm’s fixed-fee model is different to a traditional commission rate, I believe mainstream agents will be able to adapt their pricing to become more competitive if they need to. Purplebricks may well cause estate agents’ profit margins to fall. But I don’t think it’s a truly disruptive business. For this reason, I view the shares as expensive and risky.'

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 December 2018 08:42 AM

Countrywide’s share price is not the only concern, last year it made losses of over 220M, having made a marginal profit the year before of over 15M. It has raised 120M a few months ago by offering shares at an all time low, but this recapitalisation exercise will only sustain them for 8 months. I started with Countrywide in 1985, and so have fond memories, but the basic principle of the company then was: – high fees, high level of service and dominant market share, which attracted top flight well paid staff. We are now in 2019, well almost and Countrywide should have pruned back all offices that have never made profit, and of course not tried to re-invent itself as a low upfront model. They failed to do this over the last 3 years. The basic cost of selling a property and getting it exchanged is about £2,300, if you factor in marketing costs and sales progression. If you charge less than this your business will make a loss, obviously there are bolt on’s, financial services, solicitors introductions. But you can only charge a higher fee if your offices perform, and the public wants to use your brand, the recent woes of John Lewis illustrate that just because you have always done well historically, in 12 months that can all be wiped out. I wonder two things, has the present CFO ever been an estate agent? Has Himanshu Raja spent anytime in any of the 'back to basic branches' to see how despondent and beaten the sales teams are? I ask this question as not so long ago, most people on the Countrywide board including Aliso Platt had never done agency, and actually looked down on those who had.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 05 December 2018 06:17 AM

Simon I agree, Back in the day it always was the case that about 12% of potential vendors were fee sensitive, as to which estate agent they would choose. So probably 1 out of 10 vendors will go the cheap route, especially as PB for instance have average sale price of around 300k and in large towns and cities their model may work. Though in the last 15 weeks, 47% of the big or Magnificent Seven online agents have closed, (listing more than 1,000 properties apiece) Hatched, Tepilo and Emoov. Leaving only the Fabulous four Doorsteps, a newbie, Housesimple, YOPA and Purplebricks. Trouble is without the TV and other media spend which is massive cost, the onliners do not really exist.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 04 December 2018 09:39 AM

For clarity, in Tepilo's 2016 annual accounts they had a loss of 3.2M in their profit and loss column, and in 2017 they had a loss of 7.5M in their profit and loss column. In Emoov's 2016 annual accounts they had a 6.9M loss in their profit and loss column, and in 2017 they had a loss of 10M in their profit and loss column. So, why would a collective loss of 27.7M in 24 months mean that in 2018 a three way merger with Tepilo, Emoov and Urban make that collective business worth 100M. Especially as Urban was bought for 3M and only generates 40K a month? Probably time to get on Crowdcube - they love investing in 'new generation estate agency disruptor models'.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 November 2018 06:43 AM

I am a little lost why the Tepilo Emoov Urban merger would have cost 100M? The best I can come up with is that think a newspaper speculated some months ago that a tie up of Tepilo and Emoov would create an agency 'valued at 100K', (but not sure who would put that value on it.) I do know at the time of the tie up of the the two Tepilo and Emoov from the accounts last filed for Tepilo, no profit had been made. Emoov appear not to have made any real profit if you take out crowdfunding and other funding, and Urban well no profit there either. So a tie up of three concerns who do not make profit, but by getting larger they will now start to have critical mass and turn things around? Well Purplebricks certainly have a lot of critical mass, and have a huge amount of throughput of capital, mainly as all clients have to pay and many upfront and those who do not pay in 10 months or less. But still after year four, it has a collective loss of 47M. Maybe 2019 will be their year, but, their losses this year are far larger than last year, and their turnover has grown by the biggest margin so far. So cash into the company hugely increased, with also an injection of 125M for a 12.5% stake of the company, but the largest losses so far? Maybe it is me, but should the figures not be going the other way? I will be told that Purplebricks are acquiring other businesses, and when the model matures, all will be ok, but the present share price, at around 178p, well down from the heady 500p plus a share, tells me that the city is not so convinced. Thoughts? So, a bit like Doorsteps which valued itself at nearly 10M when it started trading, and is now offering it's services for a £1, having never made a profit. Yes it has raised over 1.2M in private fundraising, thanks to crowdcube, but you soon burn through that if the true cost of sale is around 2.5K, and you are charging a fraction of that. For me there seem to be two models, online agents who charge low fees, (but the cost of sale is identical to the traditional agents with offices) who keep on getting capital injections to subsidise the sums they do not charge the client. And traditional agents who charge on average in the UK around 1% or 3.5K, so a nominal 1K of profit per sale which allows businesses to cover their costs and grow.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 19 November 2018 17:55 PM

Hi John You are right … No online agent has made any money - they generate cash, but not profit, in last 4 years Purplebricks has announced collective loses of 47M. Despite selling 12.%% of itself for 125M this year. Their balance sheet though is awash with money. Unlike the final accounts of Tepilo which were a horror show, and that company has been trading many years so is a mature business. Now merged with E-moov it will be interesting to see what happens next. Then there is Yopa, which has a strong cashflow, but if you deducted the tens of millions that has been poured into it, like Housesimple, you would say that the future is not one dominated by online only agents. I think online agents will populate about 10% of the housing market, that is because about 10% of vendors are looking for a cheap fee, so there will always be a market for this type of agency. Regarding investors looking at figures, I do not think they ever do, for example Doorsteps, valued itself at nearly 10M before it ever traded a penny, and when it looked to sell less than a 5% share of itself on Crowdcube, it raised just under 400K in a few weeks, and then a year later it raised another 800K plus in a second round of crowdfunding. So over 1M of investment capital. But if you look at the annual accounts on companies house how much profit have they made and how much of the money they have been handed is still left? This means that the shareholders will not get a dividend so no return on their capital. Identical to Purplebricks - no dividend over the past 4 years. Hope that helps - Andrew

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2018 16:11 PM

Hi Property Road Everything is a bit shoddy, but I do not feel that this data is misleading, as 95%of estate agents list on RM, any skew will be very small, as most agents leave their 'sold' stock on the site for as long as possible. On the conversion rate of sold to for sale, I suggest if you have access to figures for a traditional agent you look at: - number of properties listed in last 12 months from today, number of agreed sales in that period, number of properties actually exchanged in that period. The ratio will be 100 listed, 72 had agreed sales, 30% fell through giving just under 50 sales exchanging. So list 10, and sell 7 subject to contract, and exchange on roughly 5. So conversion rate 48%. Have a look and tell me what you find (not the actual figures) - but the conversion rate, then look at your own listings on rightmove do they mirror your own conversion rate of listed to exchanged in last 12-months? I think they will. And I think that is why the online conversions are a true reflection of what they actually sell, which given they get fees upfront regardless might not be fair to vendors who could be using a no sale no fee model. Thoughts? So I fully embrace that traditional agents only sell about 50% of their stock, but they only charge the owners who get to complete. Thank you for taking the time to make a comment and read the piece. Andrew EAIS

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2018 15:42 PM

Hi Ben Data is data, and I do not feel that this data is misleading. Yes some agents do delist properties on exchange or on completion and many wait for Rightmove to take them off the site. But with such a huge amount of data - 95% of estate agents list on RM, any skew will be very small, as most agents leave their 'sold' stock on the site for as long as possible. On the conversion rate of sold to for sale, I suggest if you have access to figures for a traditional agent you look at: - number of properties listed in last 12 months from today, number of agreed sales in that period, number of properties actually exchanged in that period. The ratio will be 100 listed, 72 had agreed sales, 30% fell through giving just under 50 sales exchanging. So list 10, sell stc 7, exchange on roughly 5. So conversion rate 48%. Have a look and tell me what you find (not the actual figures - but the conversion rate, then look at your own listings on rightmove do they mirror your own conversion rate of listed to exchanged in last 12-months? I think they will. And I think that is why the online conversions are a true reflection of what they actually sell, which given they get fees upfront regardless might not be fair to vendors who could be using a no sale no fee model. Thoughts? Thank you for taking the time to make a comment and read the piece. Andrew Stanton I have Now I think that

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2018 15:36 PM

Hi Tom The 100,000 is the amount of properties listed by online agents in a year, not sold. So as Rightmove is snapshot of typically 6 months, if you add up the big six (those who list more than 1,000 a year) and double it to give a 12 month total, then add all the minor players who are online agents - that gets you to 100,000 instructions collectively. Hope that helps and thank you for reading the piece. Kind Regards Andrew

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2018 15:21 PM

I admire Sajid for the iniative, like many politicians he will put together views and proposals and nothing will change. Moreover, politicians always look for new models, basing them on some other country - usually America or Norway, which is not useful. Quickest sale to completion, I dealt with was in 2002, only taking three-days. Cash buyer, buying freehold detached residence. This taught me if two motivated solicitors and two sets of clients are willing, then speed of transaction is not an issue. I know there was a hand search, rather than the normal local search, but in 2017, even that could be speeded up. Perhaps a 10% deposit on acceptance of offer, non refundable from the buyer - with vendor paying 10% to buyers solicitor, also non refundable should they not sell, would definitely focus both parties, with a twist that the agent having introduced a ready, able and willing buyer gets their full fee out of the deposit, as does the solicitor. depending . Thoughts.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 22 October 2017 13:45 PM

I think that all online agents use Rightmove, that seems to be a main driver for vendors to use their services. Certainly all of those listed in my article are on Rightmove. And I can see no logic for a client to have their property hidden from the mighty eye of Rightmove - as with no premises and really no sales people promoting the property - it is only Rightmove and Zoopla interaction that generates sales. For sure if there was a marketing model where property was listed and did not appear on the web - that would be a return to the 1990's - maybe I can get some crowd funding for that business model.

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 19 October 2017 22:58 PM

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Breaking News Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Video Archieve Today 14:58

Portal Discussions

Joined Group From: Your Community Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Industry View Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Viewed From: Industry View Today 14:58

Lorem Ipsum dolor sit amet

Make Today's Website as home page

Andrew Stanton's Personal Profile View my company profile

About Me

my expertise in the industry

Andrew Stanton's wall

Andrew Stanton's Recent Activity

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 17:18 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 17:02 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 10:25 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 November 2019 09:15 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:31 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:11 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 10:09 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 November 2019 09:38 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 November 2019 06:43 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 November 2019 06:27 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 07 November 2019 12:13 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 07 November 2019 12:11 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 November 2019 11:29 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 05 November 2019 12:39 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 05 November 2019 06:36 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 30 October 2019 19:11 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 30 October 2019 08:05 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 30 October 2019 07:48 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 October 2019 16:54 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 October 2019 16:37 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 22 October 2019 09:37 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 22 October 2019 09:27 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 22 October 2019 09:20 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 22 October 2019 08:40 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 18 October 2019 10:55 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 17 October 2019 16:35 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 17 October 2019 15:37 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 17 October 2019 13:34 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 16 October 2019 14:34 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 16 October 2019 12:02 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 16 October 2019 11:50 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 10 October 2019 06:39 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 09 October 2019 07:42 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 August 2019 06:54 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 August 2019 09:54 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 08 August 2019 16:39 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 08 August 2019 16:30 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 19 July 2019 07:41 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 18 July 2019 14:06 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 18 July 2019 07:29 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 17 July 2019 09:14 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 16 July 2019 06:33 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 July 2019 23:16 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 July 2019 22:52 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 13 July 2019 22:47 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 July 2019 08:10 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 09 July 2019 22:36 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 04 July 2019 08:47 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 04 July 2019 08:44 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 03 July 2019 21:53 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 02 July 2019 15:38 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 02 July 2019 11:33 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 30 June 2019 07:56 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 30 June 2019 07:50 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 June 2019 11:50 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 June 2019 11:48 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 29 June 2019 11:43 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 25 June 2019 14:11 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 25 June 2019 11:25 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 24 June 2019 23:15 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 20 June 2019 13:25 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 20 June 2019 12:43 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 20 June 2019 07:17 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 20 June 2019 06:49 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 19 June 2019 16:03 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 19 June 2019 16:01 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 18 June 2019 07:50 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 14 June 2019 07:41 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 12 June 2019 11:25 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 10 June 2019 20:36 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 10 June 2019 20:26 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 10 June 2019 20:17 PM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 06 June 2019 07:23 AM

From: Andrew Stanton Estate Agency Insights Strategies 15 May 2019 10:03 AM