© Copyright. 2017 All Rights Reserved. theestateagencyindustry.co.uk
...see this Weekend's Sunday Newspapers Financial/Property Sections for more Agents Mutual/OnTheMarket IPO/Flotation News - news/comment/views from both sides
The Vote NO Campaign continues for widely detailed reasons, read the debates, form your own views, if you are a Member please cast your Vote - whether Yes Or NO every Vote cast is a voice heard.
This personal Campaign is for Vote NO, I've said I make No Apologies for that because the Vote NO members deserve to have their voice heard. Of the many Members/people who have contacted me directly their view is Vote NO, which I accept is not surprising. Those Members do NOT want OnTheMarket to fail... they want it to succeed however their Vote NO is in essence a Vote for CHANGE.
To me (and other Members) the single "Float or Fail" Option offered by Ian Springett & The Board smacks of desperation in terms of the sudden presentation & efforts to push through a Yes Vote. In simple terms it appears to bear the stamp of an Exit Strategy with the CEO/Board & Undisclosed Members being rewarded with multi-million share options estimated collectively at circa £40 - £50 Million Pounds - not a reward for defined success which can be measured ...simply for delivering a successful IPO which includes New Equity at the expense of new institutional/investor board members (and their influence) & trading the foundation of AM/OTM from "Mutual" to Shareholder status
Members trusted Agents Mutual with their OnTheMarket V1 strategy. V1 failed to deliver and the CEO/Board MUST take the greatest share of responsibility for that.
Now Members are being asked to trust the CEO/Board again with OTM V2 ...personally, I can't help but feel we are being "sold down the river".
DID YOU KNOW? Apparently a successful YES Vote does mean a NEW Board is appointed... which is one of comments I hear most... "Change the Board"
However, that New Board is an insistence of the New Investment/Investors who as they Open the Door to the NEW OTM immediately enforce change... however, as far as I am aware The Members who supported any successful vote have no input on the profile/people on that board. Of course that £50 Million New Equity comes with an imposing voice, much louder than the former Members.
So, as a Mutual The Members had no say? ...and after any IPO, The Members start with no say?
Seems to me that it's a One Way Street and Members better enjoy the 5 Year Ride if they voted Yes - they seem merely passengers on the New Portal Bus!
When reading about IPO's I saw this paragraph mentioning "exit strategy" ....worth reading the whole article.
An IPO also may be used by founding individuals as an exit strategy. Many venture capitalists have used IPOs to cash in on successful companies that they helped start-up.
Read more: What are the advantages and disadvantages for a company going public? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/ipoadvantagedisadvantage.asp#ixzz4qWlDxTms
This website/newsletter expresses purely personal views/opinions from the website owner & contributors. It does NOT represent Agents Mutual or OnTheMarket. Their opinions/views/legal information should be sought from them directly.
scroll down the page for NEWSFLASH, latest info...
So, OTM V1 is extinct... " Dead as a Dodo "
Looney Tunes used to sign off with " That's all folks " that seems rather appropriate ...for now
What seems clear is that Vote NO Members are being forced to remain with whatever OTM V2 will be ...it's a shameful way to treat original Mutual Members
Who knows what the future holds...
7 SEPTEMBER 2017 - AGENTS MUTUAL secures majority Vote for IPO Proposal, subject to Court Sanction Hearing on Monday 11th September 2017.
For those Members wishing to submit any personal Objections to the proposed IPO, these should be submitted for the attention of the presiding judge to consider at the Court Sanction Hearing.
Emails should be sent for the attention of the presiding Judge
NEWSLETTER Update 30/08/17
NEWSLETTER No 1
NEWSLETTER Update 06/09/17
In my opinion OnTheMarket can serve our industry much more effectively and promote the USP that "real" estate agents offer over "virtual only" agents. However, Mutual Members need their voice to be heard for the future of OTM. In my opinion there needs to be a pause to allow for those voices to be heard, not a rush to an IPO.
What about The Duopoly?
OnTheMarket has demonstrated how it challenged Zoopla. It needs to loosen the shackles of Rightmove which has evolved to dominate how our industry is promoted and it seems set on seeking to manage our industry and further bloat its profits.
The estate agency industry exists to best serve its clients. In contrast it seems to me that estate agents serve Rightmove. Each year it appears Rightmove pop a friendly letter to estate agents to advise of their automatic annual price increase... it must be wonderful to be part of a business which can apparently increase its prices automatically every year... and unsurprisingly Rightmove annual profits escalate every single year.
" I just wanted the Vote NO option to have its Voice amidst the OTM/AM Members Flotation Roadshows... " Graeme
This NEWSLETTER evolved from my frustration at what I see as the failure of OnTheMarket/Agents Mutual to deliver for its members and in-turn the “real” estate agency industry.
The opinions voiced in this Newsletter & Website are from a variety of contributors & sources, clearly my personal views/opinions are expressed.
My thanks to all those who have emailed or contacted me
One Member - One Vote. Currently the Mutual Member status of the existing Agents Mutuals.
AM state circa 2700 Members
75% threshold of Member Vote required to carry the IPO/Flotation
If all Members Voted - then circa 2025 Members need to Vote Yes to carry the IPO Option. Circa 675 Members Voting NO would be defeated.
Let's assume only 75% of the actual Membership Vote - 2025. The 75% Yes Target then becomes circa 1519. Circa 25% - 506 Vote NO Members would be defeated.
In either above example... if 1000 Members actually VOTE NO, then those Vote NO Member numbers would defeat the Yes Vote.
From what I have read & heard so far that seems entirely achievable.
Let's do what we do for a living, Communicate.
However on this occasion... let's Communicate with each other!
Some emails received...
"Graeme, I have just got back from the OTM roadshow - a defeatist attitude of accept the float or fail. I am voting NO!
"I share your view - deeply disappointed early gold member"
"Your Newsletter struck a very powerful chord with me"
" I share your concerns at this high pressure, secretly prepared and rushed-through-the-holiday-period change of direction."
"My company, an original Gold Member Company, will be voting NO. The proposal from the Board is totally against all my principles for joining in the first place."
"With OTM, we are supposed to be undoing the mistakes made in creating the current versions of RM and Z, yet now we seem to be merely adding another of them."
EMAIL MESSAGE received from AM/OTM Member
I am an early Gold member. Small individual agency.
I have asked a number of questions and have been promised answers which I have not received. I was at the first meeting and when the questions got more interesting we got cut off.
I am very unhappy about the float. It is short sighted.
20% float. Board gets newly 20%. Agents could sell 10% and then another 10%. When the 5 years are over we could already be in a position that over 50% is publicly owned e.g. only profit counts. The agents will have no more say - what ever promises we get now.
I asked what will happen if I vote no. No comprehensive answer has been given. I get the shares but then can't sign up for the new listing agreement anymore. This is blackmail. These should be independent processes. Should 90% vote yes the other 10% should be able to sign too so max value can be achieved.
I questioned the validity of the share options to the board. This was not explained to us at the outset when we signed up and Ian admitted that this was an agreement from the start with the founder agents. It becomes clear that this must have been his intention from the start. Why else would he have asked for this option from the outset? Is it legally correct to have hidden this information from us when we signed up? What would the FSA say?
Alternatives have not been explained and explored sufficiently.
The presentation was an insult to all the owners and directors present, treating us as if we have no idea what is going on and that we can be hood-winged into believing and signing it there and then.
I will vote no, because we deserve more options and exploration into alternatives. I still believe in the project.
If i can be of help please let me know.
...more OTM/AM specific debate at propertyindustryeye.com
the estateagency industry.co.uk
Our Industry... it's future