Member Info for 305020

madmax - there are less shorts open today on PURP than there were in November. (this is publically available information) thus share price fall is NOT driven by shorters, but by sellers of long positions with few buyers around. IG index which is the largest Spread Betting company has not permitted shorting of PURP on its website since mind November because there is no stock available to borrow in the market. i.e. those holding long positions are not lending out their stock. I also note that back in June you posted that you saw no barriers to entry into this market. That is an issue for a company that expects to grow its UK turnover 100% each year for the next 3 years. Facts remains MV of 1.4bn and profits = nil and now questions on its accounting policy.

one would assume over time that the pricing model will change to offer an upfree fee and a success payment. like you say at the moment you charge zero up front and take all the risk. it is easy to offer the customer the choice and let them decide. Jeffries did analysis on this. point is .. this will reduce differential between 'on-line' and physical estate agents... thus more competition. i also assume that jeffries will produce the same analysis next month to show a trend, and i would assume that they have already done this and it shows materially the same result - otherwise they exposed to lots of egg on face... anyway it is pretty clear that 1 - the issues discussed are not going away 2 - it is not good news for PURP

apologies - typo in last post - opening line should read.... you have �1million pound house.....

you has a 31million pound house (�1,000 is 0.1% of �1 million) you are confident to sell your own property.so yes using an up front fee (you can afford to pay even if it doesn't sell makes sense) BUT you are not an average Uk resident, or an average PURP customer - their average house sold is worth c.30% below the UK average (i.e. they do better outside of London) so in your example you are sophisicated, well off and a good result the problem is a lot of people pay �1,000 and their house doesn't sell. Jeffries calculated that figure to be 50% PURP says it is 20% The PURP rebuttal of the Jeffries analysis is not specific and thus not convincing. The second issue is about accounting. For the proportion that dont sell (whether it be 22% or 50%) PURP 'promises' to continue to do work to sell the property. This contradicts what their accounting policy states. That potentially means that their financial statements are incorrect. It would not affect CASH though. Still PURP is rated based on high growth and a disrupter of excellence thus these issues - if there is any merit in them i feel are very relevant. PURP forecasts are that they will grow sales i the UK to 4 times the current level per their accounting policy their product is just a listing service.... (per Jeffries) you have a 50% chance that the �1,000 paid will lead in a sale (per PURP) is it 78% chance .... it is reasonably logical to assume the true figure is in the middle so 65%, i.e. one third of people pay �1,000 and yet their house does not sell. Taking PURP own ambitions of huge growth, that is an exponentially increasing number of people that have paid �1,000 and not sold their house... so that to me means that the pricing model will change over time, to have some element of up front fee, and some element of successs fee so for those that choose the success fee payment route - they will pay not �1,000 but maybe �1,500 or �2,000. this is onyl paid if the house is sold of course but it does reduce the gap between PURP and the high street, and of course the high street has already started moving this direction. end result.... PURP is just an estate agent - competing like all the others..... it has done well, but the share price valuing the business at 15 times sales is too high IMHO All IMHO, DYOR, BoL PURP is in my top5 (short)

below is Revenue recognition policy..... "Revenues are recognised on the basis of the performance of contractual obligations and to the extent that the right to consideration has been earned and the flow of economic resources is probable. Fees earned on instruction of residential property are accounted for at the point of publication of advert to property portals, the point at which the Company�s obligations are complete. Where property particulars have not yet been published to property portals, the fees are recognised as deferred income and presented within liabilities. Conveyancing fees are accounted for on completion of the service being provided, being legal completion of the transaction. This may lead to the recognition of accrued income. Fees earned under lettings contracts are recognised on a straight-line basis over the term of the agreement and/or at the point of delivery of the service as appropriate. Accompanied viewings revenue is recognised when its receipt is assured over the period in which the Company fulfils its obligations." So they book instruction fee when the add listed! By their own definition they have no contractual obligation to help sell the property! i think their policy will be debated with new IFRS nest year on Revenue Recognition, and it certainly is not good, or consistent PR!! this could get fun... All IMHO, DYOR + BoL PURP is in my top5 (short)

is anyone else having problems downloading the annual report. i am trying to read the accounting policy on revenue recognition. if PURP help the seller until the flat/ house is sold, then the fee should be recognised over that maximum time period. They only have 2m of deferred income which is c.2,000 instructions relating to unsold properties... that seems low to me which i guess is one of Jeffries points but i don't want to guess and thus would like to read the actual policy in the annual report. lokking at the latest figure though also reminds me that they capitalised IT spend - 2m a year. that is unusal these days and obviously flatters headline EBITDA/profit All IMHO, DYOR + BoL PURP is in my portfolio (short)