Member Info for cyberduck

Some interesting new Brexit poll results. Quite a lot of regional variation.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/brexit/survey-results

e.g.if no deal by 12th April should we:

1. leave the European Union without a deal. London 26% Midlands/Wales 46%
2. seek a further extension. London 15% Midlands/Wales 8%
3. withdraw our application to leave. London 48% Midlands/Wales 31%
4. don't know. London 11% Midlands/Wales 15%

Nationwide the results were 1. 40% 2. 11% 3. 36% 4. 13%

A country split pretty much down the middle but 51% against withdrawing our application to leave and a lot happy to leave without a deal. Are things ever going to be the same again? Lots of unhappy people who are going to feel betrayed.

Steph,

>serving article 50 before a white paper and a won parliamentary vote on the basic strategy was daft. May is reaping the whirlwind of that. She deserves all what is being dumped on her.

Parliament voted to serve the notice. People need somebody to blame and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I didn't hear too much criticism at the time. Jeremy Corbyn "I am asking all our MPs not to block Article 50 and make sure it goes through next week". Passed 498 to 114. 47 of 229 Labour MPs voted against the bill.

I think serving the section 50 was a good thing. At least it is putting pressure on everybody now and everybody looking as though they are becoming a bit more responsible in their behaviour but I'm not counting my chickens.

Imagine though if that pressure wasn't there. They'd be debating minutiae in parliament when "The EU is prevented by law from negotiating future trade relations with an existing member state. That is why the UK needs to leave first in order to start these negotiations."

Of course the difference with PB and the companies referred to in the article (Uber one of them) is that PB make a profit in the UK according to their audited accounts.

The author makes a point that the only way for the likes of Uber to make any money is if they increase fees which will put customers off the service.

There's an alternative view on the subject of price increases by an industry commentator. This is that PurpleBricks could increase prices and it would be easier for them to do than their traditional agent competitors and that most of any increase would flow straight to the bottom line...

https://www.propertychronicle.com/broken-estate-agency-market/

"We are already seeing several of the online businesses look to raise fees. A back of a fag packet calculation shows that an additional £200 per transaction would, on the current annual level of 1.2 million transactions, generate around £240 million in extra revenue or c£12000 per office. This would help any business but would transform a business like Purplebricks who get paid on listings and so would see the equivalent of £400 on every unit sold. Assuming they have around 5% of the market, a £200 increase on their pricing would generate an additional £24 million of revenue, largely all profit and starting to reward the faith their investors have shown to date."

Sure, just one ex-traditional agents opinion but well qualified by the looks of it. "Michael Day is a well-known figure with over 40 years in the property industry (he says he started when he was three!). He is a Fellow of RICS and was the inaugural Chairman of the Residential Faculty. He is also a Fellow of the NAEA and ARLA and holds an MBA from Reading University. Having held Partner and Director positions at A C Frost, Prudential and Connells"

Yet to see such a well qualified basher of PurpleBricks among the social media PB bashers. Most of them actually hiding behind anonymity.

It's all very easy in hindsight. The way I look at it is if things had been done any other way there would have been just as much mucking about if not more. Serving the section 50 actually created a deadline.

I'm not much into politics so could be wrong but don't the opposition have a role to play? Hasn't it taken until about a week ago for Corbyn to say what the Labour party want?

Not defending anybody, disgusted with the whole lot of them really.

It's still not over though, there could still be some more mucking around but it does look now like TM may go to the EU with a different type of Brexit.

Steph,

I agree with what industry is saying - nobody would run a business like this. MPs are just not cut out for making these deals. I'm not sure they even understand the process.

Apparently whichever deal they want, they need to agree the part that was voted on at the last meaningful vote so why did it get blocked? See https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47772603 "Any other form of Brexit requires the much-disliked Withdrawal Agreement - rejected once again by MPs on Friday - to be passed first"

Anybody who voted against that doesn't deserve to be voting as far as I can see.

The way they talk about the importance of it all. Future generations and all that. With such a close vote you cannot plan long term so just have a deal for 2 years.with another referendum 5 years from the date of the last one. Some of the excuses are ridiculous, as though they are of huge importance. Only if it's forever is it hugely important. Politicians need to take a step back and take a look at what they are doing.

I just can't understand how all this uncertainty has been allowed. People arguing over something that's probably not going to last very long. People thinking the EU are going to screw us but what is their motive for that? Why would a country vote for a bad deal for a leaving country when that country might be leaving some time sooner or later? The EU want to create a union that countries want to join, so why start screwing countries? All this mistrust just doesn't make sense, it's in everybody's interest to keep things fair and allow ways out of deals made.

>Any of the first 3 options have a majority if the other 2 are eliminated.

Well yes, but only if Labour vote for the option they haven't supported which you can't rely on.

If the Speaker were to eliminate one of the two leave options, I would think eliminating the common market 2 option can be justified as it had less support. If Labour suddenly stopped supporting the option they supported, then that would say a lot wouldn't it? If they did that then it would be plain to see for everybody what they are up to.

.

I wonder if the 4 PLAID candidates who voted for the "common market 2" option would vote for the customs union proposal if the one they voted for was eliminated? 32 SNP too? 1 LIb Dem as well.

Worth a try?

https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/tfl-grainger-btr/54840/

"Transport for London (TfL) has announced Grainger plc as the preferred bidder for its 3,000 home build to rent programme across the capital"

Interesting Blog from industry whistle-blower. https://dodgylondonagents.wordpress.com/

All sorts of dodgy practices going on from Agents and the story made the trade press as well as online press at the weekend with PurpleBricks the only Agency named although apparently 62 out of the 100 analysed were guilty of "relisted, manipulated or very Old listings". This was covered by the Times,The Daily Mail & the Sun.

>It wouldnt surpise me that this was actually real !!! ...

No, that seems to be the way things are going for landlords.

https://www.propertyindustryeye.com/new-law-will-mean-all-agents-must-register-as-not-for-profit-organisations/

"Private Member’s Bill which will make it illegal for property firms to make a profit wins Government backing"

"In the biggest shake-up yet for the industry, property firms will have to register as not-for-profit organisations."

"The change will affect all developers, estate agents and letting agents, as well as landlords regardless as to whether they operate as companies or individuals."

18th April last year.

May not bother after the one on 28th Feb. I know CRST didn't bother with their usual one after their profit warning.

>But you knew that already because we've discussed it on the blog..! :-)

Yes, I was just thinking along the lines of whether there was anything nasty in the woodshed.

I do think TEF know what they are doing. They have a good track record of getting through tough markets and they must think BTR is the best approach for them at this time and suggest earnings will start increasing again from 2021.

I agree with your point about RDW & BWY who are both trading at just over 1.3 BV and have switched most of my TEF holding into these two since the profit warning, but I don't think holding TEF is much of a risk at 0.86 BV and if the difficult conditions that TEF are talking about don't continue much longer then there's plenty of upside.

Perhaps a more positive note from Edison would have helped. No recommendation or price target but that just might be their style though. I've never seen any of their other research.

If you look at the little table they produce (exhibit 6) it's a table of possible valuations. I think it makes sense to take the middle value from their table as their thoughts on the most likely outcome and that's an estimated valuation of 358p. I think Peel Hunt the company broker set a target of 350p.

I don't think we should be having a referendum that could result in a different outcome than the first. I think 5 years should be the minimum between referendums unless there have been any fundamental changes. I don't think you can just say people might think differently now so let's have another referendum. That's a danger to the democratic process.

Better to leave and have another referendum 5 years after the first one - not too long away now :)

It seems odd to me that people are wanting to stay in the EU but aren't prepared to trust them in regard to the backstop not being permanent. I find the whole focus on the backstop disingenuous. At least from those who trust the integrity of the EU and want to remain.

If the EU show signs of dishonouring their promise that the backstop isn't permanent then the UK can just tell the EU to do one but let's face it there's very little risk in that. The idea that the EU is trying to screw us is absurd. I doubt the EU would be bothered if we broke the terms of the agreement if the issue of the backstop hadn't been resolved and I can't see any non-EU countries investing any effort in resolving any dispute between the EU and the UK.

If it came to it the UK could have a referendum on the UK & Irish border.

https://www.edisongroup.com/publication/greater-focus-on-a-long-term-growth-market/23772

>Just my 2p worth. Don’t have time today to reply to any comments.

No problem. Your reply will be seen when you do have time.

I can answer part of the question anyway because I did some investigating and I know who you are. You work for a traditional Estate Agent company in administration & finance. Just good to know for investors that you have no specialist insight into this type of tax law.

I don't either but I do know the IT sector and companies who use contractors who provide their services through limited companies have no issues with HMRC so perhaps when you have time you can elaborate on why you expect HMRC to clamp down on them at some point.

The rational as to why there isn't a perceived issue is because the contractor's limited company has its own potential tax and NI liabilities so no tax-dodging by these companies that receive services from these service companies. I do note though that this it is a popular theory among some traditional Estate Agents. I think they'll be disappointed though.

I think GentlestUncle20 exposes a weakness in your other argument that "It would be anti-competitive for Purplebricks Central to collude with a series of other companies to set fees. That sort of thing could get them an actual spanking from the CMA."

PB and LPEs aren't competitors agreeing fees like when traditional Agents do. You are talking about an Estate Agent company contractually agreeing terms with a company that is providing them services. Completely different.

Also, think about it, when traditional agents collude with their competitors the reason is to cheat the consumer out of the benefits of competition. Are the CMA really going to prioritise 'spanking' PB who actually offer real competition? Of course if you know about the problem of collusion over commission fees in your industry then you will be aware that the CMA have asked whistle blowers to come forward. I think that says quite a lot in terms of where the anti-competitive behaviour lies.

https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/eco-world-international-talks-funds-further-expand-btr-segment-uk

"Teow also said US-based Invesco Real Estate has the right of first refusal in the proposed deals. EWI had on Decemeber last year, signed a £389 million (RM2.1 billion) heads of terms with the group (Invesco) to build 1,084 BtR units in UK.

In addition, Teow is not discounting the possibility of buying additional lands to further expand its BtR sites, saying “BtR is the biggest business growth area in the UK today.”

kramreklaw,

Is your opinion about tax-dodging based on some legal expertise or are you perhaps a traditional Estate Agent with some amateur theory?

Quite important as people reading posts on here making investment decisions and your name could suggest some connection to an expertise in the law.

IGW_,

Thanks. I did receive 2 emails but thought they were duplicates because I do receive duplicate emails sometimes.

Looks like completely new upper management team taking over with the executive Chairman moving to a non-executive role on 1st April and the CFO only being there on a temporary basis.

>Or we call it what it really is, which is tax-dodging their NI / holiday pay etc liabilities. But again, I do fully expect HMRC to clamp down on them at some point.

kramreklaw,

When you say "them" who do you mean?

On what basis will HMRC take action? Presuming, when you say "them" you are referring to PurpleBricks, can you provide any examples where HMRC have taken action against companies using an individual's services via a Limited Company?

This is particularly common in the IT sector and there has never been any suggestion in the industry that this is an issue for the company using an individual's services and HMRC has never taken any action against a company that employs people in this way as far as I am aware.