Member Info for cyberduck

>A series of bold very smart astute moves which puts them into the strong position today where they can slash the prices on the remainder and still be way ahead of target

Slashing prices may well leave them ahead of the original target back in 2013 but where does it leave them in regard to the forecast £50M+ of profit for 2019? Did they envisage slashing prices when giving guidance of £50M+ profit?

And what about 2020, we've still not had a forecast from the company for 2020 onwards.

Everything running late re. BTR with one of the current sites having now fallen out of the pipeline with the other 2 near completion. Delayed BTR means lower profits in the short term because BTR profits are spread over the development.

The source of the comment below is Chris Wood of PDQ Estates.

Somebody who has just recently been exposed as making comments about PurpleBricks & Online Agents which he couldn't substantiate and which were deemed by the Advertising Standards Agency to be misleading.

See https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/pdq-estates-ltd-a17-401398.html

Do your own research.

>7/08/2018 – UPDATE

Sain, what's the source of the comment.

Seems to have the usual 88% figure from ages (2 years?) ago when there have been more recent lower figures provided. Something certain Estate Agents don't seem to want to acknowledge and is in my opinion an attempt to mislead. I certainly doubt the 51% Jefferies number (which PB have claimed is inaccurate) relates to the same period in time so somebody is up to some tricks.

https://aimgroup.com/2018/08/15/neil-tavender-joins-purplebricks-australia-as-coo/

"Former RightMove executive Neil Tavender has been recruited to get PurpleBricks Australia back on track."

Jimmy_88,

You're as slippery as they come aren't you?

>so based on the transcript below which you have quoted, where exactly did I say people shouldn't post on here?

When you completely agree with Zodiac's post. The key word being "completely".

If we're going to start speculating then let's have a look at yours and Zodiac's interactions. Zodiac has a total of 8 posts. One of them just "Well said Jimmy_88". Another "Jimmy, Just to say I totally agree with your recent comments regarding Purple Bricks enforcing compliancy measures ." and then we have you commenting on one of the other 6 posts "@Zodiac - I completely agree with you".

>Have a look at market manipulation.

Market manipulation? I have to admit that's what I thought Sain was up to back in early 2017 when I felt I had to counteract every negative comment he made. But since then I've realised that nothing said here has any effect on the SP. When the SP was going from £1.60 up to £3 and higher there were all sorts of negative things being bandied about - seriously damaging things, had they been true.

Like Sain says, you're paranoid. Your argument over whether Estate Agency is regulated or not doesn't even come close to market manipulation, it's just a bit of chat on a share chat forum. Both of you picking wholes in little bits of each others arguments and neither of you willing to leave it alone :)

Anyway, I'm bored with this nonsense now so feel free to take something from my post so you can carry on in the same vain.

I'm not a shareholder and I will continue to post here but I can't guarantee that it will only be positive comments, just ones made in good faith.

Jimmy, it sounds very much like you suspect some kind of conspiracy. Or have I misinterpreted that too? In any case, what is it that you suspect exactly? Or haven't you worked that out yet?

I can't agree with you telling Sain or anybody else not to post on here. Or didn't you say that?

@Zodiac "If you feel so negative about Purple Bricks then don't buy their shares and go elsewhere"

@Jimmy_88 "@Zodiac - I completely agree with you"

....

@Jimmy_88 "When it's facts, then of course you're welcome to post your opinion and it can be perceived as a balanced opinion backed up with facts. When you post misleading information posed as facts, I don't agree that these posts add value"

Sorry, you just don't get to make the decision that only posts that in your opinion add value are allowed. If you think somebody is wrong or even misleading people then you are free to dispute. Telling people to go elsewhere suggests you think you decide who posts on here.

Something went wrong with my reply. I'll repost...

>If I suspected anything it would be that your specific account was the voice of reason for Sains account but at times backing up some of his negative view points. That's not to say that I do suspect that, just that 'if' I did than that might be my viewpoint.

Jimmy, you don't seem to be sure what you suspect and what you don't :)

There are people who've been around here longer than me who I'm sure realise that Sain & I aren't the same person :)

The point I originally made and which I restate is that in my opinion it's better to have people bringing negative points than being harassed to not post at all. These points may in fact be something that others may not have considered. Right or wrong - that can be discussed, but suggesting people shouldn't post negative points is wrong in my opinion.

>Would you disagree that people who only post negatively or at least as a majority are defined as trolls?

No I don't think that's correct. For me a troll is somebody who posts deliberately to annoy others. Just had a look and found this definition "make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.". So with that definition the reason for posting has to be to annoy rather than one or more people finding posts annoying.

I don't think predominantly posting negative comments demonstrates that the reason is to annoy. My posts on PIE are predominantly positive regarding PURP and I don't post on there to annoy (but some people accuse me of being a troll). I post to add some balance and expose hypocrisy and misleading comments.

>If I suspected anything it would be that your specific account was the voice of reason for Sains account but at times backing up some of his negative view points. That's not to say that I do suspect that, just that 'if' I did than that might be my viewpoint.<br /><br />Jimmy, you don't seem to be sure what you suspect and what you don't :)<br /><br />There are people who've been around here longer than me who I'm sure realise that Sain & I aren't the same person :)<br /><br />The point I originally made and which I restate is that in my opinion it's better to have people bringing negative points than being harassed to not post at all. These ponts may in fact be something that others may not have considered. Right or wrong - that can be discussed, but suggesting people shouldn't post negative points is wrong in my opinion.<br /><br />>Would you disagree that people who only post negatively or at least as a majority are defined as trolls?<br /><br />No I don't think that's correct. For me a troll is somebody who posts deliberately to annoy others. Just had a look and found this definition "make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them.". So with that definition the reason for posting has to be to annoy rather than one or more people finding posts annoying.<br /><br />I don't think predominantly posting negative comments demonstrates that the reason is to annoy. My posts on PIE are predominantly positive regarding PURP and I don't post on there to annoy (but some people accuse me of being a troll). I post to add some balance and expose hypocrisy and misleading comments.<br /><br />

Jimmy,

You should really do better research.

If you look on PIE you will see that I regularly point out misinformation in regard to PB being propagated there and elsewhere. I have exposed as hypocrites, the very people who use Social Media to attack PB at every opportunity.

Check back over my posts on here, starting back in January 2017 http://www.lse.co.uk/member-info.asp?nick=cyberduck&page=33. You will see that back then I was doing what you do now with Sain :)

I'm sorry if my posts annoy you but that doesn't make me a troll. Although I'm not a shareholder I've invested a lot of time researching PB and intend to keep up my research. I find it all very interesting and who knows, if some of my concerns are answered then I may invest again for the long term or do some short term trading if I think I know better than the market at any particular time.

So I won't be going anywhere and will continue to post information that I think prudent investors will appreciate.

https://thenegotiator.co.uk/purplebricks-lonres-carrington-new-york/

“I do not see them making any significant inroads into New York City which is a closed market with realtors who are embedded,” he says.

Carrington compares New York with London’s prime central neighbourhoods where Lonres says Purplebricks has just 1% of the market, 7% less than the national share claimed by TwentyCI’s recent research."

https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2018/08/13/redrow-plots-180m-brentford-mixed-use-scheme/

"Redrow Homes has teamed up with social homes specialist Catalyst to build 450 flats in a mixed-use scheme in the London Borough of Hounslow."

Jimmy,

>Cyberduck posts on the TEF board as does Sain - Wow... that's not relevant at all lol.

So please explain the relevance.

You might also see somebody I follow on twitter is a guy called dompritch1 who tends to post positively about PB.

So what's your explanation? There's clearly something you don't understand.

>If you feel so negative about Purple Bricks then don't buy their shares and go elsewhere

Zodiac123, It sounds like you only want to hear positive things. Surely discussing the pros & cons is good?

When I owned share in PURP I welcomed all comments and Sain would regularly oblige in providing negative ones :) If somebody suggested there was a particular risk I'd go off and research it myself.

I can remember there were allegations of multiple listings of properties on Zoopla to make it look like they were doing better than they really were. I looked into this and found the daily "new" listings on Zoopla do actually include properties that have come back on the market after being SSTC and falling through, however there was no evidence of this being a deliberate policy and it doesn't happen on Rightmove. Furthermore, having used PB to sell my house i could actually see that PB had actually gone to lengths to work in harmony with Rightmove's system which decides whether to list a property as new or not which kind of dispelled any concerns I had that what I was seeing on Zoopla was deliberate manipulation.

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/housebuilder-redrow-agrees-180-million-joint-venture-in-brentford-a3908401.html

>Just a matter of interest,what did they say they were voting for?

I think a lot of the voting to leave was because a large number of voters are insecure and don't like foreigners coming here and taking what is theirs.

I saw a pimp complaining that his girl(s) had to work 3 hours to earn £50 because of the foreign girls. He said he wasn't surprised because the foreign girls usually had their own teeth!

>Cybs Maybe in a standard block of flats but even then orientation could add or subtract 10 % as evidenced with TEF

Was thinking more of the thousands of rows of houses with all houses in each row all pretty much the same, give or take. The seller should know pretty much what houses are selling at and should know the pros & cons which could influence whether they would get more or less than average. They could also speak to some local agents but as far as I'm concerned they're more likely to tell you what exquisite taste you have (tell you what you want to hear) and overvalue in order to get your business.

Sain,

It's the "Very often" bit that I disagree with.

I think that the vast majority of properties are easy to value and if owners understood this, this vast majority of homeowners would save a lot of money by listing with an online Agent.

Perhaps there's a local service needed to advise owners about this? Just a "I recommend you list at this price" and tell you whether to use an online agent or not. Or somebody like Which? giving some guidance on "how to decide if your property is easy to value".

It just seems mad/criminal to list a house that's easy to value and easy to sell with a traditional agent who are going to take a percentage of the asset from you for selling.

I think the "local" aspect of Estate Agency is overplayed. Sure there will be cases when a local agent knows something that the LPE and vendor don't, but how often is this? All the data that is available now and the vendors own local knowledge pretty much make up for the apparent disadvantage in my eyes.

Add into the equation that just because there's a local office it doesn't mean the agent lives locally or has worked at the office for any particular length of time.

When I sold, my LPE turned up with a market report, just like one of the traditional agents did. They both showed me the same houses that had sold close by and were on the market. The LPE even pointed me to RM's price comparison report which had until recently only been available to Estate Agents https://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-value.html so during the marketing I kept reviewing what was coming to market and what was selling.

Who even needs Agents? It's not rocket science and can you really trust them anyway? They talk a good game but they only sell 50% of properties listed which says a lot.

>additional £50m gross profit pa for the next 3 years

Would that be nett of the BTR deals that will be ending in the next year or so?

That would be a huge addition to the pipeline wouldn't it? Do they have the capacity for such an increase? Greystar at 900 homes is perhaps £50m over 3 years. So this suggests 2 or 3 extra deals which would increase the pipeline from 4000 homes to around 7000 in one go.

UK - 663 https://www.purplebricks.co.uk/search-local-expert?ref=header

Oz - 84 https://www.purplebricks.com.au/search-local-expert?ref=header