focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar here.
@cyberduck
Wow, you're definitely butt hurt over this.
>you were saying the current SP didn't factor in overseas profits.
That's not what I said. I said the current SP wasn't relying on any 'international success' not 'overseas profits'. At least quote me properly. In other words, the international scene for PB has been so negatively publicised that it's hard to see why anyone would think international success is currently being factored into the SP. One thing you seem to overlook constantly is expectations. SP is not based on current performance only, it's a combination of things which includes future performance. Ask yourself this, will PB be performing better or worse in 3 years time than today? When you answer that question for yourself as well as by how much of a difference to current performance this will give you the answer as to if you should invest or not. SP is not calculated on current performance, current performance is used in attempt to measure future success (quite often inaccurately).
>There are different ways to value a company and I note you have not come forward with any of them.
Are you trying to value the company or value the share price? I believed we were talking about the share price but now you speak of the company value. Of course someone could be amateurish enough to say the market cap is the company value however that would be inaccurate also which is why many companies are sold for a greater value than their market cap. I think you might want to try and understand what you mean before you try to call out others as there's conflicts and inaccuracies all over your posts.
>The valuation by Hardman was based on future earnings
So on that basis, you only value a SP on earnings? You completely ignore any other figure or aspect of a company's development? That would explain why your figures are so flawed. let me put it another way, and this is exaggerated to make a point; If Purplebricks posted 1 billion pounds in group revenue at the end of year 2018/2019 but earnings remained the exact same as year ending 2017/2018, would you value the SP the exact same on both years? The answer to you being a total idiot is the same as the answer to that question so please feel free to publicise it.
A company has increased it's international operations (not yet profitably to any greatly known extent) and has also bypassed the 2 year old hardman report by 33% in revenues from estimates and continues to grow but you still believe earnings is the only relevant factor. Growing market share, growing revenues and so on are all things that mean nothing to you. You only look at 1 value for growth which is the exact value which should not be expected to grow greatly (or at all) during a growth period.
>Once we have our valuations, we can discuss which method is the most appropriate.
You completely ignored my question but I'll repost it: "Are you trying to value the company or value the share price? I believed we were talking about the share price but now you speak of the company value. Of course someone could be amateurish enough to say the market cap is the company value however that would be inaccurate also which is why many companies are sold for a greater value than their market cap. I think you might want to try and understand what you mean before you try to call out others as there's conflicts and inaccuracies all over your posts."
And finally, you definitely point blank ignored my offer which I'll report also:
"So you often imply that the share price should be under £2 but you don't actually say as much, you just use other peoples words or calculations without actually committing to that. So the question is, do you think the share price should currently be under £2. No doubt we won't get a clear answer or some drawn out explanation but it's really just a simple question with a simple answer.
I'd be happy for you to put your money where your mouth is though if you feel so strongly about it. Based on your comments you say the SP should be under £2 a share, that means it would comfortably hit £2 a share at some point (based on your views). I'd go the opposite way in which the share price currently sits at 291.00 as I write this so the difference being the 91. Adding that on top of the current SP is a share price of 382.00.
My wager with you is that the SP hits 382.00 (£3.82) per share before it hits 200.00 (£2.00). If you're so confident in your calculations and the outlook of PB then this should be easy money for you. What shall we say as the winnings, something like an Amazon gift card? I'm open to suggestions on the winnings and the value. My suggestion would be something nominal like £100 gift card but I'd be happy to wager more.
You're so confident on your views and calculations so put your money where your mouth is; I'm prepared to do just that!"
@cyberduck
>Not going to pick holes in your posts as this just gives you scope to pick something to reply to and ignore the main point.
Haha are you serious? This is exactly what you've just done yourself and you have the cheek to imply others are doing it. The hypocrisy is unbearable. You don't want to pick holes in my post means you don't want to reply to my post as there was some solid points which you've chosen to ignore.
I remind you specifically about the point below in response to your valuation question:
>There are different ways to value a company and I note you have not come forward with any of them.
Are you trying to value the company or value the share price? I believed we were talking about the share price but now you speak of the company value. Of course someone could be amateurish enough to say the market cap is the company value however that would be inaccurate also which is why many companies are sold for a greater value than their market cap. I think you might want to try and understand what you mean before you try to call out others as there's conflicts and inaccuracies all over your posts.
>What did you pay?
I just checked my trading account and see I have 12 buy transactions for PB this year alone. You won't be able to guess by my posting history as to my average lol. The point that is relevant though is that I hold shares in Purplebricks, can you say the same?
I see you avoided many of my questions but of course you like to accuse others of doing just that.
>No, that the UK part of the business & Oz should be valued at less than £2 using the same method as Hardman and the failure to live up to expectations since then.
Yet another question you've avoided answering. Passing it off to some other source so you can't take responsibility for your own words lol. What do you value the Share Price at then? You use the figure £2 a lot but won't actually commit to that yet. What share price should we be sitting at on the basis of your calculations?
>I'll be back with a valuation. I need to look up a few things and come up with some estimates.
Don't rush back lol, I can tell this is a long drawn out post incoming that will bore the life out of us all and be as irrelevant as the weather was 100 years ago. You work off old data from old reports that have already been proven to be inaccurate yet you still resort to these sources to value the SP.
@Cyberduck
You've said more than once about others being "slippery" but looking at your comments regarding the share price going down under £2, you appear the most slippery of all as you don't actually commit to that view.
"a target current price of 200p would be warranted"
"That would mean the fact that PB are now valued at close to £3 rather than the £2 (rather generously some would say) they were valued at on just the UK & Oz suggests either the UK or Oz or both have done better than originally anticipated in the report. The reality is that Oz have done a lot worse and for the UK it looks like PB won't reach 100,000 UK listings per year in the year starting in May 2019 and ending April 2020. That's just 9 months away and we're currently looking at about 6000 a month and that's the seasonal peak months. November & December are typically awful for new listings."
"So given the UK & Oz aren't growing as quickly as first thought the current valuation of the UK surely can't represent £2+. Perhaps as much as £2 of the £3 is USA valuation?"
"The natural conclusion being that £2 was too high a valuation"
"Also from the report, based on 2019 estimated UK/Oz earnings (that's this year!) "Undertaking the exercise on 2019E EPS of 8.6p the current share price indication is 209p. 8.6 x 26.9 / (1.2)2 = 161p."
So you often imply that the share price should be under £2 but you don't actually say as much, you just use other peoples words or calculations without actually committing to that. So the question is, do you think the share price should currently be under £2. No doubt we won't get a clear answer or some drawn out explanation but it's really just a simple question with a simple answer.
I'd be happy for you to put your money where your mouth is though if you feel so strongly about it. Based on your comments you say the SP should be under £2 a share, that means it would comfortably hit £2 a share at some point (based on your views). I'd go the opposite way in which the share price currently sits at 291.00 as I write this so the difference being the 91. Adding that on top of the current SP is a share price of 382.00.
My wager with you is that the SP hits 382.00 (£3.82) per share before it hits 200.00 (£2.00). If you're so confident in your calculations and the outlook of PB then this should be easy money for you. What shall we say as the winnings, something like an Amazon gift card? I'm open to suggestions on the winnings and the value. My suggestion would be something nominal like £100 gift card but I'd be happy to wager more.
You're so confident on your views and calculations so put your money where your mouth is; I'm prepared to do just that!
@cyberduck
Wow, you're definitely butt hurt over this.
>you were saying the current SP didn't factor in overseas profits.
That's not what I said. I said the current SP wasn't relying on any 'international success' not 'overseas profits'. At least quote me properly. In other words, the international scene for PB has been so negatively publicised that it's hard to see why anyone would think international success is currently being factored into the SP. One thing you seem to overlook constantly is expectations. SP is not based on current performance only, it's a combination of things which includes future performance. Ask yourself this, will PB be performing better or worse in 3 years time than today? When you answer that question for yourself as well as by how much of a difference to current performance this will give you the answer as to if you should invest or not. SP is not calculated on current performance, current performance is used in attempt to measure future success (quite often inaccurately).
>There are different ways to value a company and I note you have not come forward with any of them.
Are you trying to value the company or value the share price? I believed we were talking about the share price but now you speak of the company value. Of course someone could be amateurish enough to say the market cap is the company value however that would be inaccurate also which is why many companies are sold for a greater value than their market cap. I think you might want to try and understand what you mean before you try to call out others as there's conflicts and inaccuracies all over your posts.
>The valuation by Hardman was based on future earnings
So on that basis, you only value a SP on earnings? You completely ignore any other figure or aspect of a company's development? That would explain why your figures are so flawed. let me put it another way, and this is exaggerated to make a point; If Purplebricks posted 1 billion pounds in group revenue at the end of year 2018/2019 but earnings remained the exact same as year ending 2017/2018, would you value the SP the exact same on both years? The answer to you being a total idiot is the same as the answer to that question so please feel free to publicise it.
A company has increased it's international operations (not yet profitably to any greatly known extent) and has also bypassed the 2 year old hardman report by 33% in revenues from estimates and continues to grow but you still believe earnings is the only relevant factor. Growing market share, growing revenues and so on are all things that mean nothing to you. You only look at 1 value for growth which is the exact value which should not be expected to grow greatly (or at all) during a growth period.
>Quite simply because it was a price forecast based on earnings in 2020
So I guess the real question is, do you think a share price is determined by either earnings or forecasted earnings? If so then I guess there's no point in me wasting my time speaking with you any further.
Additionally, a report which is 2 years old on a 6 year old growth company is still deemed valid and accurate to you? A company often labelled as a 'real estate disruptor'. I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to teach you something here but you're implying/saying some pretty stupid things.
>If not, then please suggest how you value the UK operations at £3. Or are you now agreeing that valuation factors in international success?
I honestly struggle to believe your sense of logic. Have you overlooked the biggest factor which influences a share price and what that share price may be? International success has not yet been achieved and the headlines would have you believe that it's not only failing but it may not succeed. Should you believe such headlines (as a large portion of people do) then you would likely have negative sentiment towards the company and it's international success. Having that negative sentiment on a large scale would undoubtedly affect a company's SP in a negative way... as it currently does. I firmly believe the SP should be higher on the basis of growth, not current earnings. If you're overlooking a growth company having heavily invested in growth and proceed to value it only on it's reported performance (which takes no consideration of the growth which has been invested in) then it explains why your calculations are inaccurate (as well as the fact that there's no real accurate way to calculate what a share price of any company should be).
>I suggest you read the report
I suggest you locate a report which is not extremely outdated. The report was created 2 years ago on a 4 year old growth company. It's now 6 years old and has grown into double the locations it operated in at the time of the report as well as one of those locations being an acquisition which translates into 'instant performance'. Your suggestion that we should overlook this is perhaps a suggestion that we should overlook your opinions.
@cyberduck
There are 3 International markets for consideration when assessing PB's international operations. USA, Canada and Australia. Success in 1 of these locations does not mean overall international success. Agreed? Additionally, in 2 of these locations PB has began as a startup and one has been an acquisition of an existing business. As 1 of these locations has a track history I thought it would be obvious that we speak of the startup locations which are the biggest considerations for determining international success. Both of these locations have ridiculous and negative headlines being bombarded almost daily. Do you think that creates positive investor sentiment regardless of what the figures are? I'm not suggesting the figures are great but the negativity across the headlines alone over a long period of time is enough to create a negative sentiment towards the company and therefore the SP. That alone is a reason for the SP to be brought lower. A good way of altering that is of course to come out with some strong trading figures, it may not be this year or next however I believe this will come in the future (hence why I'm invested here).
You've referred to a 2 year old valuation on a company that only considered 2 out of the 4 locations it currently operates within. 1 of those locations was an acquisition which means it's an already profitable business in that location. These things haven't been taken into consideration so how you can somehow reverse calculate the SP on the basis of that report is beyond me.
@Cyberduck
Of course the value is different but the concept is the same. Most industries have been pushed online or run by technology which is linked to being online. Shopping, recruitment, estate agency etc. You can even order a takeaway or book a taxi online now.... It's only a matter of time for most! Your property ends up being advertised online anyway via Rightmove, Zoopla etc. Isn't it silly to say you will advertise your property online but don't want to use an estate agent which operates online? It's quite a contradiction to do one of those things but to be so against the other. I don't think the issue is that the older generation 'won't' operate this way, I actually still think there's still a large aspect of not knowing a great deal about it and therefore people simply sticking to what they know. I also believe that will continuously change and we will find more and more people reverting to this method of selling.
And of course in time there will come to be a large portion of repeat custom. If you consider that the majority of Purplebricks customers are classed as new customers and repeat custom won't have taken place for many or to any great degree, it does leave plenty of growth on the table.
I haven't read the report in any great detail as I wasn't invested at that time and a lot of the data which I have glanced over appears to not be as relevant today as it was at the point of the report. It also doesn't include any details of USA, Canada, Axel Springer investment or acquisitions so I'm not sure that report could be referred to with relevance anymore. If you're working on old data which hasn't been adjusted then it should be no surprise when estimations are inaccurate.
In addition, the Hardman report you quoted estimates group revenues of £70.5 million for year ending April 2018. Purplebricks just reported £93.7 million (approximately 33% increase). Purplebricks also just announced the acquisition of DuProprio which is anther £23 million in revenues straight away so next year is almost guaranteed to be higher revenues solely on that. Growth companies tend to be focused more on revenues than profitability so it's an important measure and why the Hardman report quotes figures which are massively outdated an inaccurate already.
As your additional comments don't include the above and work off old data of a growth company, it's probably not even worthwhile discussing that report in relevance to current valuation. A 2 year old report on a 6 year old growth company is significantly outdated which is proof on just some of the things I mentioned above.
I'd be highly confident that good news regarding international operations would see a rise in share value rather than bad news causing a significant fall. I'm quite confident that negative news is already being factored in. Investor sentiment affects an SP massively and the headlines don't make it look positive.
The comparison isn't really relevant to stagecoach is it. Stagecoach obtain contracts which last years for areas they operate within. If an estate agent tried the same approach another one would pop up as there's no real barrier to entry to being an estate agent. To be a bus operator you require a fleet of buses, drivers and so on. Entirely different scenarios and no meaningful comparison. Prices will stay low within estate agency so long as it is profitable to do. I see a lot of smaller independent estate agents now trying to replicate the pricing of the online agents and it does actually appear positive for both agents and customers.
Some relevant points you've made Cyber.
Mobile phone use is certainly relevant but I think we shouldn't solely be looking at mobile use and should instead consider online use overall. Regardless of which device, if it's a mobile, tablet, laptop or desktop it's still methods of internet access. The office of national statistics quotes that 90% of households in the UK had access to the internet in 2017. I think we would all agree that older generations are unlikely to use the internet as much as younger generations but that concept has been changing over a number of years. Personally speaking I can think of many people in the 40-60 age range that would be classed as oblivious to the internet even 5 years ago but now use the internet either for social media or shopping. I feel that concept will continue to grow as the internet has become a major part of society.
In addition, if you consider that 'milennials' are deemed to be the most tech savvy of all, it would be important to consider that the oldest range of the milennial age range is almost at age 40 (people born in the 80's to mid 90's). That's the age you put the average home buyer at and therefore we're soon to reach a stage where the most tech savvy members of society will be in that age range. I'm sure you can join up the dots.
Perhaps the older generation or least tech savvy members of society will be the the largest source of business for traditional estate agents however I imagine that to be a group of people which reduces in time.
The international markets are proving to be harder markets to crack but certainly not impossible. Progress is being made but perhaps not at the speed many would want. I would disagree with you that the current SP factors in any international success though and would actually say the opposite. Headlines regarding PB's international operations are largely negative so I think it's become expected that results are poorer than originally anticipated so that has been factored into the SP. Should any surprise positive results come to light on international operations, I'd be confident in an immediate boost to the SP.
Can you really say "so many of their experts have been recruited by Emoov" or is it the bottom of the pile that's being pushed out of the company and they just happen to move to an alternative competitor.
I also remember Sain to be the one talking about how bad all the LPE's were at Purplebricks but now Emoov is recruiting loads of them, does that mean Emoov have loads of bad LPE's now? You can't really have it both ways unless you're admitting that Purplebricks LPE's actually do a decent job. If you don't admit that then you must be admitting Emoov are recruiting bad LPE's, which is it? Lol. All based on your opinion's posted here of course.
Sales roles have a high turnover of staff as many simply cannot do the job well enough to make sufficient income. The people that tend to move job to job quite often have negative things to say about the company they previously worked for but no doubt the company they have moved to will become the next negative company to speak of when they move again to another company. Car sales companies are an example of companies that have many disgruntled sales staff who tell the world about how bad the company they used to work for is. More often than not the sales person wasn't equipped to do the job there and was pushed out over a period of time. I view this positively in the sense that no company wants poor sales staff and these LPE's are effectively that (for all online agencies). You can't exactly just sack people these days otherwise you find yourself at an employment tribunal so people who are pushed out tend to have been pushed out over a period of time.
I guess Sain won't consider the operational aspect of estate agency and will continue to poke negatively at Purplebricks. It operates a commission based structure which for companies of all types has shown to be one of the biggest driving factors in obtaining results. Of course offering a high basic salary would be nice and cozy for sales staff but does it encourage them to achieve results? No, of course it doesn't.
You're right, I still disagree with you!
It's impossible to say what the percentage would be however clearly the business that would normally have went to the estate agents which are now bust, will be available to other estate agents of any type. I'm sure we could agree up to that point.
When I consider my own local area, there really is only 1 traditional estate agent I would use here (possibly a second but they're far too expensive and I'd have tried out a number of online agents well before reaching them). Besides listings on the main property platforms, the occasional email and a social media post, I don't see my local agents doing much else.
It only takes a search on Rightmove/Zoopla of your local area to see what's on the market to see the variety of online agents now advertising property within your area. I can say for my area there's a significant portion of these and as a potential seller, I'd be intrigued by these if my previously favoured agent had went out of business and I was forced to change anyway. Most people tend to look for a property before they come to sell theirs even if out of curiosity as to what's on the market. With more online agents consistently listing in local areas, I'm confident their position will grow.
As to percentages of splits, who knows. I definitely don't agree with you though that for all traditional estate agents who go out of business, the online agents will capture 0% of that market share.
I agree with your comments on it not taking too many going out of business to spread enough of the market share towards the others as a greater level of security. I don't agree with the proportion being 95% to high street agents and 5% to online agents (or even solely Purplebricks). I'm also confident in time that the more buyers and sellers using Purplebricks using the platform then the more there will be a desire to use the service. Every buyer of a property sold through Purplebricks is potentially a future customer when the selling cycle repeats itself. I believe a lot of buyers will enjoy the ease of the online platform when buying and certainly consider selling through the same return. How long as the average home ownership timescale? Somewhere between 5-10 years I'd guess so I'm sure you will start to experience a combination of repeat customers in the near future alongside new custom from people who have bought through the platform.
I think we've reached a stage where lower pricing is inevitable as an entry level option. Sooner or later most estate agents will have a service under £1000 to someone selling their homes (if they don't offer this already). I actually see more of an opening for small independents and those operating in volume (such as the online agents).
"KPMG predicts tough times ahead for High Street estate agents"
"Firms face a lethal cocktail of slowing sales and increased online competition"
"Estate agents could be next on the high street casualty list, as they grapple with a stagnating housing market and online rivals like Purplebricks moving onto their turf"
Good to see the market leading online agent is constantly referred to in articles which discuss the rise of online estate agents; There's a consistent and clear recognition of Purplebricks growth and presence!
"According to accountancy KPMG, pressures on High Street agents will come to a head in the second half of the year, piling further pain on town centres already reeling from hundreds of retail store closures"
Looks like more doom for the high street estate agents, this might go someway to explain the level of bitterness in the sector towards online agents.
"'The rise of online-only agencies have combined with falling house prices, a general slowdown in sale activity and a raft of legislative changes, all of which have generated headwinds for your average high street agent"
"I would therefore not be surprised to see operators across this sector struggle over the second half of the year and beyond'"
"And Britain's biggest listed estate agency Countrywide, which counts Hamptons and Bairstow Eves among its brands, is also in full-blown crisis as it seeks to raise emergency funding"
Link to article as below:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6071159/Estate-agents-add-High-Street-malaise-stagnating-housing-market-pushes-firms-brink.html
The problem with Trustpilot is that it can be manipulated by anyone, including competitors, bitter traditional estate agents who don't like the new online variety of estate agency and so on. I actually checked trustpilot and noticed 1 customer who has left 8 negative reviews. How many more customers who feel negative towards a company do this?
Have a look at the users account who has left 8 negative reviews for Purplebricks:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/users/59ee20d50000ff000ad88948
Is any customer justified in leaving 8 reviews in being a single customer? If so, then I guess all the positive review customers are entitled to do the same then? You can't really have it both ways.
Any company who has high volumes of transactions and therefore likely to have high volumes of reviews do need to manage this as Purplebricks do. Trustpilot tends to attract mainly negative reviews if companies do not manage their reviews.
Just take a look at Amazon UK's Trustpilot page:
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.amazon.co.uk
They have 30% of their reviews as 'Poor' or 'Bad'. Does this represent the reality of customers views towards Amazon? I definitely don't believe so and eCommerce statistics wouldn't support that sentiment either. The fact is that they don't ask any of their customers for trustpilot reviews and they don't manage any of the reviews therefore their rating looks much worse than it is in reality. But if the second biggest company in the world (soon to be the first) can operate with a rating that looks 30% negatives then it leaves a big margin of error for any other company.
Feefo is always a lower review platform as the reviews are sent by the company requiring the reviews meaning no one can leave them at random, you need to have a genuine transaction with the company and these can be easily verified by both Feefo and the company receiving the review. There is a much greater aspect of management here and it prevents fraudulent reviews occurring. Fraudulent reviews can be either positive or negative, you would be naive to believe it can be only 1 way.
There is a direct cost to putting any property on the market for an estate agent. When there is a direct cost then why shouldn't a company ask for payment for their time? If you list a car on Autotrader yourself, you pay a fee, if you list a Job on Hays or Reed, you pay a fee. These are large self serving marketplaces that still attract a fee regardless if you you achieve your goal as there is a direct cost to advertising and even more so when it comes to property. When you move into a slower moving market in comparison to these ones (such as property), why would it be such a surprise that you pay upfront for a service? Is it because the other estate agents don't all do this? I guess that's part of being a market disruptor in that you don't follow the crowd and you disrupt the market by operating differently.
In addition, those with good quality houses tend to subsidise those who don't when it comes to selling property if an estate agent offers a 'no sale, no fee' offer. Isn't that unfair on the people that have invested time and money into making their property more attractive for sale or those with more desirable property?
I guess their revenue speaks volumes about how people view the service and technology behind it.
@cyberduck - You call someone slipper because you've said they said something which they didn't and they've proven you wrong by quoting facts and being precise? That's not really my definition of slippery to be honest and really this situation has said a lot about you when you quote comments and imply something different than what has been said. Why exactly would you say something different than what has been said when quoting someone? It defeats the purpose of quoting and shows you to be inaccurate within your own posts.
So you mean to say that the word 'completely' translates to 'nobody should post negatively on this forum'. That's what your post implies. That's an incredible translation and one must ask how on earth you came from 1 to the other?
This is what I said in the comment you have just responded to:
"Have a look at market manipulation. Now it's not to say that this is being done on any great scale or that this is even close to being successful"
Then you follow up by saying:
"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"
I literally told you in my post which you were replying to that it wasn't being done on any great scale or being successful but that doesn't disguise that this is what it boils down to. Being successful or large scale or not key requirements do be deemed as an attempt at market manipulation, you can be very low scale and unsuccessful and deemed to be attempting to manipulate the market. Of course large scale actions tend to be more noticeable and warrant further action.
So now you think me and Zodiac are the same person because we've commented on a board we're interested in? Wow, so I guess everyone commenting here is my account also then? That's the extent of your connection. Your account is connected to Sains through the Purplebricks forum, the Telford Homes forum, at least 1 property website comment section and a twitter account. I think it's fair to say that at least 4 connections leaves you more suspect that 2 people that comment on a single share on a single forum. Poor attempt at throwing mud really!
Lol I'm paranoid? I've merely stated facts and both of you have got your backs up in an extremely noticeable fashion, I think you're deluded as to who is really paranoid.
I agree, I'm equally bored of this exchange. You're welcome to post as you wish (Hopefully you don't take these words out of context, mix them up a little and turn it into a different comment) however if you're posting factual information I guess we won't really have an issue. If you prefer to troll or become a share basher then I'm confident we will clash again at somepoint... At least for as long as I'm invested here as I don't waste my time on forums of shares I'm not invested in.. Unlike some other people I know of!
Pinpoint the false statements made Sain rather than making vague accusations that are inaccurate... Just for the sake of saying it. That's like me saying you're a registered sex offender without having any basis for saying so. Some people throw around mud in the hope that some sticks but at least back up your ridiculous comments with some clear examples.
Paranoia? I provided clear facts and links for anyone to verify. It is ironic that you use a term linked with mental health in consideration of some of your recent posts. Perhaps a check-up would be beneficial to you?
"If you recall you were unaware that many residential agents are chartered surveyors" - Yet another inaccurate claim by you Sain. You stated that all estate agents were qualified and members of the RICS. When you were called out on this you changed this to be talking about Chartered Surveyors. Of course some Chartered Surveyors operate as estate agencies, I've dealt with some in the past so clearly your claims are unfounded and only act to identify a point where you previously changed your story. It's amusing that at one point you thought estate agents had to be qualified and members of the RICS. You swiftly changed your story when you were set straight by multiple posters.
Again you go on to talk about the lettings market in Wales as though that represents the entire area of estate agency within the UK. We've had property developers and estate agents with decades of experience comment on some of your posts about how inaccurate your claims are yet you continue to make them.
Estate agency is not highly regulated as you have previously stated. Pharmaceuticals or banking are examples if higher regulated industries, certainly not estate agency and it doesn't come close to other highly regulated industries.
You also don't need to be qualified to be an estate agent as you have previously stated. These are areas where you're factually incorrect and your opinion has shown to be extremely flawed.
You now change to saying estate agents think qualifications are important rather than stating you need to be qualified. Rather than just accepting you're wrong even when your own words are quoted against you, you try to alter your previous comments in hope that people won't scroll back and read what you have actually been saying.
You're also the one that things estate agents should be performing due diligence for buyers and know all about the neighbours and so on... the estate agent... who is paid for by the seller to market and sell their property... you think should perform due diligence for a buyer. Says it all really!
And finally, the golden comment:
"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."
Have a look at market manipulation. Now it's not to say that this is being done on any great scale or that this is even close to being successful however this covers specifically stock bashing which is "usually orchestrated by savvy online message board posters (a.k.a. "Bashers") who make up false and/or misleading information about the target company in an attempt to get shares for a cheaper price"
"This activity, in most cases, is conducted by posting libelous posts on multiple public forums"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_manipulation
You've effectively described market manipulation as being acceptable by supporting the posting of factually incorrect information relating to a share on a repeated basis.
"Market manipulation is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for, a product, security, commodity or currency.[1] Many forms of market manipulation are prohibited in most countries, in particular, it is prohibited in the United States under Section 9(a)(2)[2] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in the European Union under Article 12 of the Market Abuse Regulation, in Australia under Section 1041A of the Corporations Act 2001, and in Israel under Section 54(a) of the securities act of 1968. The Act defines market manipulation as transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradeable security. Market manipulation is also prohibited for wholesale electricity markets under Section 222 of the Federal Power Act[3] and wholesale natural gas markets under Section 4A of the Natural Gas Act.[4]"
@Cyber - I think to use the word conspiracy is a bit far fetched on your part. Do I think someone is operating multiple accounts? Yes. Do I think someone here is part of a conspiracy to take over the world? No. Let's keep things in scale.
Okay, so based on the transcript below which you have quoted, where exactly did I say people shouldn't post on here? Just point out those exact words as all I see is me saying "I completely agree with you". Is this a trick where the text is white on a white background or something as I really don't see it!
"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"
Oh maybe you mean agreeing with someone else's comment that if someone feels so negatively about a share then perhaps they shouldn't buy and go elsewhere. Does that mean don't post on this board? Of course it doesn't but I certainly don't see where I said what you claim. Ahh, I get it, you make a comment which is based on your assumption and now it's passed off as fact. Got it! So I shouldn't call someone out that quotes an opinion or assumption as fact even when it's factually proven to be inaccurate? God you run some biased rules in your games!
Now, let's look at the second part of your post:
@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"
So that's my comment above followed by your comment below:
"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."
It's not my decision on what's true and what isn't. When you tell me 2+2=14 then I'll tell you that you're factually incorrect even though you might think that this is your balanced opinion. It's not be decision that you're wrong, It's fact! Then you say "only posts that in your opinion add value are allowed" - Again, it's not quite what I said now is it? seems a manipulation of what was said, have a read over again and see for yourself. I said "When you post misleading information posed as facts, I don't agree that these posts add value".