The first OnTheMarket member meetings are to take place today, where agents will learn details of OTM’s plans to demutualise and float on the stock exchange.
The first meeting is at noon in Stafford, and the second at 4pm in Warrington.
Members are said to have received a three-page letter from OTM boss Ian Springett along with documents, including a new listing agreement.
A new tariff of fees sets out subscription rates, said to vary from £192 to £595 per month, depending on the size of the agent and location.
‘Virtual offices’ are believed to be included in the tariffs.
There will be 18 more such meetings this month, with places limited to a maximum of two principals, partners or directors per firm.
Comments (29)
To docklander52, if the Loan Note scheme is passed the current 7%, 10% and 15% Notes get swapped for ‘new’ Notes which then get automatically converted into the same value of ordinary shares in the plc (if, of course, the IPO gets the go-ahead – not a slam dunk by any means……)
Has there been any mention of what happens to the original loan notes?
Suggest you contact Agents Mutual for this information Sir.
There may well be a separate arrangement for ‘special’ cases like your own…
They can transferred over to as shares! More branches you have more shares you receive as you have originally invested more.
HJ12
Your response may well be correct for a currently active, paid-up Gold Member – but do not take into account any potential different terms for those Agents that have chosen to dump their Contractual obligations.
Hence my suggestion that Mr docklander52 take up his query with Agents Mutual who will advise him accordingly.
Then he can come back and bemoan the response – no doubt whatever that response is…
I posted this on a previous thread late yesterday.
The Prospectus.
Sign up for a further 5 years. Annual subscription increases? Appendix 1 states no increases for 2 years then, bingo, up to 5% per annum, compounded.
Receive shares (not listed on the full exchange but listed on the AIM market). I read it that these shares can’t be sold anytime soon due to the share “lock-in” so if OTM goes, the “shareholders” go with it?
OTM has disappointed from inception so why would anyone in their right mind “invest” further? I notice that Rightmove has a market cap of circa 4 billion, they will be a tough nut to crack and I forsee future OTM rights issues, placings etc (in short, dilution) just to stem a very strong tide.
An interesting question is that the new subscription say, for a small firm in the provinces, will be £295 (the same charge at inception). Are the firms currently paying £50 going to have their subscription increased to £295? (Answers on a postage stamp please).
Really you couldn’t make this up!
All in my very humble opinion and please do your own research.
Discuss.
It tells you in the documents sent. All of the original investors are getting millions of shares. As is the Springett.
They suggest the shares will be worth £4-£5 each and value the company at £200 million
The cynical view would be that this was the aim all along…..to use independent’s aspirations to ‘make’ market share and then use that market share to make loads of money for the founders!
I don’t want to become a cynical person, but is this a view others possibly share?
I certainly would not put this past Springett. Not for a second. If you look at his background you’ll find he’s a 100% profit-focused individual – which is not a bad thing in itself. But I doubt the possibility of using the tactic you mentioned wouldn’t have crossed his mind at some point.
What about the share offer on the IPO?
Is it true that each member will get 8,500 shares?
(Or am I reading it wrong?)
I would imagine for the vast amount of agents the value of the shares they receive (however many it is) will be less than £10,000. With say 6,000 odd members that’s still approaching £60 million. Otherwise there wont be anything left to invest in the business…….or have I got this completely wrong?
£10,000 is not a lot compared to the savings over many years members could have made if OTM had developed new products, gained more membership and become at least number two portal!
On the other hand I wonder how much the likes of Savills, Knight Frank and Chestertons etc. will be receiving?
I really think that we need to talk agent to agent after each and every ‘member meeting’ as I imagine there will be a fair bit of scaremongering going on.
Can someone take responsibility for passing around a sheet of paper to collect members contact info at each meeting?
I am going to the one in Thame on Friday and will do the same.
I am fed up with people taking our portal (let’s not forget that collectively we own it) and taking it in directions that couldn’t be further removed from its original objectives.
In total there will be 20 meetings so let’s have 20 groups each with a democratic voice and view as to where we want to see our portal heading over the months and years to come. There is so much more that could be done to improve the visibility of OTM but it starts with improving support and increasing stock.
In my opinion, I no longer trust the recently re-elected board of Agents Mutual to act in the agents best interests. We do not need to be dictated to. As agents at the ‘coal face’ we are best placed to understand why we need a strong agent owned portal in the years to come.
It’s time to come together and make our thoughts known.
Well said!
I get the impression the board perceive this as a foregone conclusion that it will happen.
What possible reason would there be for allowing ‘virtual offices’. Can anyone explain how that is of any benefit to members with the costs of real offices?
If it’s because they claim they will not be able to exclude online listers after flotation, then I would suggest they charge by postcode covered. Maybe, for instance, your membership fee includes five postcode districts (e.g B1) adjacent to each other, and you are allowed five properties outside those at any one time (to cover the odd listing outside your normal area).
I assume they’ve consulted a number of gold members in advance of the “roadshow” and believe they’ll be pushing at an open door. Whether they’re correct, we shall see. 90% is a lot of opinion to swing and if PIE is any barometer there’s quite a few with a foot on the other side of that door.
If the board persuade us to de-mutualise and list on the stock market then quite simply we will become a profit driven organisation and we lose control.
It would be virtually (pun intended) impossible for us to refuse fee paying agents whether they are virtual offices, listing agents or anything else. The view of members with real offices will be outweighed by the other shareholders who have invested to make a profit.
It’s game over as far as any input is concerned.
It’s an interesting dilemma as we do need an injection of cash if we are going to get the advertising out there.
The online agent ‘inclusion’ is only there if we allow it. AM was set up as a democratically owned (if not run) entity. This should be a negotiation not a dictation. The Board can recommend; the members can approve or decline using their 6 Sept vote. In the meantime, IF enough of us feel strongly about issues like online membership of our portal then we have a voice. If we don’t speak up, we can’t complain if the outcome goes against us.
It would be interesting to know if the last two contributors were OTM members. We have tried the original method but not enough agents had the backbone to man up and join. If you are not a member then you should be. If not you will be the reason if project OTM fails.
Yes – I am, thank you.
And I disagree with your analysis of why Agents didn’t join.
Yes we are a gold member with 7 sales and lettings offices and we have “plenty of skin in the game”
“not enough agents had the backbone to man up and join”
I’m in the not enough agents catagory and I can assure you that my decision was a calculated, thought out, business decision. Having had four meetings with AM prior to the launch of OTM I was left completely underwhelmed by the board and agent tasked with explaining why I should invest into OTM. I completely agree with the cause however the execution by the management has been dreadful.
If you agree with the cause why are you not a member? The execution quality would not have been so important if all agents had joined.
And you still want to join Judus and his Mayfair Men?
Rod75 what a ridiculous statement to make – the execution and planning of the portal was critical to its success regardless of how many agents joined as in order to be successful and achieve the goal they set out to do, it had to change the publics opinion from using the two largest portals to one that hadn’t even started yet.
‘Virtual offices’ are believed to be included in the tariffs.
At the same rate as a physical office, I trust…?
And that ‘Dislike’ would be for what reason, precisely…?
So the portal owned by agents for agents is now going to become a listed company with its main priority, returning a profit to the shareholders ! sound familiar ?
We where also told that online agents wouldn’t be allowed to advertise on OnTheMarket as they are all about supporting real estate agents, that to has now gone !
Definitely going to one of these to see how he tries to dodge the questions in person