Russell Quirk, founder of eMoov which is looking to raise £1m via crowdfunding and valuing itself at £20m, says he will welcome estate agency investors.
He said this would be the equivalent of sleeping with the enemy and that he would even consider a discount.
Quirk, who yesterday invited early interest in a crowdfunding round which goes live later today, told EYE: “Even your most caustic of contributors are most welcome to invest.
“I’d even consider a special ‘Sleeping with the enemy’ discount.
“They know it makes sense.”
Quirk says that he anticipates online agency to have 20% market share by 2020, by which time he expects annual revenues for eMoov to be £60m.
Our full story is here
Comments (81)
SO… along I goes – teddy and pillow at the ready for our sleep-in (although I did expect it to be more of a stay-awake, if being honest…) – chucks The Quirkster a few questions in relation to his proposition – and HEY PRESTO! my comment is immediately reported, removed “for moderation” and responded to by the man himself – me being referred to as being “somewhat of an antagonist in the industry in your mission to troll online estate agents” (still not sure whether that is an insult or a compliment…)
Simple fact being – he dodged the questions I raised.
I wonder why… and STILL want answers.
Not sure what you asked but having invited you to get into bed with him it’s a bit churlish not to want to want your questions about the pitch to appear.
It’s all well and good having Ros publish this sort of story but its a bit of a dummy spit when the consequences of several years of antagonising starts to bite back.
I found this from January 2015 ” and I’m confused by it
“We’ve taken the lead position in the online estate agents market – which has doubled its market share every year since 2010,” comments Russell Quirk, CEO.
If 2010 = 1%, 2011 doubles up to 2, 2012 = 4, 2013 =8, 2014= 16 so 2015 should double up again to 32%. Somehow I think the people who pumped £1.5 million into Emoov in January presumably supported by claims like this aren’t really questioning what is being said.
Now given Rightmove in 2010 said online agents had a 2% market share 2% compound 2 x 5 years = 64% market share.
so 64% of 1 million sales per annum at £500 a pop is £320,000,000 and they are not making a profit? Where is all that cash going?
Trevor Mealham – you state “Being from the traditional homestead I hate to say it, but on customer experience they are outshining many traditional agents.”
Sir – you are confusing ‘ratings’ with ‘reality’. Mr Rater himself openly stated here on EYE as recently as June that ONE IN SIX of all attempted Estate Agent reviews “are efforts by agents, or someone they know, to falsify their own or a competitor’s reputation.”
I would suggest that the 1 in 6 is only the ones they spot easily.
Why oh why do we keep arguing about these things.
The business model is designed to be able to float when the timings right, it’s not about quality estate agency, providing a service or anything else. It’s about filling the pockets of those at the top.
Whether you agree with them or not, its getting column inches and will inevitably drag more and more investment until it reaches their target.
Most sensible comment of the day
I’ve got two emoov properties located 1/4 of a mile away from where we predominantly sell properties – looking at their adverts, I can’t believe people pay them a penny to sell their homes. When you look at most “traditional” estate agents these days, most are using wide angle lens shots and they look 10x better.
As a company who are supposed to be tech savvy to be still using a Panasonic Lumix sort of thing you take on holiday, you definitely don’t get value for money.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34839921.html
Classic example.. excellent marketing eMoov, well done!
Added on Rightmove:
11 May 2013
Bet if you call you cant get a viewing, probably only on to fix listings numbers.
One isolated week in the middle of summer in Lincoln.
112 properties listed as new in the past 7 days. 4 have been listed with online agents (3.57%). Emoov have listed nothing in that area this week.
So… ‘observer’ makes the following point in a post:
“Once upon a time comments and forums used to have prolonged and exacting debate on the merits of point and counter-point. Shame”
Interesting – when considering I was responding to the previous post which simply said”
“I’m not making a massive thing out of it, I pointed out based on average prices what they have taken in fees from the high street and asked if it worried anybody. Clearly it doesn’t worry you”
Talk me through where the “prolonged and exacting debate” starts and finishes with that comment, please?
Ironic, innit!
That’s definitely not irony. It is probably hypocritical so I’ll give you that but I think anybody that reads through the posts can see who is trying to have a considered and reasoned debate and who isn’t.
Oh – and don’t forget – your carefully chosen ‘Like’ and ‘Dislike’ mouse-clicking frenzy backs you up to the hilt on that matter.
If you can’t debate… ‘Dislike’.
It says a lot about you that you care about likes and dislikes when we are discussing the future of your industry. I couldn’t care less how many likes or dislikes I get. I’d just like to see some reasoned debate. I’m pretty sure I’ve debated quite carefully and in a considered manner throughout except when sucked into your world. That was my mistake and won’t happen again. You; however, resort to petty squabbling and do not tackle the main issues. I wish you all the luck in the world and a good weekend.
That’s one nutrient-rich comment – a veritable dumper-truck full of ******** added to previous piles of the same.
Le’s look at an example or two of where you say you believe you have “debated quite carefully and in a considered manner”, shall we?
“For the sake of the 600,000 employed in your industry I hope it is the former. Then again estate agents can sell to ice to eskimos can’t they, so I guess they’ll be fine.”
A TOTALLY incorrect figure – out of the window goes the ‘careful’ element when it suits you – followed by a glib sarcastic pop at the industry.
“The agents that employ 19 year old who look good in a suit are the ones that need to be concerned.”
Why? Who are you to know whether that 19 year-old has not the capability, drive and passion to outperform every other Agent within a 20-mile radius?
Age is only a barrier in the narrow minds of the likes of you, and thankfully that is a minority. Our industry is a people business – and good Agents know and understand people better than most – whether they be nineteen or ninety.
You might need to ask a people-person to explain that one to you.
Anyway – enough of the examples – I’ve embarrassed you enough for one day.
I’m sure you will want to think people will see your move as a ‘tactical withdrawal’.
In reality – you’re fleeing like a scalded cat from a boiling cauldron.
I don’t blame you.
Good evening. I WILL have a good weekend – and I wish you the same.
As for ‘luck’ – thanks but I have more than enough already and I really don’t think your offering was particularly genuine.
If it’s all the same to you I’ll just keep that which I currently enjoy.
Only FIVE ‘Dislikes’?
I’m disappointed. I expected better of you.
There are many, many, hugely profitable businesses which began by building market share and name awareness, based initially on a highly price competitive price strategy, whilst knowing that initial loss making years would result.
These businesses either need their own funds to cover the initial losses or the funds of investors willing to stay the course until the (hopefully) profitable period begins. Posters laughing at Emoov for not being profitable now don’t understand some simple business history. Google, Amazon and Facebook are just three major examples of businesses which required massive continued funding before they became profitable.
However, the problem Emoov have can be learnt from another business history lesson.
Businesses which develop an existing small market mainly based on a price USP, in this case usage of OEA’s, can become the victim of their own success ie., once the price conscious sector of Joe Public ‘gets’ using OEA from the greater advertising etc., guess what they do … they go for the cheapest price.
Emoov, and other high spending OEA’s, may do all the hard work creating awareness of OEA’s only to find that as soon as a significant demand is created a thousand and one new OEA’s both national and local spring up with prices from £99+vat or even less.
IMO online agents will gain a 20%+ share within 5 years … but who the winners and losers will be is far from certain. The dominant OEA will have to offer far more than price as a USP and be ultra efficient in creating other profit earning opportunities from its clients other than just instruction fees.
‘observer’ – you state
“You can make claim and they can make counter claim and nobody outside of these pages will pay any attention.
But (and I will repeat this bit)…”
You say yourself no-one OUTSIDE is listening.
No-one INSIDE is listening.
So WHY BOTHER? Either someone pays you to preach – or you have more than a vested interest.
All we need to figure is which – either way your agenda is sunk.
I think you misunderstood but not to worry, kids are back so I’m off.
In my absence if you’d care to focus on the more important point of how to prove that the value increase in your fees is commensurate with the service delivered I will look forward to your well articulated response later. With LOTS of capital letters HOPEFULLY
They don’t have to, most traditional agents are showing a positive trendline growth courtesy of a rising market whereas COAR agency is in a race to the bottom with equally aggressive entrepreneurs who have skilfully inflation proofed their fee structure and are showing negative trendline performances.
Let’s hope investors don’t spot that!
They will have to prove that over time. You say nobody has heard of these passive intermediaries and yet they still have 2-8% (who actually knows – please don’t show any anecdotal evidence it is a waste of everyone’s time) of the market and are growing year on year. If eMoov’s boast of 8% for online agents is true that means at the average dinner party of 12 people – 1 will have used an online agent (yes there are a lot of assumptions in there but the point stands). If they had a bad service then traditional estate agents have nothing to fear. If they had a good service (eMoov top 10 for customer service out of 25,000) then traditional estate agents have to prove their value.
As Harree states below it is not a clear path but at some point people will start to ask questions of traditional estate agents. Such as “Why are you charging more to sell my property than you would have done last year?” Also, “why do I pay more to sell my house just because it is worth more?”
People will ask these questions and agents will need answers.
If you honestly believe that in 30 years time there will be 600,000+ estate agents still using the same business model, the same cavalier attitude to customer service and still employing 19 year olds with no qualifications then well, I don’t know!
There will be change. Agents have to choose whether to be part of that or whether to keep their heads in the sand. For the sake of the 600,000 employed in your industry I hope it is the former. Then again estate agents can sell to ice to eskimos can’t they, so I guess they’ll be fine.
There aren’t 600,000 employed in agency, that would equate to 30 staff per office and a wage bill of about £16.5 billion. With only about £2.34 billion total coming in in commissions your numbers don’t make sense.
Ok it’s 596,000 or something.
Office of National Statistics
More estate agents than teachers – makes you think
WRONG.
Sorry – “reasoned debate” goes out of the window when one “considered” word is more than sufficient.
Schoolboy maths exam error logic or ball park check the anwser
1 million completions at £180,000 @1.3% commission divided by 600,000 staff= £3,900 per annum!
There is something wrong with someone’s maths and it isn’t mine.
600,000 agency staff in 20000 offices says there are 30 staff sat in each office.
If you are hanging your argument on figures produced by someone else at least check they are credibly correct, the ONS number can not be correct.
Sorry, just working my way down through this debate. As you say, far better if it stays professional and businesslike.
As for proving ‘our’ worth, we are now using statistics to show real added value when compared to other high street agents, never mind against on-line or hybrid. Link http://bit.ly/WhyPDQ
Online agents have been claiming that they will dominate market share for some time now but, the growth just hasn’t happened (currently fairly static at less than 3%). Their sole USP is that they are supposedly cheaper but; the statistics I have show that even against some of the worst of the high street agents, they perform abysmally badly when you compare instructions to actual sales and, overall cost to consumers factoring in all of the 70% plus of online agents customers who don’t ever sell (70% figure is in the West Cornwall area but, there is anecdotal evidence that this is replicated across England and Wales)
Sorry, my earlier response I think was under the wrong comment. It’s all getting a bit complicated! Customers will have no issue with agents that provide genuine added value and these high calibre agents will always have a part to play in the industry and have little to fear. The agents that employ 19 year old who look good in a suit are the ones that need to be concerned.
OKAY… somewhere above, the ever-positive, High-Street Agent loving ‘observer posts “That’s £14,625,000 worth of fees he has taken from the high street all over the country (£250k x 1.3% x 4,500). Does that not worry anybody?”
Actually – no it’s not. Firstly, it’s a good chunk less than that because your figures are too high and unsubstantiated (especially when eMoov can’t make up their OWN mind whether it’s 4,500 or 3,500 (source: THEIR OWN WEBSITE…) in the five years.
SECONDLY – even if it WAS correct – you are making a mahoosive song and dance about what amounts to LESS THAN ONE SALE PER AGENCY BRANCH, IN FIVE YEARS.
Better luck next time. Being factual helps – you should try it.
OOPS – see Robert beat me to it. That’s what happens when you start to type a response at 9.45 and then let something like a pesky sale negotiation get in the way.
Never mind – BOTH came up as a positive result!
Win:win – just the way I like it! ;o)
I’m not making a massive thing out of it, I pointed out based on average prices what they have taken in fees from the high street and asked if it worried anybody.
Clearly it doesn’t worry you 🙂
Oh – I think you ARE!
We just need to figure WHY.
If somebody has a different opinion to you then they are making a “MAHOOSIVE” thing out of it. Explains a lot. Once upon a time comments and forums used to have prolonged and exacting debate on the merits of point and counter-point. Shame
Slick video but i feel if it was mainstream ASA we pull it straight away.
Also does not mention they run at a loss and that they do not expect to turn a profit for AT LEAST another 3 years!!!!
How many more rounds of crowd funding to keep this limp offering on a life support machine?
How can the staff want to work there? basically what they are saying is, “We have burnt through all our money and close to running out, we need more money to stay afloat”
Try selling that to a Dragon!
You do understand that these online businesses are all about scalability. So yes they will continue to lose money for probably several years. At the point they turn profitable though any growth from there will be almost pure profit because their unit costs are so low once they have covered their fixed costs.
8 years after launch turning a profit???
And that’s best case scenario, considering they have made these bold claims for some time and they keep asking for more money and keep pushing back expected dates to turn a profit. would not inspire confidence in many.
Also do not forget we are in a sellers market. Once the market changes (when rates rise) this offering will not work. They do not have proactive selling staff or experienced negotiators. All they are doing is “Listing” a property and selling / churning the data for cross sales.
Basically you are paying emoove to put your property on the internet and then be sold to.
They are NOT a full service proactive agent. They are listers and you can get away with it to an extent in this market but they will not in a buyers market.
@observer That’s 1 – 0 to smile right there!
I said it elsewhere, Uber lost $300m last year, it is valued at $50bn. Are they going under too?
Difference is Uber is a sound business not reliant or the many factors estate agency does.
Who knows, but they lost $300million dollars last year and the value of the company is only known on the day of the sale. The valuation of $50 billion is simply there to attract people to invest and fund the losses.
I’ve had this discussion in far more depth on another thread and I hate to repeat myself but I’ll precis it for you. They are an alternative. A more and more popular alternative as time goes by.
You can make claim and they can make counter claim and nobody outside of these pages will pay any attention.
But (and I will repeat this bit)…
Unless high street estate agents can prove that their value as a service has increased over the last five/ten years to match house price inflation then these alternative passive intermediaries/listers, call them what you will, will continue to take market share.
As Mr Hill admitted, with increased numbers of estate agents comes increased competition and cost cutting rather than service improvement. This is a recipe for disaster when the customer expects better service for these increases in fees.
Prove to customers in terms that they understand why your service is better now than it was five years ago. Because they are paying more for it and they will want to know why.
Its all well and good telling the board and investors all that but somehow you have got to convince the property owning public most of whom have never heard of any of the passive intermediary listers.
Fortunately, the availability of data can prove exactly that and, as that data (inevitably) becomes available to the public as it does in the USA, only the good agents (high street, hybrid and on-line) who can show real value, will survive and thrive. At present, the data for on-line agents is appalling as far far as customers are concerned. See my blog posts on the topic –
Cheap agents could cost UK consumers half a £Billion in wasted fees | PDQ Property In West Cornwall http://bit.ly/1PA35i8
and
Online agents – Big savings or, paying up-front for failure? | PDQ Property In West Cornwall http://bit.ly/1PA3aCv
Hi Mr Wood thanks for your response. Does the data show that what you deliver is better than what you delivered five years ago? I’m not talking online vs Hugh Street. I think most agree that the value proposition is completely different. What I’m trying to suggest and clearly doing a poor job of it is that customers will start to question more and more why their fees are going up purely caused by house price inflation and not due to any improvement in service. The alternative model is attractive because it isn’t dependent on house prices. Let’s say my home is worth 250k, your home is worth 500k, do I receive a service that is half as good as yours?
How many on here can say they have grown a single office to sell 4,500 properties in five years? Whether you call him an estate agent or not his company has sold 4,500 properties in 5 years from a standing start. That’s £14,625,000 worth of fees he has taken from the high street all over the country (£250k x 1.3% x 4,500). Does that not worry anybody?
It is a worry as Harry Hill said the other day, but all it is doing is eroding fees.
The difference is despite selling 4500 he has yet to even break even let alone provide a return. You cant keep funding!
You will seriously love the plans to halt fee erosion which if you remember was I subject I got heaps of grief for mentioning 14 months ago.
What plans were they?
The actual figure IF claimed volumes are correct is £10.53 million, land registry completions puts the average completion figure at £180 k
So in 5 years that is £2.1/ year spread over 19600 estate agency branches that is £107.44 per year- £2 a week?
No-one has even noticed, fewer care!
What is more of a concern is the fee erosion down to 1.3% caused by such agencies
0.1% fee erosion costs the industry 176 million/annum so about £9000 each/ 0.1%
From reading all of these comments boards, you do care. All of you. If online agents are such a small and insignificant part of the industry, why is that causing fee erosion? If the service they offer is so bad, so useless, why is it causing fee erosion? Or is it actually maybe because there are just too many estate agents…
The fee erosion is being caused by too many people being able to apparently value property and pass themselves off as credible.
The ability to call up advice on value using tools such as Zoopla’s random number generator decieves inept intermediaries and dupes vendor into believing they are receiving professional advice on value.
Removing access to dead file , archive data and understanding the impact of scraped data and internet valuation systems immediately castrates false agents.
There are too many people pretending to be agents, there are too many false claims about service, the solution is to expose both.
Are you prepared to come clean on your background? your posting history suggests you are heavily connected to online agency.
Hi Robert,
When you say pretending to be agents, what do you mean? Does qualifying as a member of the NAEA make you an estate agent? Does walking the streets qualify you as an estate agent? Does knowing the changes in demand levels in an area make you an estate agent?
I guess my question is “What is an estate agent?”
And more importantly “What will an estate agent in 30 years time look like?”
Serious question, I’d love somebody to come up with a genuine well thought out answer. Something that defines the industry and not just some rant against what I believe are fairly objective points.
The Estate Agents act 1979 is a fairly comprehensive guide to Agency hopefully that is well thought out description of the obligations of Agency that if complied with results in an Estate agent
Looking up a Zoopla guess at value and listing a property on the internet isn’t estate agency.
Under the definitions of the 1979 Estate Agents Act, online agents are, estate agents. Certainly there are some on here who will rail against change for changes sake but, the majority who rail against most of the online agents is, as has been said before, that they very often make claims that are provably false and, are, using the data that is available, sorely misleading consumers who see them as a cheaper way of selling property when, in fact, their success rate is, in fact, very low (sub 35% in my area) and, the savings fail to take into account the customers who pay but do not then go on to actually sell.
It’s the future….. Year 2090….. Experts report that after decades of research they still can’t find any trace of profit having existed with the now extinct Emoov reptile!
And this year’s Portal Panto Dame is……. Madame R Quirk!
Ok Russell…. I’m in!…. and my good friends ….The Loch Ness Monster…. ET …. and out of the shadows Lord Lordy Lucan!
Emoov….. The Xmas Musical!….. Yule be Mooved to Tears!
Emoov….. The NEW Xmas Musical!….. Boldly going where it went last year!
Emoov….. really?….. nope! Bored Now! Zzzzzzzz
Brilliant script and brilliant video.
That video, with James Caan, will get them the £1m easily and more, as it will oversubscibe.
But no mention of the ‘P’ word…
Profit!
4 years on – and were’s the P & L?
This is the 3rd round of money lending… Using other peoples money.
Emoov currently has 1,139 properties on Zoopla – If you assume an average 6 month listing span – To sell and complete – That’s roughly 200 new instructions a month.
Net income is £500 (exc VAT) per instruction – So they will get £100k/m, leaving aside add ons from mortgages/referrals etc
42 staff, portal fees, interest, advertising, rent, rates, IT, those consultants….
I would hazard a guess that the cost is way, way north of £100k.
Without a P & L and balance sheet, it beggars belief how anybody would invest, but with crowdfunding, people see the celebs and projections and jump in…
Glenn – from the other story on PIE about this subject.
I noticed in a tweet last night that Mr Quirk said that the Company is expected to make it’s first profit in 2018. That’s 8 years from launch.
Uber made a loss of $300m last year – it is valued at $50bn
A lot of vc’s will build investment and plan to exit?????????? who know’s. Maybe the profits there for those invest at the right time and exit long before the wrong time.
Just looking,
Hamilton Bradshaw Real Estate (James Caan) invested in December 2013, so 21 months ago.
http://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/get-funded/caan-butts-hbre-backs-uks-largest-online-estate-agency-partnership-industry-dream-team/
Emoov secured £1.5m from Episode 1/Simon Murdoch in January 2015 – 8 months ago.
http://techcitynews.com/2015/01/20/emoov-grabs-1-5m/
Given that 2 pots of cash have already being used in 18 months, 3 years is a long way away.
A million pounds?! That’s gonna last all of five minutes
Forgive the cut’n’paste from yesterday’s story – but this is probably more relevant today anyway –
The ‘announcement’ states “Over recent years I have been approached by numerous investors, friends, family, customers, staff and business colleagues who ask ‘How can I invest in eMoov?’ Well this is that opportunity.”
Erm… considering you state in the article above that ““Frankly, we have a professionalism you just won’t find in the high street.”, wouldn’t it have been just a tad more professional – not to mention polite and loyal – to have actually let the know personally, Mr Quirk?
I think what everyone seems to forget is that Estate Agency is a cottage industry and always will be. Generally people want to use an agent on their doorstep who they know and trust which is precisely why many agents have several offices in the larger towns and cities. Good luck Quirck I’m sure there are enough fools out there to give you the money but unfortunatley their money will be lost!
Generally people have wanted to use a local estate agent.
Generally people had no choice about whether to use local or not.
Past performance is not an indicator of future results.
jmeapps – 3 in 4 people move locally. Agents are missing the biggest trick by not B2B working together which is stupid. The sole selling right agreement can lock sellers in which is a threat to budget models and anyone else locked out from access of available listings. Notice I didnt say sole agency. It has to be ‘sole selling rights’
Agency is best served locally, but also max exposure. Look how many agents don’t provide clients exposure on RM and Z??????? silly.
Agency is about tech – front/back end agency and legislation.
Let’s look at a fact and I’ll leave judgement of whether they can hit 20% by 2020 to others.
One randomly chose postcode in Lincoln (LN6) and their market share is currently 0.8%.
0.5% in my area but, they’ll have 20% market share any day soon….apparently
I’m one of the biggest traditional agency model supporters. But facts show eMoov does gain good customer feed back on service provided. It has raised funds from James Caan former dragon and Countrywide via PiLabs, It’s also already got off to a good start on its fund raising.
Rightmove and Zoopla the two high hitter sites both allow it in, where other many other big name agencies opt for just 1 main portal and another that gets low hits.
I’d say that Russell may well hit his mark. Many are knocking, but in fairness he’s doing better growing his agency model than many other agents out there.
The bit I don’t agree with is that budget models will hit 20% market share soon.
The biggest threat to the budget model is agents B2B collaborating with each other which would help retain and gain better fees. Budget models don’t have enough on the bone to comm share. That’s the ‘Achilles Heel’ to budget models having a broken future.
…. and, as importantly, with the volume of transactions taking place, budget models don’t have enough meat on the bone to attract and then keep good staff.
But then again – external finance in can buy very good staff??
Morning Trevor, can you please list the property success stories for Mr Caan and Mr Butt. We have had lots of stories about what is going to happen but no actual evidence of achievement.
It is simply wrong to pick out the best bits and ignore the failed projects.
This is part a a much bigger game of which Emoov appears to be a very vulnerable and possibly sacrificial pawn.
All this celebrity schmoozing is simply cooing at the King in his new cloak while trying to ignore the fact you can see his winky!
In fairness Robert – there are a lot of agents using ‘All Agents’ – eMoov ranks quite high. There are other web references that rank some consumer experiences good via them. Being from the traditional homestead I hate to say it, but on customer experience they are outshining many traditional agents.
All said they are not above traditionals in top places.
http://www.allagents.co.uk/emoov/
Sorry to be picky Trevor, you are answering a different question, The Caan Butt stuff is a big feature of your first post I was trying to understand which bits we have been told so much about are actually delivering to claim.
for example, how is Ivy gate getting on? that was the 2013 ‘big thing’. 2 years of booming market should be good to go shouldn’t it?
look4aproperty and l4ap?.
This is very simple….none of Caan´s estate agency investments have been a success…..yet. However one can imagine their investment in Emoov was at a much lower valuation than 20m so at least on paper, this has the potential. A much better question is “why aren´t Caan and Butt investing in this round nor in the last”
So is it safe to assume the individuals who have crowdfunded or invested in each of the Caan backed/promoted/reassured investments have done done particularly well.
Would it be also safe to guess the sheep investors then don’t say anything about their poor investment decisions out of sheer embarrassment?
Track record is an important factor in investment; is there a track record of success or a track record of failure? Now despite all of these failed projects, Mr Caan is probably making money somewhere, those are the projects to invest in not the feeder failure projects.
Sounding more like Donald Trump but without the money!
This guy even sounds like Del Boy! Full of it …
The best thing is to ignore the story and make no comment at all. This is desperate attention seeking, the sort of thing most kids grow out of by the time they go to big school.
If he can attract investors who don’t do basic due diligence good luck to him it will serve as a salutary lesson to others.