In accounts for the year ended April 30, 2017, newly filed at Companies House, Emoov reveals net liabilities of £583,824.
The figure was up from the £275,896 given in restated accounts on October 31, 2016.
The overall loss in the year to last April 30 was £583,824, up from £275,896.
The unaudited accounts do not show Emoov’s income.
A note to the financial statement says: “The directors have continued to review the company’s cash flow forecasts and consider that significant additional funding will be required in order for the company to meet its ongoing requirements for at least the next 12 months.”
Reference is made to “ongoing discussions with investors”.
Emoov duly did raise more money, announcing in August last year that it had raised £9m in a new fund-raising round, led by James Cox of JCX Ventures and including Gaby Salem of Wharton Asset Management.
Emoov went on to close a £1m investment with the Korea Investment Partnership in December.
Comments (65)
I think some of you dinosaurs should have a look at how “tech” investment works……they may be posting losses but it’s a long term play for businesses like emoov – wishful thinking im afraid if you think disruption isn’t occurring and winning….most importantly the end customer will win – that’s what disruption is about….
I bet mr quirk has had a couple emovements after seeing those accounts
Hard to see why they ain’t flying high. “Instructions” seem to be rolling in.
Take this property, listed yesterday (18/4/18) for example:
rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-53959368.html
But… one or two things in the details whispered “potential #portaljuggle” at me –
“**REDUCED FROM £595,000** “
“Viewings from 21st November”
So I did a bit of ankle-gnawing – and look what fell out from behind the sofa:
rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-50758650.html
Same property – listed between 27 September 2017 and 4 January this year. It therefore escapes the Rightmove ’14-week rule’ by one whole week!
Their numerical diligence doesn’t end here though – same property:
rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-46962717.html
The listing period for this try-out ran from 21 February to 9 June 2017. Again, a fifteen-week break between outings – and even a few different photos from this one to the next – presumably to throw Rightmove and whoever else might be looking at this sort of thing off the scent of a relisting.
Now if only they got a fee for every time this property (and others) trundled out for a few weeks, their P&L might look a little…
…less ‘L’.
Just a quick observation that no-one seems to have touched on yet…
These “latest” accounts are A YEAR OLD!
Where reference is being made to some regarding “next year’s figures” – that money has pretty much already been earned and, presumably, spent (x several).
Including all the costs associated with a rebrand and TV/Radio advertising (which in my areas seems to have done nothing to improve their market penetration).
Surely a switch to NSNF will drive a huge three month whole through their cash flow. Everybody else will want paying but no income until the exchanges start coming in. Not sure I would like to be a FD or an employee of a company trying to negotiate that.
This business model will continue to require millions and millions in advertising; rightmove had to do.
No Mooooovment, No Improvement.
The disruptors and disrupting themselves. FACTS ARE REVEALED.
Who will buy out who?
These company shares should come with an EXTRA FCA warning.
Its a scam!! Investors need to be warned.
The NSNF option isn’t going to be the saviour of the online only Johnnies.
To get a buyer at a price a seller will take and get it through to completion takes more than just whacking it onto RM.
They’ll have to invest in more people and a wider marketing spread all out of a low fixed fee. If they don’t they won’t get a fee at all.
NSNF, the future. Who would’ve have thought it !
.
You really shouldn’t get your darts correspondent to review financial accounts. I have seldom read such nonsense. The person who wrote this article has absolutely no understanding of what they are reporting on. There was not ‘a loss of just over £10m – £10,087,373 – up from £6,970,061’ the movement in reserves indicates a loss of £3M, which is slightly less than the previous year. Nor was ‘The overall loss in the year to last April 30 was £583,824 after assets were taken into account, up from £275,896’, which is not only inaccurate but contradicts the previous statement. The figures misquoted relate to the Net Worth of the business and have nothing whatsoever to do with the profit for the year.
So, new poster, does YOUR analysis show that they’re doing great then compared to what has been written above? Please tell.
So; the report writer is a moron as the company are doing less appallingly. SEMANTICS!
@Numerate81
Thank you to the Chief Financial Officer at No Movement, for the clarification.
Any chance you can give us a forecast, now that there is No Sale No Fee Option. NSNF is the death of FSBO sites like No Movement and Not Simple, and its happening slowly at the cost of experienced Estate Agents.
The only real winner is Rightmove.
Is this the one with the silly sheep boards? Bas!
No that’s ewemove.
I think it’s very hypocritical of people continually mocking the online guys majority of the high street is loosing money not all branches are profitable and are closing down countrywide share price ? Foxtons revenue ? Acquisitions left right and centre ?
The reason for this growth is because of the poor service provided by a huge range of agents so I don’t understand why people talk about service all the time.
Lots of businesses lose money for a long time before their profitable. PB will at some point be profitable investors are too deep in to pull out now once they are no one can say anything, with tenant fees being banned and online agents market share growing like it or not high street is going down these so called dumb investors have already made millions and are investing in the future.
If you think it will all crash start shorting the stock now ?
Don’t be confusing the likes of CWD, LSL, Haart & Connells with the majority of agents being the independents. The aforementioned make very little profit on a branch by branch basis compared to their entrepreneurial independent counterparts. LSL recently announced they were delighted with £33k profit average from their branch network. Prior to selling my business I would have been deeply disappointed if that was the profit in a month from my business. I suspect and know that the independents make a lot more profit than their corporate counterparts owing to their efforts, skill, experience and acumen. Corporate operations make theirs from scale and volume.
Investors make their money from sensible investment and not blindly throwing good after bad. It’s not all about share price. Long term return, dividend yield and security is the mantra of Buffet. You seem to suggest the opposite which is the mantra of Axelrod. An amusing fanatasy but, fantasy nonetheless.
sounds like you probably sold your business a long time ago.
An ‘exceptional full service’ orientated model will be the eventual winner.
That’s a hybrid then ?
This post will not age well.
Antisocial media; it’s a beautiful thing.
As this ‘disrupter’ chapter plays out and now appears to be becoming what existing and traditional agents thought it would be, I hope that the attention demonstrated can be refocused on the quiet, malignant entity that has been sucking the blood from agents for almost two decades now.
Its about time that Rightmove were brought to heel by the industry that they have been ‘feasting upon’ ravenously. There is not one agent that, to a lesser or greater degree, doesn’t feel abused by the ever increasing costs and low value in return, dished out by RM; or am I wrong??????
I fail to understand why all the estate agents across the land don’t dvelope their own non profit making platform and tell RM to eff off. Is’t that what On The Market was supposed to do?
your suggestion would require cooperation which is sadly lacking and the OTM thing played out and showed that whatever noble intent was promised, the lure of a few quid to a few people was greater. Assuming there was noble intent in the first place and not just a cynical ploy?
Perhaps the time is coming where a true mutual can be created featuring only independent agents where that collective can dictate to RM ZPG & OTM that enough is enough.
Philosopher2467
Perhaps the time is coming where a true mutual can be created featuring only independent agents where that collective can dictate
I really hope that this is precisely what ‘Collective Marketing’ will achieve!
Taking money up front is only okay as part of a fee offering, a registration fee or marketing fee for example with a reduced completion fee as a trade off perhaps.
The pay up front brigade are finding to their peril that they cannot make ends meet; as was always going to be the case on their low fees.
Looking forward to seeing PB’s account.
It’s getting to the point where they’re NEVER going to publish accounts.
What a mess, you have to worry for the everyday staff at emoov when shocking figures get published like this.
Agree, it is the staff who put their trust and faith, their everything into making this happen who become victims. No matter how much they give it won’t make up for a bad business model, a bad board or bad management.
I have sympathy for the friends , family and staff who invested money into the firm, it’s natural to invest and help someone so close, they’re victims too.
The smart investors have already distanced themselves from agency disruption, they worked out it isn’t going to happen in the way described. The late to the party investors? They got on a bus 1 stop from the depot; “sorry son this bus terminates here”
As usual Robert your comments are on point and I totally go along with your concerns for staff, their familes well being.
In a wider context beyond the specifics of emoov and looking at Axel Spinger taking up position with Purple Bricks, Springers hold business ethics and staff relations at the core of their company. I therefore assume it will not be long bfore they insist on applying these principles to how Purple Bricks operate.
As the need for more funding arises there’s seems little doubt they will flex their considerable financial muscle to bring changes in line with business ethics.
This will no doubt mean acquiring an additional “high margin” product line with a high customer return rate. Something which on line hybrids like Purple Bricks don’t have but absolutely need.
Thank you.
Agency is a service industry, it simply can’t be disrupted by cash alone. There are some storming good local property experts who are as good and in some cases better than many local agents, the problem anyone trying to disrupt agency has is that there simply aren’t enough exceptional agents to see the project through to success; the weak ones let the good ones down. Franchises like M&C learned that 18 years ago and put a stop to it.
Traditional agency doesn’t need much assistance to end disruption, that assistance is on its way to the point where some people can hear the thunder of the hooves and feel the vibrations through their feet.
If Springers ‘hold business ethics and staff relations at the core of their company’, then they will insist on bringing their LPEs within the business as employees rather than self-employed separate entities, carrying individual cans for regulation and compliance. LPEs sub-contracting their services to ‘who knows?’ is something that really concerns me.
I shouldn’t give much thought to the emoov staff. They made a choice; they should live with it. The ‘disrupters’ didn’t come into the industry for any ‘philanthropic’ or ‘higher moral’ calling. They came in as they thought agents have been ‘having it away’ for years. Greed, self interest and possibly a malicious desire to damage the livelihoods of a significant amount of people who try and work very hard to do a good job for their clients. They have tried to revolutionise an industry that needed evolution only. The increased regulation is long overdue and I suspect when all is said and done there will be a few ‘agency lite’ operations left doing a mix of upfront fees and nsnf but, the experiment as people have said of the ‘Emperors new clothes’, will become abundantly clear, was the mirage most believed it to be all along. Roll on 2018!
There are always two sorts of staff, the support and administrators have taken passive roles which they believed secure, they aren’t the shouty ones who wanted to put agents out of business. They’re not the ones making claims that can’t be substantiated or doing the day to day spivvery the decent people in the industry despise so much.
That may or may not be the case. What is certain is that those ‘innocent souls’ are there to assist those I believe are less benign! I’d much rather see their attrition than experience their actions creating my own.
Fair point. Are you happy to spare them if they get up quietly and leave now?
Depends on what they did, what collaboration has taken place and whether I’d be prepared to believe that they were ‘just following orders’!
befehl ist befehl?
Let’s not get onto that subject Robert.
Abdication of personal responsibility of ones actions is pathetic, no excuse and unworthy. My sympathy sits firmly with those that have or about to lose their jobs in the agencies that were there before and not with those jumping onboard the disrupter bandwagon.
No sympathy for investors either unless of course their brokers/advisers have invested unwisely on behalf of their clients, without their knowledge.
Speculators get what they deserve. Some you win; some you lose.
Especially when they are misreported by a financial illiterate who doesnt know what they say. The name was the only accurate part of that article.
I’m guessing if you know that for a fact the story will get taken down and an apology issued. Much as everone Russell has been rude at is enjoying his humiliation it simply isn’t fair on the staff or investors to suffer because of it.
“The unaudited accounts do not show Emoov’s income” in a way they; do £10,087,37.01 not enough.
Even if Emoov is at that point were the next 20,000 instructions were pure profit they are 20,000 instructions shy of making a profit.
If the existing staff are flat out trying to generate a profit they need enough staff to take on an extra 55 properties a day, every single day for the next year.
They are not winning enough business, they are spending money they don’t generate and are not charging enough. Good luck convincing investors there is either growth or income opportunity. Every day past the promised tipping point (2016) makes that that harder and harder.
Look at the king , Look at the king…… yeah, yeah, yeah, we know. The king is naked , the king is in the altogether, and all that. He’s been wandering around like that for a few years now. Best say nothing, let him get on with it.
Perhaps the time is coming where a true mutual can be created featuring only independent agents
I really hope that This is precisely what ‘Collective Marketing’ will achieve!
Sorry this was posted in the wrong place.
“2016 will be the turning point” @emoovCEO “We are a growth business. Profit is forecast for 2018”
August 2015
That will be the market then that has prevented the forecast. Or, could it be a flawed business model poorly executed?
I wonder how many property sales the £10 million loss relates to. If it is say 10,000 that is £1,000 investor subsidy per property……bringing the true cost up to what many Full Service Agents charge throughout most of the country…..if not more.
For instance their no sale no fee including subsidy would be £2,495 …..nearly 25% higher than our average fee.
I understand that out of all the Call Centre Listers, emoov claim to employ people and provide more service than the other CCL’s….but there is no way they can provide the same kind of service as a caring local Full Service Independent………so where is there any real benefit in this model, when it is more expensive?
No matter what losses they make until they fold these on-line agents are costing traditional agents dearly, reduced fees and lower stock levels make it a very difficult market, loose one or two properties a month to these guys and there goes your profit margin. There are a lot of good agents going out of business to a business model that is never going to work while blind investors are pumping money in by the sack load, don’t they remember the dot com bubble bursting?
That is the great shame in all of this…..the desire of people who want to become incredibly rich, using investors money, is destroying many small local economy businesses.
And I’m sure the publics hearts will bleed for us poor Estate Agents. My view is we are all partly responsible for not educutating sellers enough. If they don’t know the difference between what we do and what they do – who’s to blame?
Hmm. ‘Educutating’. I rather like that as a new word. I shall use it. 🙂
The plaintive call of the uncompetitive down the ages.
I’ve been trying to educate vendors for 34 years. Most still opt for the cheapest option and are too embarrassed to call when when the cheap option fails.
Numerate81
The plaintive call of the uncompetitive down the ages.
I don’t understand this comment….probably everyone posting on here has always had to be competitive to survive, when owners have always had the choice of at least 5 or 6 competitors to choose from.
All these losses are based on the gamble that these companies will have had 25% of the market by now, but bearing in mind they are at around a fifth of that, investors must be losing patience. How often can the kids keep going to mum and dad for a hand out before mum and dad say enough is enough, get a job if you want some money. Maybe Quirky is too busy doing his radio shows and hob nobbing with the celebs to focus on his proper job
Quite right Shaun77, following on from yesterday’s news that Housesimple are now NSNF, this is only going to go one way. If you become reliant on sale completion to get paid you’re going to need Full Service Agency staff levels to do it, and you won’t be able to do that on a £1000 average fee? It’s simple maths….
Once this lot get into a fee war it will be the quickest race to the bottom you’ll ever see.
The truth will out my friends and I don’t know why I even bother responding to articles like this anymore, more fool me?
Is there anyone who can say with any confidence that the hybrid model works as a viable business and worthwhile investment? Can and will it ever be profitable? I genuinely would like to know at what point they will get into the black. The amount of investor money ‘tossed’ away must be staggering. At least the majority has been spent in the economy in terms of advertising I suppose, that must be the only positive out of what is now becoming a dabacle of ‘last minute dot com’ proportions.
Think this depends on your definition of hybrid. If you mean a national agency acting as an “order-taker” that relies on the “stack em high sell em cheap” approach then I suspect not. They are cannibalizing their own market space rather than increasing market share from my vantage point.
With the investment these companies are getting it does make you wonder though.
It also depends on from what perspective you are looking to decide if it the model is viable – from the original owner’s perspective it is extremely viable to take investors cash & to extract some value. From the investors perspective , less so.
Wait until the following year’s accounts come out that include the costs of the rebrand and TV/Radio advertising. I don’t think it will be pretty.
Going forward, their proposition is going to suffer as those in the online space start slashing their NSNF packages.
The emporer is starting to look a little under dressed…
So funny. These dumb investors who keep on investing. Please smell the coffee and wake up.
An £11 BILLION ” just waiting to be owned by 1 clever onloine agent mr dragon”
divided by 12000 agents =£91,000 per agent
=sounds about right,