Two City consultancies have been quick to interpret the rebellion by OnTheMarket member agents as an indication of dire changes - or worse - facing the portal, including possible claims for compensation.
Credit Suisse, which has a respected team of real estate analysts, titles its note to investors ‘Beginning of the end of OTM exclusivity?’
The bank’s analysts throw their weight behind the formation of an Action Group - as reported by Estate Agent Today earlier this week - and says in its note: “The formation of an action group for ‘disillusioned’ OTM members gives a clear and coherent voice to unhappy OTM members and in our view makes a challenge to the enforceability of OTM’s Exclusivity Clause more likely. ... Should the action group be able to prove that OTM has broken contracts with member agents, those agents could look for financial recompense; if able to get it this would clearly further hamper the financial position of OTM.”
Credit Suisse’s note gives its backing to an Action Group, saying: “We have previously argued that dissatisfied member agents could consider fighting back against OTM. However given the typically small size (and correspondingly small financial fire power) of most agents, a legal battle with OTM would likely be unpalatable. We see the formation of a group of agents with a common view as positive as it gives these agents a clear coherent voice and allows them to share any legal costs between them. Beyond that the publicity afforded the action group should also bring forward further dissatisfied agents who have not yet spoken out.”
The bank - which has discussed the Action Group with its founder Iain White - says: “We are unsurprised to hear that he has had a significant number of responses from agents dissatisfied with the service offered by OTM but unsure of their legal positioning. We believe this gives further credence to our view that agents are in fact dissatisfied but it also raises the probability of an action group launching a legal challenge against the enforceability of the OTM contract.”
In another note to investors, Jefferies - another independent consultancy, although one which has advised Zoopla in the past - says: “The Action Group may act as a catalyst for the relaxing of the 'one other portal rule', which, in our view is rather anti-competitive and not in consumers' interest. It appears to us that OTM members are increasingly starting to believe it is not in their interests either.”
As with much of the past week’s debate surrounding OnTheMarket, it is the fees paid by early-joining agents that, in Jefferies’ view, marks the likely focus of dissent and possible legal action.
“According to the contracts they signed, Gold and Silver members - who joined OTM before the launch of its consumer facing website in January 2015 - will always be charged at the most competitive rates for OTM's services. However we also understand that as OTM seeks to convert 'Letters of Intent' into signed contracts, it has offered rates in the region of £50 per month as an incentive to join OTM. Clearly many who are paying higher rates than this believe that the mutual's treatment of its members is far from mutual” says the Jefferies note.
Meanwhile yet another City consultancy - the BNP Paribas bank - has written on the subject to its investor clients.
It says it sees the trade publicity surrounding the formation of an Action Group as “a small positive for Zoopla” but cautions against “any imminent major shift of membership back from AM to Zoopla.”
It says the reasons behind the caution include the fact that the bank believes most of the agents involved were already considering leaving Agents Mutual, or had chosen to do so, and were facing legal action for reneging on the terms of their contract.
BNP Paribas also says Agents Mutual membership was growing as recently as January “and has lasted well beyond initial consensus expectations” and that it appears only about four per cent of existing members are believed to be involved in the Action Group.
In addition, it says any legal action will take months if not years, limiting any rapid change to the equilibrium.
The bank also reiterates its long-publicised view that the commercial impact of leaving Zoopla “has proven somewhat limited for estate agents” although it goes on to say that “on the lettings side we see Zoopla's impressive lead generation as a more critical factor in agent decision making.”
The bank’s note to investors concludes by briefly addressing the controversy over an alleged £50 per month contract offered to agents by Agents’ Mutual/OnThe Market. “We await further details but would be surprised if AM had pursued a new contract that jeopardised the contractual security of their existing membership base” it says.
.png)
.jpg){kind=logo}
.jpg)
%20-%20IMAGE%20Client%20Accounting%20%E2%80%93%20what%20are%20your%20options.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
%20(002).png)
%20(002).jpg)
.png)
Join the conversation
Jump to latest comment and add your reply
The 'one other portal' rule and the complaints being raised by these unhappy agents are unrelated. The argument that this group (as I understand it) is making is that they never would have signed the contract had they known OTM would not keep their promise of giving Gold and Silver agents the best rate. The inevitable result of OTM offering new agents this £50 rate is that everyone ends up either stepping away, or paying £50! Either way, this duck is dead.
When Rightmove set up, I was told, it was better the agents / industry collectively set up a portal, rather than an outside company like Richard Branson or Autotrader setting up a portal. The corporate agents are laughing all the way to the bank, they have made millions in profit from shares in Zoopla and Rightmove and now receive heavily discounted rates, much, much lower than a stand alone Independent office. OnTheMarket has circ. a third of all UK agents listed with them and to push through into the second biggest leading portal, they need to persuade the last few agents to try OTM, even with discounted fees (just like both Zoopla and Rightmove do). The 'One other portal' rule is in place so agents are not worse off, rather than paying for 2 portals, forced to pay for 3 portals. The difference now is OnTheMarket is owned by the agents, as a mutual. No massive profits for a select few shareholders. All profits can go back into developing the business, the agents collectively own. I'm very pleased, I use OnTheMarket as a Unique Selling Point, than corporate agents can't offer or be part of. In the area I operate On The Market is already the second biggest property portal with independent estate agents and growing with more members joining every month. If it has the available property stock, the public will visit to find the best home in the market.
Although OTM and AM are a mutual they don't act like it.
Did you have a say in the overseas portal? Did you hacve a say in the fact they now power Countrylife's homesearch? - Is it really benefitting all members or just some?
you say there are 'no massive profits for shareholders' but shareholders are the driving force behind Z and RM success - yes there fees are high but they do the job they are given to do, something an estate agent should be well aware of (cough Online agents cough).
AM should have never agreed to reduce some fees to £50 a month when others pay through the nose for the same service as they are a MUTUAL - everyone in this together. They have lost credibility (if these £50 contracts prove to be true)
Please login to comment