The rise and rise and rise and rise of property portals

by Alistair Helm in


air-aircraft-airplane-728824.jpg

The announcement last month of the acquisition of Zoopla the #2 property portal in the UK by Silver Lake Partners, the US private equity firm for £2,200 million (NZ$4,180 million) was a clear statement as to the confidence the financial markets and their investors have in the business models of digital real estate marketing.

Zoopla is not the leading UK digital property portal. That accolade goes to Rightmove which according to its own stats has 70% of the UK total audience for property searches. Zoopla was only launched in 2008. At that time Rightmove had been in operation for 8 years and had gone public two years earlier. Rightmove in 2008 was generating over £50m in revenue.

Zoopla though was never one to daunted and was ever ambitious, lead by the charismatic and driven CEO Alex Chesterman. Through the first 6 years, the business grew through acquisition of other real estate websites and property publications building a formidable position as the #2 player leading to the IPO in 2004.

The IPO valued the company at £990 million, half the then value of Rightmove. In a savvy move Zoopla offered real estate agent customers the opportunity to buy shares at a 20% discount; a smart move to side step a challenging move by a new industry owned start up OnTheMarket which required loyal agents to sign up to only one of the other commercial portals to try and break the duopoly. Those agents who did and hung on to their IPO shares will likely see a return of 177% in 4 years.

This stellar rise and exit for Zoopla is not an exception in the market of property portals. I thought it would be interesting to do some analysis of the key players around the world to see just how valuable these businesses have become over the years. Many of the leading portals have been in operation now for close on 20 years.

Restricting this review to the UK, Australia, USA and New Zealand is not truly reflective of the global market that sees many massively successful operators – the likes of Seloger in France, Scout 24 in Germany, Zap VivaReal in Brazil to name but a few; however I have observed and researched extensively these key businesses over the years, so feel comfortable commenting on their performance and strategy.

 

3 Leading Property Portals - NZ$30 billion in value

The top 3 portals in my opinion globally are the REA Group, operator of Realestate.com.au in Australia (and other countries), Rightmove in the UK and Zillow in the USA. Together these three businesses have a collective market value currently of over NZ$30 billion. Five years ago those same 3 portals had a market value of just NZ$11 billion. I have for reference included New Zealand’s own Trade Me for reasons that will become obvious as I proceed.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

This scale of growth is spectacular. What is even more spectacular is the relative rise in the market value of these companies measured against their own domestic market index. I have simply indexed the growth in share price to the index at June each year.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

The performance of the REA Group is stunning, eclipsing the performing the ASX market by close on 4 times over the past 6 years. Zillow doubling the Nasdaq index performance and Rightmove outpaced the FTSE 100 by more than double. Sadly though our own NZ digital portal of Trade Me with a broader portfolio than just property has not attained such stellar growth and has fallen behind the NZX index over the same period achieving just half of the market index growth over the past 6 years.

 

Australian international benchmark

The REA Group is now not just an Australia real estate digital portal it has operations in Asia and now the US. This latter move driven by its largest single shareholder News Corporation (owns 60% of REA Group) which acquired the #2 property portal in the USA (Move.com) in partnership with REA in 2014.  However in terms of profitability at EBIDTA level the performance of REA relies almost entirely on the profits of Realestate.com.au, and they keep rising year-on-year with revenue growth in the last financial year of 16% - this is a 20 year old company that added A$92m of incremental revenue last financial year to total A$671m.

REA Group though are not alone in carving out a global powerhouse performance to better all comers, they are actually part of a triumvirate of Australian digital behemoths – REA Group, Seek and CarSales – each are the global benchmark for their category of property, jobs and motors. By no small coincidence the 3 core classified platforms of our own Trade Me.

Presentation1__Autosaved_.png

Just like the REA Group, Seek and CarSales have significantly outpaced the ASX market index over the past 6 years, close to doubling the ASX for CarSales and higher for Seek.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

 

Financial Indexing of Portals

Some further financial indexing provides valuable insight into the relative performance of these global leading portals for property and other classifieds.

In terms of absolute market value the comparison is staggering. REA Group still remains the most valuable property portal keeping Zillow at bay, and a significant 50% more valuable than its jobs portal partner and 3 times the value of the auto portal.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

The inclusion of Trade Me Property is purely as a means to compare the property operation of Trade Me with its peers in other countries. I have purely used the % representation of property revenue as a surrogate for value representation. Sure I know full well that a digital business based on a 4.7 million population of NZ is never comparable with the population of Australia, UK or US; I'll come back to that benchmark shortly.

When it comes to true grunt, any financial expert will tell you that value is only a reflection of profit and this is where the appeal of digital portals comes to light. The EBIDTA margin of these portals is impressive … if you turn a blind eye to Zillow.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

Rightmove is the king of money making – for ever £1 it receives as revenue it spend just £0.27 on running the business allowing it to reinvest 73 pence. Trade Me shows its might just as effectively, with a very impressive 58% EBIDTA margin, ahead of REA and its Australian counterparts whose 31% and 45% are still worthily impressive margins.

This metric of margin is critical in comparing digital portals. The very appeal of digital businesses is scale. The simple principle being that the core cost of a digital platform should cost no more to service for a million users than for 10 million or 100 million. That is why digital businesses can generate such EBIDTA margins. However this is where things get interesting. Why is it that Rightmove serving a UK market of 66 million people can achieve 73% EBIDTA margins whereas Zillow serving a 326 million population can barely scrape 1% margin? Equally how can Trade Me serving a domestic only market of 4.7 million hope to deliver 58% margin?

The answers to these two questions are complex and not directly related. The US market is nothing like Australia, UK or NZ when it comes to property marketing, there is no such thing as paid for subscriptions for listings or vendor paid marketing; leaving Zillow to monetise agent advertising and client leads.

As for Trade Me the very impressive performance of 58% margin may possibly be part of the reason that its market value has not attained the stellar rise of its peers, as a function of stifled ambition and lacking investment courage?

The final metric I will provide is the relative performance of these portals on a per head of population basis.

Listed_portals_market_cap_10_years_analysis.png

Here we see the same stellar performance of REA extracting a market value which equates to over $500 per person in Australia. Trade Me as a group delivers an impressive $406 per person in NZ,  but the truer comparative metric is the equivalent market value of the property sector (based on share of revenue) delivering a market value of just one tenth that of REA. Having said that the surprise is the relative performance of Rightmove at $130 per person in the UK. This potentially portends to the view that the upside for Rightmove is still significant, although the danger is made in assuming the UK real estate marketing landscape is similar to Australia which it is not.

The overriding clarity that these data points highlight is the enormously successful digital property portal businesses that have been developed globally over the last decade, but more significant is the powerhouse operations of digital portals across the Tasman over the same period. What can we as NZ’ers somehow learn from this and more importantly what can Trade Me learn to help it chart a more dynamic path to growth as a true NZ icon in the digital portal space?


Does the iBuyer business model represent true innovation in real estate?

by Alistair Helm in


Presentation1.png

Last week, a new listing came onto the market in the US – a property for sale in Chandler, Arizona. A 4 bedroom home with a price expectation of around NZ$600,000. Not that interesting you would have thought given the fact that probably close to 20,000 new homes come onto the market every day in the US.

What makes this home different from tens of thousands of others is that the owner of the property is Zillow. That is Zillow; as in the largest real estate website in the US – a property portal.

Think about that for a moment, this would be akin to Trade Me listing for sale a property owned by Trade Me having been bought by Trade Me from a Trade Me member!

Let’s be clear this is not happening in New Zealand. At least not yet, and to be honest I don’t think it is something that suits the New Zealand market. However before getting into all that, let me explain what is going on here.

A new segment of the real estate market emerged about 4 years ago in the US. The ever optimistic, cash rich and somewhat over-hyped tech sector turned its eyes, and its investment dollars to the real estate industry and asked the question – “why is it so hard to sell a property in the US, and why does it take months?”

The answer, and therein the problem, lies in a myriad of archaic systems for legal title-management and exchange; and the equally complex processes for mortgage origination. Both of these in theory being digital processes, naturally the tech investment sector said they could fix and in doing so create the opportunity for a viable business model to arbitrage residential property. This new segment of the industry that has emerged has been dubbed the iBuyer market.

The pioneer of iBuyer was OpenDoor, with the fast follower – Offerpad  and now Zillow with Instant Offers, who far from limiting themselves to just being a real estate website, sees value in this real estate service which can leverage their expertise and knowledge base around property data and valuation modelling.

The business model for iBuyer is simple. A homeowner looking to sell goes online and enters their property details, in what is a matter of hours in most cases, the company comes back with an offer to purchase the property. The offer is at around market-value based on their proprietary algorithm of an Automated Valuation Model (AVM). The seller can literally confirm acceptance and choose a completion date and the sale is then completed, and payment is made on the allotted date. There are naturally legal conditions and inspections as well as deductible fees, but pretty much this has to be the fastest and simplest way to transact real estate. So in theory, you could decide to move and within a week or so you could be moved, cashed up and onto a new life!

The process then moves into top gear with the company undertaking a fast and efficient cosmetic makeover of the property in order to get it back on the market in a matter of weeks for a price that they (and their algorithm) feel is the right market price.

The business model of these iBuyer operations is to act as the sellers’ agent, and the buyers’ agent, as well as the property developer; with the clear intention of flicking the property as fast as possible with a reasonable margin on the purchase price, this they seem to be doing.

With the full sales commission charged to the seller, as well as their representation as the owner for the on-sale, the business model allows for a satisfactory margin through the process as well as any improvement margin.

The core value proposition for this business model is speed and the associated removal of stress which has universal appeal. Just recently a survey undertaken by the Real Estate Authority here in NZ found that 35% of sellers found marketing of their property involving the open homes, the toughest part of the process. The iBuyer service removes this completely. It is critical to appreciate that the core value proposition is all around adding value; and has nothing to do with saving costs or a lower priced offer (a critique I made recently as to the only other aspiring innovations seeking to disrupt the real estate industry).

Whilst not a perfect analogy, the market for used cars is somewhat similar. If you want to trade for another car you can just sell to the dealer for cash or trade in your car, so in theory this is the process for your house – at least in the US at this time.

There are elements of the iBuyer business model that are a true disruptions of the real estate process enabled by technology:

  1. The automated valuation model has become a commodified capability, here in NZ as well as most every country of the world, empowering these companies with the core market information, historically tightly held by real estate professionals
  2. The financing of the properties that these iBuyer companies take on, is enabled by technology as they can leverage the necessary debt financing through whatever financial market structure that suits and is available at the time, packaging the portfolio of properties on-hand thereby optimising lending options
  3. Marketing directly to prospective sellers through targeted marketing and in so doing capturing the selling agent commission
  4. Utilising Internet of Things (IOT) to revolutionise the home viewing process. Once a property owned by the iBuyer company is put on the market, prospective buyers can register and access the property remotely through an app that allows unaccompanied viewings with remote security monitoring

These collectively add significantly to this technology-enabled improvement to the process of real estate, and at first sight would appear to be threatening to the traditional real estate profession. However these iBuyer companies are smart to ensure that their long term ambitions to establish a viable and significant market position are not jeopardised by off-siding the industry of agents. Their business model engages agents with a seller and buyer-side commission structure, positioning themselves to be seen as a fellow competitor in the market rather than a looming destroyer of the market process.

It is important to note that the Zillow iBuyer model is somewhat different to both OpenDoor and Offerpad in that Zillow are actually not purchasing properties in their own name, they are facilitating the market-making between willing sellers and financial investors. They are operating in much the same way as they do with their core business in market-making between buyer - agents - sellers - agents. In this way they are keen to avoid the accusation that they are competing with their customers - real estate agents, especially as they lay out the option for sellers to choose to turn down an 'Instant offer' and sell through an agent.

So having identified what these iBuyer companies provide in their business solution the next key question is – will they succeed?

I believe the answer is yes, but not in the sense of a massive disruption to the overall market. This is key, and as any investor pitch-deck will show, even a very small percentage share of the real estate transaction market in the US represents a significant business opportunity. The estimated value of this market is somewhere around US$60 billion so a mere one tenth of one percent would be US$60m turnover.

There are 2 key issues that the iBuyer business faces that I believe are going to restrict the market opportunity. Firstly there is an inherent risk related to the the volatility of the property market and the downside risk of an iBuyer company being saddled with a large inventory they cannot sell without taking a loss on sale, should the market turn down.

Then secondly there is the complete reliance on the automated valuation. The business simply cannot possibly scale if they were to rely on an army of inspectors. As a consequence their risk profile means that they will only offer the solution to what can be thought of as homogeneous houses. This is easily seen by the markets in which they currently operate – Phoenix, Las Vegas, Charlotte North Carolina, Atlanta, Nashville as well as couple of others in the case of OpenDoor. These markets have a growing suburban belt of new homes and the typical house managed through OpenDoor is recently-built homes with a price around the median sale price between $300,000 and $600,000. This is smart. These houses are a commodity that has a low risk of not finding a buyer coupled with a high confidence factor for automated valuation.

In the US this subset of the market still represents a sizeable market opportunity of around $10bn a year. For New Zealand the business model is unlikely to offer such a lucrative market opportunity. Firstly, very little of NZ housing stock falls into the category of truly homogenous - whilst there have been large scale new housing developments in Auckland that mirror the chosen US markets that have been the target of OpenDoor; and undoubtedly there will be more built in the coming years. This market segment will be small, too small for a company to achieve scale. Secondly the NZ market does not experience the same pain point that the US market suffers from, as a consequence of archaic and protracted transaction process. A NZ property can be marketed and legal transaction completed within weeks if necessary, certainly legal unconditional-sale is achievable within a month from listing day - something not achievable in the US, until now.

As to the question posed earlier, could Trade Me offer this solution? - they could, especially if they facilitated a market-making environment with verified investors. By following the Zillow playbook they could very nicely then generate a leads-business for agents of ready sellers. That would be a smart solution that might just see Trade Me advertising a property for sale that Trade Me facilitated the agent-sale of, from a Trade Me member to a Trade Me member, financed through a Trade Me member and managed by a Trade Me real estate agent.


How vulnerable is the $100+bn property portal industry worldwide?

by Alistair Helm in ,


egg-hammer-threaten-violence-40721.jpg

In less than 25 years, a whole new industry has been created. Property Portals, these digital platforms that span the globe, aggregate property listings that serve as the primary advertising for the real estate industry. To the consumer this industry provides the most convenient method for searching properties for sale or rent, whether residential, commercial or industrial. Hundreds of millions of consumers every day.

In aggregate this industry of publicly traded and private companies approaches a collective market cap of something like $100+ billion across every corner of the globe.

The largest of the players would be Zillow with a market cap just nudging $10bn as it begins to eke out a decent (adjusted) EBIDTA which rose to 22% from just 2% the year prior on revenues of $1.1bn. This profitability however looks paltry as compared to the profit powerhouse of Rightmove in the UK which consistently exceeds 70% EBIDTA margins on revenues of $340m which is why it supports a market cap of $5bn.

The list goes on through the likes of the REA Group, ImmobilienScout24, VivaReal, Schibsted and many hundreds of others (including in NZ Trade Me and Realestate.co.nz). Suffice to say this business model of aggregating listings of real estate companies for consumer search supported by premium advertising and listings subscriptions makes for a very lucrative business, one that the incumbents will defend through constant innovation, as well as acquisition. However no industry is ever safe from disruption, especially digital platforms.

Whilst I don’t contend that the demise of these property portals is imminent, I do foresee a risk. A risk every bit as real as the global newspaper industry which became the victims of the property portal success as through the 90’s into the new century their real estate advertising goldmine, began to crumble and today has all but disappeared.

So what is this risk and where will it likely come from?

To understand the risk you need to simply look at the portals’ role. They are an aggregator of both sides of the market in which they operate. They aggregated advertised listings and they aggregate a consumer audience. Their global success has been the ‘winner takes all’ model as the aggregation of the largest audience (although in most countries there is a #1 and a #2 leaving the rest in their wake), audience advantage guarantees dominance in listings, so begets the audience.

But stop for a minute and reflect as to the future of search, after all this is what a property portal is, a search engine. The technology revolution for search is voice. The improvements of the past couple of years has been incredible and the next few years will take us forward beyond our current estimation. The reason why, is the accelerated adoption of ‘home’ devices. The Amazon Echo, The Google Home and the Apple HomePod. For a moment ignore the latter and concentrate on the first two. They are the global powerhouses of search and artificial intelligence, coupled with the global reach that would surpass the local audience of any property portal.

So imagine a future state. You’re on the couch and with your Google Home you ask “Hey Google – what properties might I like to see this weekend” – the screen of your choice (TV/ Tablet / Glasses) then starts to display homes for sale open this weekend.

Powerpoint_images_2018_WIP.png

Let’s look at the mechanics of this scenario. Google Home is paired to your Google account so it knows so much about you – where you live, where you work, where the kids go to school, how far you drive on weekday and weekends, where your relative lives and your friends. Google knows what your style preferences are and what you have bought in the past few years to renovate or decorate your home, it also knows details of your finances and likely as not your mortgage.

So when you ask Google to show you what properties you would want to see this weekend, you don’t need Zillow / Rightmove / REA as intermediaries or their ‘simple’ search filters – location / beds / price.

Google has the listings inventory of every real estate company in every country, they have collated it for years in search logs. They have deep attribute knowledge of every house that has been advertised for over 15 years at least; they also every house’s estimated valuation. It knows the level of your interest in types of houses and more important the best match of you to your future house. So Google will deliver a portfolio that is personalised to a very fine degree for your review. However it will never stop learning leveraging its vast AI capability to do this. Every comment you make when you see a property in this portfolio will be a key signal to adapt the portfolio to better meet your needs by style, condition, location and attributes. Every comment is also a signal which helps other Google customers who benefits from your comments. Should a new property hit the market via the local agency that is the perfect match, it will add this to the morning update it provides before you leave the house in the morning, and schedule a catch up with the local agent optimising you and your partners diaries.

This capability is real and achievable not just by Google but also by Amazon as they have a significant advantage in consumer engagement in a retail sense and richer installed base of Echos. Already more than 1 in 10 US homes has a voice activated home device and that number will only accelerate this year.

What is the goldmine for these two behemoths?   Well Amazon for one, has made that clear just this week – they are after the mortgage market. Real estate is at its heart actually just a vehicle for the far more lucrative finance industry as the largest consumer asset base globally. As for Google, well as an advertising company I think they can come up with ways to monetise the connection between the agent and the buyer that will boost Google’s stock by a healthy $100bn or more!

How do property portals defend against this future threat?

yahoo_1997_-_Google_Search.png

The smart ones recognise it and are heading down ancillary market routes. Zillow has been after mortgage origination for years, they have recently tested the iBuyer market, but I think the larger bet which has been on their radar for a number of years signalled by their Premier Agent platform is to become Zillow Realty as a broker of scale supporting hundreds of thousands of agents with an infrastructure to allow them to be truly independent contractors with no franchise aside from the Zillow brand. Interestingly Zoopla in the UK has already started earning more revenue from their uSwitch business than the portal space, they can see that the business model of a property portal may just have been an opportunistic industry that is surpassed by the next tech revolution.

Interestingly for those that have the memory of the early internet period there will be a familiar ring to the word portal, after all there was a time in the late 90’s when the river of gold of the early web day flowed from everywhere to Yahoo. Every pre-dot com start up gave up huge equity and most of their revenue to Yahoo to be the access point for their category of product or service as everything for the consumer started at Yahoo – how that once invincible portal has deflated over the past 20 years to a shadow of its former self, valued in ’98 at over $110bn and recently selling to Verizon for $4.5bn. An object lesson for today’s property portals perhaps?


Homes – New Zealand’s answer to Zillow

by Alistair Helm in ,


Screenshot_23_01_18__9_41_AM.png

The NZ real estate industry witnessed a significant milestone just over 2 years ago when Homes.co.nz hit the market. At that time the launch was significant. Today, two years later the service remains significant, and it is my belief that it will become ever more significant in the years to come.

Here is why.

Homes did just one thing when it launched, and it did it well. That is the mark of a business with big ambitions. It, for the first time allowed anyone, anywhere to see historical property sales records and estimated valuations for any property in NZ …. for free!

Sure, it was initially only for the main cities and it was not a great website and there was no mobile app. But for those who crave this type of information, all of those things were of little consideration. They wanted facts. Facts that had for decades been hidden behind expensive price tags. Remember for a minute, that back then in 2015 if you wanted to get the last sale price for a single property you have to dole out $10 on the website / $2.95 on the app of QV. To get a collection of comparable local sales, twice that amount; and for an estimated valuation $50.

Homes very quickly built a sizeable audience and become the chatter of meetings between friends, colleagues and neighbours. Marketing dollars were not needed when you have a source of information that is like cat nip to anyone who owns a property or wants to own a property or is simply curious about what your landlord’s place is worth!

Homes leveraged this consumer appetite with smart PR stories about every imaginable property fact and took on a smart and approachable marketing head in Jeremy O’Hanlon who was savvy and accessible. The word of mouth grew as did the traffic.

A bit of diversity wouldn't do them any harm!

A bit of diversity wouldn't do them any harm!

Homes is, and continues to be a privately funded start-up and at launch recognised the need to have a seasoned entrepreneur to seek out the initial funding and lead the company, this was when John Holt came on board to support the original founders being Jamie Kruger and Michael Gibbs.

Fast forward two years and whilst I don’t know the ins and outs of the company, I do know from extensive conversations with customers of Homes (agents and users) they are doing well and are on a fast track for the coming years to become a significant force in the NZ real estate marketing arena.

So why do I hold this confident position?

Simply put. What I see in Homes is what I witnessed with Zillow in the US from their launch in 2006 right through to their position today – a 3,000+ employee company with a turnover north of NZ$1 billion and market cap of NZ$7.5 billion. Allowing for the relative population comparison that would provide a potential comparable valuation for Homes in excess of NZ100 million.

Front_verandah_lace_and_corner_detailing.png

Zillow launched with a simple website (back in 2006 don’t forget there was no apps store, so the web had to do). It provided a simple offering – historical sales data and valuation (Zestimate) for almost every property in the US for free – the first such offering.

The site instantly became sticky (first day topped 1 million page views) as people had an insatiable appetite to see what their house was worth. That audience quickly generated a significant advertising revenue. As so with Homes who smartly set up sponsorship arrangements with key advertisers prior to launch as well as regular ads.

For Zillow the relationship with agents was at first testy – loved by few and hated by many; but it was not long before the smarter agents started recognising that the ad units Zillow could sell next to properties records and Zestimates was a perfect place to pitch to prospective clients. For Homes they established the same service with free agent profiles and premium profile so agents could ‘brag’ of their sales success on individual property records.

With agents recognising the power of the Zillow audience it was not long before these agents started uploading active listings which instantly bore fruit with strong viewing figures as Zillow users started using the portal for property search. At the time, the market back in 2008 was not as well developed with pure property portals in the US. There was an industry site (ala Realestate.co.nz in the guise of Realtor.com which was not owned by the industry but a kind of de-facto industry site) so Zillow had competition, but sadly for the owners of Realtor.com traffic soon switched leading to Zillow fast becoming the most visited website for property even if it did not have a comprehensive source of listings.

However whilst agents wanted to upload listings, the issue for Zillow was the complexity of the listing process in the US – much like so much of things in the US it is simply best to say getting a source of listings is a nightmare with 900+ Multiple Listings Services each of which is unique and holds geographical monopolies that are political fiefdoms. Bottom line was that whilst agents started to love Zillow their broker business owners and these industry listing services were not supportive.

For Homes the issue was similar but different. Accessing listings in NZ is easy (in theory). There are 6 major franchise groups accounting for well over two thirds of all listings, who can in theory provide a data feed of all active listings at the click of a key so long as you have their support. These 6 major groups though are the shareholder owners of half of Realestate.co.nz and to date the support for listings uploaded to Homes is limited to Ray White together with some independent operators outside the major 6.

Demonstration of Homes listing in Auckland - almost all Ray White

Demonstration of Homes listing in Auckland - almost all Ray White

As far as Homes playing to the Zillow playbook, I would judge that they are, where Zillow was back in 2009. Which says they have a lot to do, but I would judge that they will probably start to accelerate to catch up pretty fast. Within two years I would see them being a credible and viable competitor to the key players of Realestate.co.nz and Trade Me and potentially the new entrant of OneRoof.

So, what can the Zillow playbook hold in store for Homes. In terms of property marketing there will come a whole suit of premium advertising products which agents will pitch to sellers as digital continues to grow in relevance in property marketing. In addition as a function of the owners flagging their own home on the site they will be able to actionsmart direct marketing to property owners and prospective vendors. In terms of agent advertising I think they are better developed than any other digital player in NZ today which includes Trade Me and Realestate.co.nz. On top of this then comes the ancillary business opportunities. Zillow created a mortgage origination marketplace, not something that really exists in NZ but certainly a deeper and richer relationship with key NZ banks and financial institutions could be mutually rewarding for Homes.

ZPG_Plc.png

A bit more lateral is the pivot from Homes adopting the Zillow playbook to adopting the Zoopla playbook. Zoopla in some ways the UK version of Zillow, has very successfully broadened its business from property marketing to price comparison services, originally around utility and finance services through the acquisition of uSwitch to recently pitching the acquisition of Go Compare a far broader and significantly larger player in the UK market for comparison services. The logic being that once you become a trusted source of information and services of the house as an asset, then you can leverage that to any financial transaction from or to-do-with the house, especially as the house is always the biggest financial asset anyone generally has.

So what if any are the roadblock which sit in Homes way?

Listings. If the real estate industry decided it was not going to support Homes and not syndicate their listings to them as a property portal then Homes will struggle. However I don't think it would be killer blow to Homes, if they can demonstrate to agents that their appeal to clients and customers is as good or better than the current portal players then the power of the agent against the force of the key real estate companies will be the real test.

I’m excited to see what happens over the next 2 years in the real estate marketing arena, there is a lot at stake and some well-established players with a lot to gain and a lot to lose.