Disclaimer: This interview is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as a basis for investment decisions. In Practise is an independent publisher and all opinions expressed by guests are solely their own opinions and do not reflect the opinion of In Practise.
I was reflecting on a customer I closed with, Bayshore. Their structure consisted of a CEO, a controller, and a Director of Operations, who I worked with most of the time. His role has now evolved into VP of Asset Management. They usually have a Regional Manager overseeing the Property Managers, a Director of Marketing, and on-site teams. Sometimes they would have a CFO in addition to a controller, other times just one or the other. The Regional Managers are usually involved in the conversation and decision-making process.
Yes, they had about 50 staff members, including leasing agents and maintenance staff. They are indeed sizable companies.
For Bayshore, they had someone overseeing maintenance. Since they owned many apartment complexes, they had handymen and other staff members on-site, and someone to manage them. They might contract out depending on the scope of work. For regular maintenance, they have their own staff. But for larger issues like a significant leak, they might need to outsource. Usually, they have team members on-site.
Typically, each apartment complex has a person handling walk-ins and similar tasks. If there are apartment complexes in close proximity, one person might manage both. However, if you walk into an apartment, there's usually someone there, be it a property manager or leasing agent. The size of the property also plays a role. For instance, a property with over 200 units might have two people. Sometimes, a leasing agent might oversee more than one property, but it often depends on the individual property.
That's a good question. We didn't delve too much into that, but the process is different for single family versus multifamily properties. For single family properties, someone has to schedule walk-throughs, unlike multifamily properties where potential tenants can just walk in. It varies based on the size of the portfolio and the resources available. It's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Sometimes, they have a model unit available for walk-ins. If someone expresses interest in applying, they can be shown around this model unit.
Most portfolios of that size are mixed. They typically include a few single-family properties, some commercial properties, and perhaps some Homeowners Association management. So, there's usually a combination.
We usually avoid those, but I would estimate around 30%. That percentage might be growing, as student and affordable housing are significant market segments. So, it could be more than 30%. I think 30% is a conservative estimate.
I would still consider it. At the time, we had some limitations related to accounting and the mass move-in and move-out process. These processes require precise automation, especially when moving in 500 or 600 people over a weekend. However, if student or affordable housing made up 10% of the portfolio, I would still consider it. For instance, Trotter, a company I mentioned in our last call, specializes in student housing and has a significant share of that market.
They might have used some external tools, but primarily, they were using Yardi.
Not Breeze, Voyager. It really depends on the company. Some companies fully implement and invest in the technology, while others use it for a few tasks. They might use Google Docs for some processes or have their standard operating procedure elsewhere. However, the customer I'm referring to primarily used Yardi. They might have had some internal processes outside of that.
There might be more than one version, but that was the version most larger companies used.
It depends on who you ask. They reached out to us and didn't return to Yardi. They were unhappy enough to contemplate change. There might have been an accountant or someone who was happy with it, but overall, they were not.
Companies of that size usually do. The main person I spoke to was very knowledgeable about all that. He was probably the internal person in charge of the revenue management piece. He knew all the levers and seemed to spend most of his job evaluating software. So, it's fair to say that a company of that size will have someone overseeing the technology and maintaining the relationship with the tech provider.
I would estimate their annual budget to be around $250,000. They were looking for a solution that could handle as much of that as possible.
Correct.
Reflecting on the early days, the increase in volume and number of people was significant. In comparison between a 1,000 unit manager and those managing larger volumes, the roles are quite similar. However, with more staff, there's a higher possibility for human error and a greater need for checks and balances. This is a key difference when scaling from 1,000 to 5,000 units. It's essentially about managing more people, and ensuring the software is designed with user roles in mind.
This is crucial in technology. For instance, a leasing agent's access to information should be very different from a CEO's. Therefore, having a technology that's user-based is important. This was a challenge with Buildium, as it lacked such infrastructure. As a result, people didn't trust it beyond a certain unit size, as anyone could change things that shouldn't be altered and access sensitive information. This could lead to issues like staff members stealing money.
The main difference is handling a larger volume. You're dealing with more owners to report to, and more tenants with questions and needs. It's about amplifying the existing workload and ensuring you have a platform designed for that scale. It's about making sure that people can perform the right tasks within the system. These are the key differences.
Yes, it's primarily about the volume of activities. When you have more owners, you need to report to them more often and answer more of their questions. You also have more tenants coming in. This is why technology becomes increasingly important as you grow. If you can create a great user experience that allows self-service and answers questions independently, you can manage with fewer staff. This is why our tenant and owner portals were very successful in terms of self-service and ease of use, and we had high adoption rates.
Yes, both tenant and owner sides. Owners also have portals. Some solutions, like the RealPage product called Propertyware, notify the owner every time a tenant pays, is late, receives a fee, and so on. This can actually be detrimental to a management company because it leads to an influx of questions from the owner. The owner should only see what they need to see and not be overly notified. Once again, technology plays a significant role in scaling.
I believe that for accounting and reporting, you need a robust system capable of handling different asset types and ensuring that money is directed correctly. One feature that I found particularly impressive in AppFolio was the customizable workflows. These workflows allow your standard operating procedures to be executed within the software itself. For instance, everyone knows that an applicant needs to be screened, but the actual business process might be to follow up within two hours, and then again within 24 hours if there's no response. AppFolio's customizable workflows allow for this process to be automated. This means that on their first day, a new employee doesn't need someone sitting next to them explaining each step. The software guides them through the process, which our customers appreciated, as it enabled their new hires to use the software and complete their tasks from day one.
Tenant adoption was around 80%. I'm not certain about the owner side, though.
Tenants used the portal to pay rent and submit maintenance requests. Companies that made this the standard process had high adoption rates. Of course, there were exceptions, such as senior living situations. AppFolio was also smart in its setup. From the application stage, tenants would activate their portal. If they were moving in, they would have to go to the portal to sign and execute their lease. Leasing agents would then explain that they could set up automatic drafts and access any information they needed through the portal. This early initiation made it the standard mode of communication.
Yes, the more tenants used the portal, the easier the job became. Higher adoption rates led to fewer phone calls and less data entry for rent collection. Some even made it a requirement, which helped manage accounts receivable.
AppFolio didn't used to charge these fees, which is likely why tenants are upset now.
That's intriguing. It was a significant selling point for us. We absorbed some cost as a company, but if it helped our customers get their tenants to pay, it was worth it. So, it's interesting that they've now started charging for it.
The majority, about 95% of those who pay online, opt for ACH over credit or debit cards.
There's a substantial fee associated with that. Many people avoid it, and the portal informs you of the extra cost if you choose to pay that way. If you want to pay without a fee, you should use ACH. It's unfortunate that they've started charging for it. That was a significant selling point.
Yes, we promoted it as a free method since most of our competitors would charge. It was an additional cost that was added to the software cost. We were trying to simplify it.
It's probably close to $2.50. Some of them calculate it based on a percentage, while others charge a flat fee. But it's probably around that amount.
We had a large customer base and we leveraged our reputation and the fact that we are a publicly traded company. However, one of the biggest challenges in targeting larger clients, assuming the software checks out, is the onboarding process.
People are reluctant to deal with the headache of changing everything, training all the staff, and causing disruption to their clients, their tenants, and owners. So, we had to emphasize our onboarding process as a white-glove experience. We invested a lot of resources into it. We took over all your data. We acted as your moving company. That was a key aspect. We needed to do this better and offer more than anyone else to get people over the hump. We also had to leverage our other large customers and the fact that we're publicly traded and that we had millions of units on the platform.
I think going upmarket and also promoting Plus was a significant push for us. We wanted to back up our claims by investing in new capabilities to support our customers. We listened to what our customers were saying. We knew that we did a good job on the sales side of creating feature needs. So, anytime we lost a deal, we'd have to note down why. If it was based on a feature, was it a deal breaker or not? We really did leverage the feedback to determine our future steps.
We told our customers that we really listened to them. We knew that this was a significant factor in why we lost your business in the past or didn't earn your business. So, we invested a lot into this Plus product to really earn your business.
Yes, ALN does have contract dates, and indeed, clients are constantly contacted by everyone, including AppFolio. We try to track when contracts are up for renewal, but I don't think that specific information is on ALN. It really depends on how well your company tracks those dates. Are your representatives aware of them and do they give themselves two, three, or four months to reach out and ensure they have enough time for an evaluation? AppFolio did a good job of tracking that. It was a metric we had a field for.
If you're referring to outbound prospecting, that's different from someone within a company expressing interest. The challenge with outbound prospecting is getting in touch with the decision-maker. You might be able to reach the property manager, but it takes a lot of work to reach the decision maker, build value, and establish a relationship. They need to be willing to let you in. Outbound prospecting is about getting someone who is very busy to take the time to consider another option.
Yes, the larger customers we typically closed were primarily inbound. However, we had to spend most of our time building outbound relationships. That's where our time had to go. But the ones that were closing, and often, required years of groundwork.
If you have an inbound lead who is going to make a change, that sales process is about three months, maybe less. But you're trying to get that done within a quarter. You get inbound leads who are just having a bad day, their technology partner upset them, and they're emotional. So they want to see what else is out there. Sometimes those take a year too because they were just emotional. Once they actually consider all the factors, it becomes a more intense sales cycle. It's a big responsibility to switch everything, and it impacts hundreds of people.
The CEO would usually give the final approval, but often they rely on their team to make the decision. This includes the Director of Operations, Regional Managers, and Controllers. The accounting team's approval is crucial because no one wants to switch if the accounting isn't robust and all their needs are met. Sometimes this might require a process change, which can take time. Accountants can be a make-or-break factor in this decision.
They usually don't want any changes.
It's a challenge. Everything usually works fine. People don't typically switch software based on accounting needs. It's usually for other reasons.
The functionality of Yardi is quite outdated. Our tenants are reluctant to use the portal because it's not user-friendly and we have very low adoption. The owners have numerous complaints about the portals.
Probably more on the tenant side. Everything was just very antiquated and old school.
They might market it as such, but it's quite clunky.
Absolutely. No one would proceed without involving the accounting team and ensuring it meets all their requirements. They can be major deal breakers. Our job was to build value and understand why we're having this conversation. Usually, the Director of Operations and Regional Managers were the ones who were excited about the new system because it would make their lives much easier.
Most of the time, they didn't see a problem with the current system and didn't want to change what they were doing. This would require them to take time out to learn something new, which they were not inclined to do.
Our system is designed to handle all your Accounts Receivable and Accounts Payable, presenting a completely new user interface of technology. We knew we had to do things differently, not just continue using Excel and QuickBooks. This might be fine for smaller operations, but when you scale up, you need to leverage technology in every aspect as much as possible. For instance, many of our workflows were done within Yardi. Yardi presented a challenge due to its customization complexity, especially when generating reports.
In contrast, with AppFolio, you could only edit reports to a certain extent. You could remove a field or a column, but you couldn't create your own custom column. This was primarily because it affected updates, as everyone would have a different version. Our updates were more about enhancements rather than bug fixes. So, we had to be very specific about what could be included in our solution. The updates were actually something people looked forward to.
However, accountants would often resist change, citing the inability to create custom reports as a reason. While we could probably make it work, it might require an extra step or creating two reports instead of one. Despite the fact that it could work, it would just look a little different. So, dealing with accountants was interesting.
It's more like the property managers. The Director of Operations and CEO would probably like it, especially if their team did. Some of them are really involved, but most of the time, they appreciated our visualization tools and the reporting and insights we could provide.
I believe they've made some of those changes already. However, the barrier to entry was quite high because we had to wait for a contract to be up for renewal, or for a significant change to occur. We also had to get approval from every single person and overcome their preference for other point solutions that they really liked.
The company did make some changes, like integrating with other solutions through the AppFolio Stack. This was a significant change because in the past, we had to convince customers to give up some functionality for the overall benefit. This was challenging, especially when they were making a big change and investing a lot of money. So, finding a situation where everyone was on board, including the accountants, and where they were okay with losing other point solutions that they really liked, was like finding a needle in a haystack.
It was either a deal-breaker, or we managed to get them over the hurdle. It was quite challenging. Our enterprise team was struggling for a while because we couldn't just abandon something that was functioning well for the team. If a group of people said no, the whole deal was off. It was indeed hard. However, I believe they're making progress and implementing changes to meet people where they are.
Yes, indeed. That happened after I switched. I moved over to investment management in 2022. I had completed all the sales roles on the property.
Yes, it was when I was trying to find that needle in the haystack, and it was quite tough. It was a period of significant personal growth. I believe they started making those changes to help us get in the door because they knew that was necessary.
Was it around 2022?
Yes, that was just starting when I was leaving, and now they have Max. I'm curious why Max was rolled out. I thought AppFolio Stack was supposed to be the main focus. Maybe there's some psychology around having three options. I'm not sure.
The investment management product was geared more towards a different segment, such as those managing funds. There was a lot of crossover in terms of clients and information, but it catered to a different segment. This would include people managing funds, for example, private equity real estate. They would have investors who wanted to track and see how their investments were performing. So, it was more geared towards investors themselves and providing performance insights. It also created a platform for people to pitch new deals and opportunities in one central place.
Yes, it's totally different.
I believe they always aimed to venture into new verticals that were somehow related. We had a database of contacts, including real estate investment trusts and others in the industry. We had enough data to consider building something new. The goal, which has shifted since the C-suite personnel changes, was to expand into new markets that were adjacent and had customers in common. As the company grows, there are customers who might be using another tool for investment management. If we offer that service, they might integrate it into their operations. So there was some crossover, with real estate clients also setting up funds.
I'm not sure. The sales process was simpler. There's a company called Juniper Square that offers a similar but more expensive service. It's a relatively new industry in terms of technology solutions. Juniper was so costly that we had an advantage. We were just as good, cheaper, and we already had some leads from property management clients. So it made sense. The sales cycle was much faster, often just a demo and a decision.
Yes, some took a bit longer, but generally, it was fast.
Typically, they were using nothing. The size of companies I worked with were using spreadsheets and Google Docs. I wasn't in that space for very long before I decided to move on. Juniper Square was a big player, but there weren't many others. I'm not sure what the company is doing now in that area. I'm curious about how much they're investing.
That's interesting. The original vision was to build software for various verticals.
Yes, MyCase and others.
Yes.
That's interesting. I anticipated a significant push in that direction, but there were many changes. Nat's departure was quite surprising. He was a crucial part of the property management and investment management sectors. It was quite a shock when he left.
He had a close relationship with the former CEO, Jason Randall. They collaborated closely at the inception of the property management sector. He was the vice president of the market. The new sales force executive team seems to be quite different.
Shane's arrival brought about significant changes. He's quite different.
He altered the company culture. He brought in people that transformed the environment into a numbers-driven one. For instance, there was a significant layoff of many long-standing leadership team members. We used to operate in small, agile teams, regardless of our size. However, Shane removed many managers, leading to a shift in reporting structures.
Some changes were expected. As a sales organization, we had been somewhat autonomous and successful. We were meeting our targets, so we were left to our own devices. However, Shane's arrival led to a more structured approach. Everything was documented, and there was a playbook. We had to invest a lot of time in building out our strategies. This change eliminated the small team feel and shifted our approach to development and marketing. We were no longer focused on vertical markets and an all-in-one product. We had to open up our product to everything else. This change was challenging for those who had been with the company for a long time. We had built an entire brand and marketing strategy around our previous approach, and now we were being asked to change.
Yes, that was the reality. Changes were necessary, but some of the higher-ups weren't willing to be the ones to implement them, so they're no longer with the company.
Indeed, maybe now. I believe that when a culture changes, especially one as good, fun, and familial as ours, there's bound to be some loss. Over time, however, new representatives who weren't part of the original culture will come in and rebuild. There might be a temporary dip in morale among those who've been there longer and remember the old times. But eventually, the company will recover and move forward. If there were any negative effects, they were likely short-lived. Now I'm on the lookout for something else. If you have any recommendations, do let me know.
I'm not sure. I was there for a while. I need to work remotely because I live in a small town in Colorado. Shane was a big proponent of in-person work, so I'm not sure if that would be an option. I should find something remote. Maybe I should reach out to Nat. I enjoy working for industries that are behind the curve, where technology can make a significant impact. Perhaps something in construction. We'll see. Everything will work itself out.
I found that a lot of my pitch involved extensive research on the competitors. You can have the best product, but if you don't understand what your customers are experiencing, it's hard to explain why your feature is better than theirs and the value it brings. So, I would conduct a lot of research. I would really understand the team, who they are, and their interests. I would know their competitors and their shortcomings. Then, I would pitch it like, "I worked with another company just like you, ABC Management. They're right down the street. They were actually on Yardi. They started with about 5,000 units. They decided to switch to AppFolio because they found that X, Y, and Z weren't working for them and they were looking to grow. After they switched to AppFolio, they grew to 8,000 units within two years." So, that was my approach. I tried to personalize it by knowing exactly who they are, where they're going, and how their technology is preventing them from getting there. I would leverage a current customer that was thriving in their area to get in the door. That was my pitch.
I would say, "You have nothing to lose. It's your job to understand what technology is the best fit for your business. You have nothing to lose by going through a demonstration with me and my team and allowing me to highlight what we did for a company just like yours. What are your thoughts?"
The main focus was on the core workflow. If they were using a value-added service, the question was whether we could offer the same thing that they were paying Yardi for, particularly in terms of insurance.
Insurance was a common one. If they had insurance with a competitor, they wanted to ensure they could still have that. That was probably the most significant one. They were likely using online payments, so we would pitch that as a free value-add to our products. However, that has changed. We used to offer utility management, which was a big deal, but it's gone now.
Yes, that was a complex service. We hoped to sell a lot of it, but it was a complex conversation. We didn't want to give people another reason not to evaluate us. It was risky to bring up too many things as it could deter potential clients. The leasing assistant, Lisa, was a good feature to mention because it was unique and added value. However, utility management was a complex conversation. They usually had other vendors and systems in place, leading to potential errors and objections.
They were usually impressed.
The look and ease of navigation were often praised. They found it refreshing and much easier than older versions of Yardi and RealPage, which can be complex and difficult to navigate. The universal search feature, allowing them to search anything in the system without having to navigate through multiple pages, was also a big hit.
Yes, the universal search was a major selling point.
It's difficult to change an entire software infrastructure to a web-based, easy-to-use platform.
They would assure people that the transition was seamless, like flipping a switch. However, they actually had to set them up as a brand new customer. They would do anything to convince them to upgrade, saying it's easy. This is the AppFolio of Yardi. I'm quite certain they would say that, especially with Yardi Breeze.
Yes, it's targeted at SMBs. I believe it could probably handle more, but it was the foundation of Yardi.
Yes, what I noted was that the key functionalities they were interested in, and how I pitched it to them, often depended on what system they were currently using. The system they use can reveal a lot about a company. Yardi and RealPage are the major ones. I would delve into their portfolio type. For instance, do they have class A properties? Do they have affordable housing? Is there something we're not as good at, which could be why they're using it? If not, then I consider it a good lead. I know our product is superior in every way. You have systems like Rent Manager, for example, and some large companies use it. That tells me a lot about their company. I know they're going to be very cost-conscious and my pitch to them might be different than to someone who's on RealPage. I also made sure I understood their market. For example, with ALN, you can see how many customers in a state or metro area are using this software. So I would try to gauge if they're just using it because others are, and then how many customers we have in that market and how I can pitch to them.
Yes, probably too often. I believe we're supposed to get approval from all of them, but I didn't have time for that. I also noted that accounting always had to check out. When deal breakers occurred, they were usually related to accounting.
Revenue management is incredibly complex. It should be a whole software industry in itself. If I can find my notes, I'll send them to you. But there are different options and the factors they choose are varied. Some are based on occupancy, some on the level of incoming interest. They're pulling on levers and making pricing decisions based on certain criteria. Certain solutions will determine the criteria based on their reasoning of why it's better. I will say that it is very expensive, but when done well, it significantly increases a company's revenue. They are able to demonstrate a clear ROI. Some of it's theoretical, but it's also very tangible. Once you've experienced the benefits, it's hard to go without it.
When I was presenting our product, I wasn't often dealing with people who already had it. Bayshore was the only company I sold it to that had previously used it.
Yes, that's correct. It's a relatively new concept, especially for smaller companies.
Yes, primarily because they're quite expensive. Typically, larger companies are more likely to adopt them, not the smaller ones. This might be changing, but in my experience, I rarely encountered it. If I did, I probably wouldn't pursue it because I know it's challenging to convince them to switch. At the time, we didn't allow integration with other revenue management systems.
RealPage has one, and I believe Yardi does as well. LRO was another one. This is an area AppFolio will need to figure out because I'm pretty sure Yardi and RealPage both have one.
I'm not saying that. In our experience, we weren't targeting larger companies yet. A company with around 5,000 units was a good size for us. If you're dealing with companies that manage more than 5,000 units, it might be worth looking into. My guess is that revenue management systems are more popular than we think. AppFolio will need to address this. I don't think we have the capability yet. Before Elliot left, our approach was to build it ourselves. My guess is that they're still planning to do that, which takes time and requires a lot of data.
I think LRO is the RealPage product, and Yardi has one as well.
I'm not sure if it breaks down into that type of segmentation. If they were able to use all the data from our system, all the million units, then yes, that's probably enough. Elliot was making some good progress before he left.
LRO, was what I came across the most.
You know what's interesting, back in the day, we were actually supposed to buy LRO. We had already announced it, and then RealPage came in and swooped it up. I mean, that's crazy, because I feel like that would have totally changed our company for the better. Yes, I remember we announced it. We were like, we got this revenue management thing.
It's very complex. I'll see if I can find notes for you. I'll send them to you.
Yes.
Leasing stuff. Like I Love Leasing, or Knock was one. So that was leasing related, sometimes maintenance related, but it was primarily all the bells and whistles around the leasing and marketing stuff. People would want certain website features. The larger companies that you get, the more they're wanting really customized and tailored marketing stuff. I would say it was primarily front-end stuff, like leasing and marketing stuff, and maybe maintenance.
I don't think maintenance was ever really a big deal breaker. It probably had the least amount of emphasis in an evaluation. But sometimes people would have a solution that they liked on the maintenance side that they didn't want to lose.
Yes, I recall AppFolio Max now. At the end of the day, if you're sophisticated and want to use the full sophistication of AppFolio, then we're talking about similar numbers. So, the value proposition doesn't need to be around pricing. I'd say they're pretty close.
There's a whole matrix to all of these. Yardi's pricing, for instance, has many components. By the time you add everything, you'll notice that Yardi charges a year in advance. RealPage made it difficult for people to leave because you'd have to do it property by property. In this industry, many people are acquiring properties all the time. AppFolio would always tie that to the initial contract to make it easy. If you came in six months, great, you're just tying into this, and we'll renew it all at the same time. Having sporadic contracts impacted our ability to close people because it was too confusing. We really pushed for the whole portfolio. We didn't like to do partial portfolios because that's just too complicated. RealPage almost came down to that requirement.
At a $2 level, the price is fair for the customers they're trying to attract. For people who aren't as sophisticated, let's just get them on core. They're not thinking the same way, and they're not wanting to think the same way. So you could sell core to a larger company that just doesn't care as much about all those other things.
We wouldn't do that. But there was definitely a lot of negotiation for the larger customers for that onboarding. I don't know if this has changed, but for Plus, they wanted us to charge a lot for onboarding. I think 10 times what the monthly cost was.
Yes, but it rarely happened.
Yes, they would say there's no way. I think it's like 10 times the monthly cost.
Yes.
I guess we were trying to overcome the onboarding conversation by allocating a lot of resources to it and trying to make up a cost of what we were paying.
We weren't involved in the implementation. There's a dedicated team for that, consisting of at least four or five people per account. Our team often worked on site, even around the clock, to meet deadlines. We invested significantly, but I'm sure it was still profitable for us. In terms of negotiation, we would try to sign clients up for as many services as possible at a certain price point, rather than reducing the cost.
Yes, that's $2 per unit.
The industry has become extremely competitive. Everyone is offering similar solutions. The challenge is deciding where to invest as a company. If we're offering point solutions that they can use, do we still invest in leasing and maintenance? It's about deciding where to invest their money and product that will continue to earn more business. There's also the challenge of overcoming the paradigm shift that the company has made. We've always said we're sticking to one lane, and now we're not. There's probably a little bit of credibility in proving that out before people are like, okay, you're just going to revert to your old ways. So I think that's a big challenge.
This document may not be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means including resale of any part, unauthorised distribution to a third party or other electronic methods, without the prior written permission of IP 1 Ltd.
IP 1 Ltd, trading as In Practise (herein referred to as "IP") is a company registered in England and Wales and is not a registered investment advisor or broker-dealer, and is not licensed nor qualified to provide investment advice.
In Practise reserves all copyright, intellectual and other property rights in the Content. The information published in this transcript (“Content”) is for information purposes only and should not be used as the sole basis for making any investment decision. Information provided by IP is to be used as an educational tool and nothing in this Content shall be construed as an offer, recommendation or solicitation regarding any financial product, service or management of investments or securities. The views of the executive expressed in the Content are those of the expert and they are not endorsed by, nor do they represent the opinion of In Practise. In Practise makes no representations and accepts no liability for the Content or for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies will in no way be held liable for any potential or actual violations of laws, including without limitation any securities laws, based on Information sent to you by In Practise.
© 2024 IP 1 Ltd. All rights reserved.
Th executive spent over a decade at AppFolio running sales for SMB and large property manager customers.
Subscribe to access hundreds of interviews and primary research