Edgar Filing: ZIPREALTY INC

e10vq

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark one)


þ		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005


o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission file number: 000-31376

ZIPREALTY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)


DELAWARE		94-3319956
(State of incorporation)		(IRS employer identification number)

2000 POWELL STEET, SUITE 1555
EMERYVILLE, CA		94608
(Address of principal executive offices)		(Zip Code)

(510) 735-2600
(Registrant’s telephone number)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ

We had 20,194,258 shares of common stock outstanding at August 4, 2005.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


		Page
PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION		4

Item 1.	Unaudited Condensed Financial Statements	4

	Unaudited Condensed Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004	4

	Unaudited Condensed Statements of Operations for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004	5

	Unaudited Condensed Statements of Cash Flows for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 and 2004	6

	Notes to Unaudited Condensed Financial Statements	7

Item 2.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	12

Item 3.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	35

Item 4.	Controls and Procedures	35

PART II — OTHER INFORMATION		36

Item 1.	Legal Proceedings	36

Item 2.	Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds	36

Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	36

Item 5.	Other Information	37

Item 6.	Exhibits	37

SIGNATURES		38

EXHIBITS INDEX
EXHIBIT 10.11
EXHIBIT 31.1
EXHIBIT 31.2
EXHIBIT 32.1
EXHIBIT 32.2

Exhibit 10.11
Exhibit 31.1
Exhibit 31.2
Exhibit 32.1
Exhibit 32.2

Statement regarding forward-looking statements

This report includes forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this report, including statements regarding our future financial position, business strategy and plans and objectives of management for future operations, are forward-looking statements. The words “believe,” “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “expect,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict” and similar expressions, as they relate to us, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements contained in this report include, but are not limited to, statements relating to:

our future financial results;

our future growth and expansion into new markets;

our future advertising and marketing activities; and

our future investment in technology.

We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our financial condition, results of operations, business strategy and financial needs. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those described in “Risk Factors” in Item 2 of Part I. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future performance and you should not place undue reliance on any forward-looking statement.

In light of these risks, uncertainties and assumptions, the forward-looking events and circumstances discussed in this report may not occur and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated or implied in the forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement contained in this report.

Trademarks

“ZipRealty, ” “ZipAgent” and “ZipNotify” are our registered trademarks in the United States. Our pending trademarks appearing in this report include “Your home is where our heart is” and “ZipAgent Platform.” “REALTOR” and “REALTORS” are registered trademarks of the National Association of REALTORS®. All other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this report are the property of their respective owners.

Internet Site

Our Internet address is www.ziprealty.com. We make publicly available free of charge on our Internet website our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. Information contained on our website is not a part of this report.

PART I — FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Unaudited Condensed Financial Statements:

UNAUDITED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (In thousands)


	June 30,			December 31,
	2005			2004
Assets
Current assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	5,269		$	11,525
Short-term investments		81,495			71,972
Accounts receivable, net of allowance of $55 and $29 at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively		2,261			1,089
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		2,331			2,102

Total current assets		91,356			86,688
Restricted cash		190			190
Property and equipment, net		1,976			1,236
Other assets		12			12

Total assets	$	93,534		$	88,126

Liabilities and Stockholders’ Equity
Current liabilities
Accounts payable	$	1,171		$	1,478
Accrued expenses		10,155			4,287

Total current liabilities		11,326			5,765
Other long-term liabilities		61			90

Total liabilities		11,387			5,855

Commitments and contingencies (Note 7)
Stockholders’ equity
Common stock: $0.001 par value; 100,000 shares authorized; 20,162 and 19,880 shares issued and outstanding at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, respectively		20			20
Additional paid-in capital		129,058			128,555
Common stock warrants		6,148			6,369
Deferred stock-based compensation		(324	)		(438	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss		(341	)		(105	)
Accumulated deficit		(52,414	)		(52,130	)

Total stockholders’ equity		82,147			82,271

Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity	$	93,534		$	88,126

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed financial statements.

UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (In thousands, except per share data)


	Three months ended June 30,						Six months ended June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
Net transaction revenues	$	25,228		$	15,902		$	42,546		$	26,562
Referral and other revenues		529			368			1,029			608

Net revenues		25,757			16,270			43,575			27,170

Operating expenses
Cost of revenues		13,820			8,709			23,883			14,803
Product development		610			549			1,203			996
Marketing and business development		3,285			2,203			6,091			3,863
General and administrative		5,458			3,593			9,696			6,382
Stock-based compensation		36			48			71			85
Litigation		4,164			—			4,164			—

Total operating expenses		27,373			15,102			45,108			26,129

Income (loss) from operations		(1,616	)		1,168			(1,533	)		1,041


Interest income		652			20			1,252			37
Other income (expense), net		(1	)		(1	)		(3	)		(6	)

Total other income (expense), net		651			19			1,249			31

Income (loss) before income taxes		(965	)		1,187			(284	)		1,072
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		(19	)		30			—			30

Net income (loss)	$	(946	)	$	1,157		$	(284	)	$	1,042

Cumulative preferred stock dividends	$	—		$	157		$	—		$	314
Amount allocated to participating preferred stockholders		—			1,000			—			728

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders	$	(946	)	$	—		$	(284	)	$	—

Net income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Diluted	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Basic		20,005			1,499			20,001			1,484
Diluted		20,005			1,499			20,001			1,484
Stock-based compensation can be allocated to the following:
Cost of revenues	$	9		$	12		$	19		$	25
Product development		1			4			2			8
Marketing and business development		1			2			1			4
General and administrative		25			30			49			48

Total stock-based compensation	$	36		$	48		$	71		$	85

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed financial statements.

UNAUDITED CONDENSED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (In thousands)


	Six months ended June 30,
	2005			2004
Cash flows from operating activities
Net income (loss)	$	(284	)	$	1,042
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities
Depreciation and amortization		643			385
Amortization of deferred stock-based compensation		71			85
Amortization of short-term investment premium		376			—
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Accounts receivable, net		(1,172	)		(728	)
Prepaid expenses and other current assets		(229	)		(473	)
Other assets		—			—
Accounts payable		(307	)		88
Accrued expenses		5,868			2,218
Other long-term liabilities		(29	)		(22	)

Net cash provided by operating activities		4,937			2,595

Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of short-term investments		(17,094	)		—
Purchases of property and equipment		(1,383	)		(715	)
Proceeds from sale of short-term investments		6,959			—

Net cash used in investing activities		(11,518	)		(715	)

Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from stock option exercises		314			84
Proceeds from common stock warrant exercises		11			6,573

Net cash provided by financing activities		325			6,657

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		(6,256	)		8,537

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period		11,525			10,357

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period	$	5,269		$	18,894

Supplemental cash flow information

Non-cash investing and financing activities
Deferred stock-based compensation	$	—		$	430
Recapture of deferred stock-based compensation upon employee terminations	$	43		$	75
Unrealized loss on available-for-sale securities	$	(236	)	$	—
Recognition of preferred stock additional paid in capital from preferred stock warrants due to exercise of preferred stock series E-1 warrants	$	—		$	757
Recognition of common stock additional paid in capital from common stock warrants due to exercise of common stock warrants	$	221		$	—
Write-off of fully depreciated property, plant, and equipment	$	—		$	2

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these unaudited condensed financial statements.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. BACKGROUND AND BASIS OF PRESENTATION

The accompanying unaudited interim balance sheet as of June 30, 2005, the statements of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, together with the related notes, have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for interim financial information and the rules and regulations of the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Accordingly, the interim financial statements do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for annual financial statements. In the opinion of the Company’s management, the unaudited interim financial statements have been prepared on the same basis as the audited financial statements and include all adjustments, consisting only of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for the fair presentation of the Company’s financial position for the periods presented. The results for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the year ending December 31, 2005, or any other period. The balance sheet at December 31, 2004 has been derived from the audited balance sheet at that date but does not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America for complete financial statements. These financial statements and notes should be read in conjunction with the audited financial statements and notes thereto included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004.

Stock split

In August 2004, the Company’s stockholders approved a reverse stock split of the Company’s common and redeemable convertible preferred stock in a range of one for two to one for three shares. The actual split ratio of one for three shares of the Company’s common and redeemable convertible preferred stock was approved by the Board of Directors on October 21, 2004, following stockholder approval of the range. On November 8, 2004, the reverse stock split became effective. All share, per share and stock option data information in the financial statements for all periods have been retroactively restated to reflect the reverse stock split.

Initial public offering

On November 9, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared effective the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-115657) for the initial public offering. The Company commenced the offering immediately thereafter. The Company completed the sale of 4,550,000 shares of common stock on November 15, 2004 at a price of $13.00 per share, and on November 18, 2004 the Company sold the remainder of the registered shares of common stock (682,500 shares) at the same price per share pursuant to the underwriters’ exercise of the over-allotment option. UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and Pacific Growth Equities, LLC acted as the underwriters for the offering.

The aggregate purchase price of the offering was $68,022,500. The net offering proceeds received by the Company after deducting total estimated expenses were $61,402,757. The Company incurred total estimated expenses in connection with the offering of $6,619,743, which consisted of $1,795,943 in legal, accounting and printing fees, $4,761,575 in underwriters’ discounts, fees and commissions, and $62,225 in miscellaneous expenses. No payments for such expenses were made directly or indirectly to (i) any of the Company’s directors, officers or their associates, (ii) any person owning 10% or more of any class of the Company’s equity securities or (iii) any of the Company’s affiliates.

Upon the closing of the Company’s initial public offering on November 15, 2004, 13,025,620 shares of outstanding redeemable convertible preferred stock converted into common stock. Therefore, at June 30, 2005 and December 31, 2004, there were no shares of outstanding redeemable convertible preferred stock.

All outstanding warrants to acquire preferred stock automatically became exercisable for common stock upon the first closing of the Company’s initial public offering.

Seasonality

The Company’s net transaction revenues and income from operations have historically varied from quarter to quarter. Such variations are principally attributable to home sales activity and listings inventories. The Company has historically experienced lower net transaction revenues during the first quarter because holidays and adverse weather conditions in certain regions reduce the level of sales activity and listings inventories between the Thanksgiving and Presidents’ Day holidays. Net transaction revenues during the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 accounted for approximately 26.2% and 25.5% of annual net transaction revenues in 2004 and 2003, respectively. Net transaction revenues during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 accounted for approximately 43.7% and 41.8% of annual net transaction revenues in 2004 and 2003, respectively.

2. RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“SFAS No. 123 (R)”). The new pronouncement replaces the existing requirements under SFAS No.123 and APB 25. According to SFAS No. 123 (R), all forms of share-based payments to employees, including employee stock options and employee stock purchase plans, would be treated the same as any other form of compensation by recognizing the related cost in the statement of operations. This pronouncement eliminates the ability to account for stock-based compensation transactions using APB No. 25 and generally would require instead that such transactions be accounted for using a fair-value based method, with a binomial or lattice model preferred to the Black-Scholes valuation model. The lattice model can explicitly capture expected changes in dividends and stock volatility over the expected life of the options, in contrast to the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which uses weighted average assumptions about option pricing. SFAS No. 123 (R) is effective for awards and stock options granted, modified or settled in cash for annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. SFAS No. 123 (R) provides transition alternatives for public companies to restate prior interim periods or prior years. The proforma disclosures previously permitted under SFAS 123 no longer will be an alternative to financial statement recognition. On March 29, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (“SAB 107”) which provides the SEC Staff’s views regarding interactions between SFAS 123 (R) and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides interpretations of the valuation of share-based payments for public companies. We are currently reviewing the impact of implementing SFAS 123 (R) and SAB 107 on our financial statements.

In December 2004, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. FAS 109-1 (“FAS 109-1”), “Application of FASB Statement No. 109, “Accounting for Income Taxes,” to the Tax Deduction on Qualified Production Activities Provided by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004.” The AJCA introduces a special 9% tax deduction on qualified production activities. FAS 109-1 clarifies that this tax deduction should be accounted for as a special tax deduction in accordance with Statement 109. Pursuant to the AJCA, the Company will not be able to claim this tax benefit until the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The Company does not expect the adoption of these new tax provisions to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In March 2004, the FASB issued EITF Issue No. 03-01 (EITF 03-01), The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments, which provides new guidance for assessing impairment losses on investments. Additionally, EITF 03-01 includes new disclosure requirements for investments that are deemed to be temporarily impaired. In September 2004, the FASB delayed the accounting provisions of EITF 03-01; however, the disclosure requirements remain effective for annual periods ending after June 15, 2004. The Company will evaluate the impact of EITF 03-01 once the final guidance is issued.

3. NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

In April 2004, the EITF issued EITF No. 03-6, Participating Securities and the Two-Class Method under FASB Statement No. 128, which provides for a two-class method of calculating earnings per share computations that relate to certain securities that would be considered to be participating in conjunction with certain common stock rights. This guidance became applicable to the Company starting with the second quarter beginning April 1, 2004. The Company has adopted the provisions of this pronouncement as of April 1, 2004. Prior period earnings per share amounts presented have been restated to conform with EITF No. 03-6.

The following table sets forth the computation of basic and dilutive net income (loss) per share for the period indicated:


	Three Months ended June 30,					Six Months ended June 30,
	2005			2004		2005			2004
	(in thousands, except per share data)
Numerator:
Net income (loss)	$	(946	)	$	1,157	$	(284	)	$	1,042
Cumulative preferred stock dividends		—			157		—			314
Amount allocated to participating preferred stockholders		—			1,000		—			728

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders (for basic and dilutive EPS computations)	$	(946	)	$	—	$	(284	)	$	—

Denominator:
Weighted average common shares outstanding used to compute EPS:
Basic		20,005			1,499		20,001			1,484
Diluted		20,005			1,499		20,001			1,484
Net income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	(0.05	)	$	—	$	(0.01	)	$	—
Diluted	$	(0.05	)	$	—	$	(0.01	)	$	—

The following table sets forth potential common shares that are not included in the diluted net income (loss) per share calculation because to do so would be antidilutive for the periods presented:


	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005		2004		2005		2004
			(in thousands)
Stock options to purchase common stock		775		97		775		97
Participating convertible preferred stock		—		12,478		—		12,478
Warrants to purchase preferred and common stock		3		13		3		13

4. STOCK BASED COMPENSATION

The Company accounts for employee stock-based compensation arrangements in accordance with provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees (“APB 25”) and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 44, Accounting for Certain Transactions Involving Stock Compensation—an Interpretation of APB No. 25 (“FIN 44”) and complies with the disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation (“SFAS No. 123”) as amended by Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transaction and Disclosure (“SFAS No. 148”). Under APB 25, compensation expense is based on the difference, if any, on the date of the grant, between the fair value of the Company’s stock and the exercise price of the option. The Company amortizes deferred stock-based compensation using the straight-line method. Deferred stock-based compensation is recorded to stock-based compensation.

The Company accounts for equity instruments issued to non-employees in accordance with the provisions of SFAS No. 123 and Emerging Task Force Issue No. 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services (“EITF 96-18”).

The following table illustrates the effect on net income (loss) if the Company had applied the fair-value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123, as amended by SFAS 148, to stock-based employee compensation.


	Three Months Ended June 30,						Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005			2004			2005			2004
				(in thousands, except per share data)
Net income (loss) as reported	$	(946	)	$	1,157		$	(284	)	$	1,042
Add: Stock-based compensation expense included in reported net income (loss), net of taxes		36			46			71			83
Deduct: Total stock-based employee compensation expense determined under the fair value based method for all awards, net of taxes		(322	)		(106	)		(602	)		(167	)

Pro forma net income (loss)	$	(1,232	)	$	1,097		$	(815	)	$	958

Net income (loss) per share, as reported:
Basic	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Diluted	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Pro forma income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	(0.06	)	$	—		$	(0.04	)	$	—
Diluted	$	(0.06	)	$	—		$	(0.04	)	$	—

The fair value of each option grant is estimated on the date of grant using the following weighted average assumptions:


	Three Months Ended June 30,				Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005		2004		2005		2004
Expected volatility		36%		0-50%(1)		33-36%		0-50%(1)
Risk-free interest rate		3.8%		2.7-3.7%		3.8-4.1%		2.5-3.7%
Expected life	4 years		4 years		4 years		4 years
Expected dividend yield		0%		0%		0%		0%


(1)		The Company was a private company and, therefore, used the minimum value method under which volatility is not considered until the initial Form S-1 was filed on May 20, 2004. The Company used a 50% volatility from May 20, 2004 until the effective date of the initial public offering on November 9, 2004.

The per share weighted average fair value of options granted during the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 was $4.71 and $2.16, respectively. The per share weighted average fair value of options granted during the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 was $4.73 and $1.71, respectively.

Because options vest over several years and additional option grants are expected to be made in future years, the above pro forma results are not necessarily representative of the pro forma results for future years.

The accounting for and disclosure of employee and non-employee equity instruments, primarily stock options, requires judgment by management on a number of assumptions, including the fair value of the underlying instrument prior to the filing of the registration statement for an initial public offering, estimated lives of the outstanding instruments, and the instrument’s volatility prior to the filing of the registration statement for an initial public offering. Changes in key assumptions will impact the valuation of such instruments.

5. SHORT-TERM INVESTMENTS

At June 30, 2005 short-term investments were classified as available-for-sale securities, except for restricted cash, and are reported at fair value as follows:


			Gross		Gross
	Gross Amortized		Unrealized		Unrealized			Estimated
	Cost		Gains		Losses			Fair Value
	(in thousands)
Money market securities	$	4,604	$	—	$	—		$	4,604
Repurchase agreements		1,538		—		(7	)		1,531
Asset backed		8,348		—		(23	)		8,325
Corporate obligations		33,643		—		(171	)		33,472
US Government and agency obligations		38,307		10		(150	)		38,167

Total short-term investments	$	86,440	$	10	$	(351	)	$	86,099


	June 30,
	2005
	(in thousands)
Recorded as:
Cash equivalents	$	4,604
Short-term investments		81,495

	$	86,099

At June 30, 2005, the Company’s unrealized losses on investments were all in loss positions for less than 12 months.

The estimated fair value of short-term investments classified by date of contractual maturity at June 30, 2005 are as follows:


	June 30,
	2005
	(in thousands)
Due within one year or less	$	59,312
Due after one year through two years		23,808
Due after two years through three years		2,979

	$	86,099

6. COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)

Comprehensive income (loss) includes net income (loss) and unrealized gains (losses) on investments. Comprehensive income (loss) is comprised of the following:


	Three Months Ended June 30,					Six Months Ended June 30,
	2005			2004		2005			2004
				(in thousands)
Net income (loss)	$	(946	)	$	1,157	$	(284	)	$	1,042
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Change in accumulated unrealized gain (loss) on available-for-sale securities, net		127			—		(236	)		—

Comprehensive income (loss)	$	(819	)	$	1,157	$	(520	)	$	1,042

7. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company leases office space under noncancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through July 2008.

Future minimum lease payments under noncancelable operating leases at June 30, 2005 are as follows, in thousands:


	Operating
Year ending December 31,	leases
2005	$	498
2006		1,026
2007		455
2008		150

Total minimum lease payments	$	2,129

Legal Proceedings

On August 3, 2005, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, Sullivan, et al v. ZipRealty, case number GIC851801, by two former employee agents for the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company’s expense allowance policies violate California law. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle this claim in exchange for the Company’s payment of $4,164,000. That agreement is expected to include a full release from any further liability on this issue and is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. The Company is not currently subject to any other material legal proceedings. From time to time the Company has been, and it currently is, a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of the business. Other than the litigation discussed above, management believes that there are no claims or actions pending or threatened against us, the ultimate resolution of which will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations, although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain, and adverse outcomes are possible.

Indemnifications

The Company has entered into various indemnification agreements in the ordinary course of our business. Pursuant to these agreements, the Company has agreed to indemnify, hold harmless and reimburse the indemnified parties, which include certain of the Company’s service providers as well as others, in connection with certain occurrences. In addition, the Company’s charter documents require the Company to provide indemnification rights to our directors and officers to the fullest extent permitted by the Delaware General Corporation Law, and permit the Company to provide indemnification rights to the Company’s other employees and agents, for certain events that occur while these persons are serving in these capacities. The Company has also entered into indemnification agreements with each of the Company’s directors and officers. Further, the underwriting agreement for the Company’s initial public offering requires the Company to indemnify the Company’s underwriters and certain of their affiliates and agents for certain liabilities arising from the Company’s offering and the related registration statement.

The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unspecified. The Company is not aware of any material indemnification liabilities for actions, events or occurrences that have occurred to date. The Company maintains insurance on some of the liabilities the Company has agreed to indemnify, including liabilities incurred by the Company’s directors and officers while acting in these capacities, subject to certain exclusions and limitations of coverage.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations:

The following discussion should be read together with our financial statements and related notes appearing elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements based upon current expectations that involve numerous risks and uncertainties. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including but not limited to those set forth under “Risk factors” and elsewhere in this report. We undertake no obligation to update any information contained in these forward-looking statements.

OVERVIEW

General

We are a full-service residential real estate brokerage firm, using the Internet, proprietary technology and efficient business processes to provide home buyers and sellers with high-quality service and value. Our solution includes a client-centric business approach, a sophisticated website that empowers home buyers and sellers with relevant information, a proprietary business management technology platform and significant financial savings for consumers. We share a portion of our commissions with our buyer clients in the form of a cash rebate, and typically represent our seller clients at fee levels below those offered by most traditional brokerage companies in our markets. Generally, our seller clients pay a total brokerage fee of 4.5% to 5.0% of the transaction value, of which 2.5% to 3.0% is paid to agents representing buyers.

Our net revenues are comprised primarily of commissions earned as agents for buyers and sellers in residential real estate transactions. We record revenues net of rebate or commission discount, if any, paid to our clients. We also receive revenues from certain co-marketing arrangements, such as our relationship with E-LOAN, Inc., which provides the mortgage center on our website and pays us a flat monthly fee that is established on a periodic basis. Generally, non-commission revenues represent less than 5% of our net revenues during any period. Our net revenues are principally driven by the number of transactions we close and the average net revenue per transaction. Average net revenue per transaction is a function of the home sales price and percentage commission we receive on each transaction.

We were founded in 1999, currently have operations in 14 major metropolitan areas, and as of June 30, 2005 employed 1,407 people, of whom 1,235 were ZipAgents. We commenced operations in Las Vegas in April 2005 and in Houston in June 2005, and we have announced plans to commence operations Miami, Florida in the fourth quarter of this year.

Trends in our business

Our business has experienced rapid growth since our inception in 1999, primarily as a result of increased transaction volume and increased average net revenue per transaction. In the three months ended June 30, 2005 we generated $25.8 million in net revenues, compared to $16.3 million in the three months ended June 30, 2004. In the six months ended June 30, 2005 we generated $43.6 million in net revenues, compared to $27.2 million in the six months ended June 30, 2004. The number of our closed transactions increased to approximately 3,375 in the three months ended June 30, 2005 from approximately 2,192 in the three months ended June 30, 2004, and our average net revenue per transaction increased to approximately $7,475 in the three months ended June 30, 2005 from $7,255 in the three months ended June 30, 2004. The number of our closed transactions increased to approximately 5,718 in the six months ended June 30, 2005 from approximately 3,792 in the six months ended June 30, 2004, and our average net revenue per transaction increased to approximately $7,441 in the six months ended June 30, 2005 from $7,005 in the six months ended June 30, 2004. Our transaction volume is primarily driven by the number of ZipAgents we employ, which increased to 1,235 at June 30, 2005 from 717 at June 30, 2004. Our average net revenue per transaction increased over this time primarily as a result of increasing home prices and a reduction in our rebate paid to buyers. As we add additional ZipAgents, we believe we will continue to increase our transaction volume and grow our business. Historically, we have maintained our agent productivity in excess of the industry average as we have added ZipAgents, and we expect to continue to do so in the future. In the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, our average agent productivity was approximately 1.1 and 1.3 transactions per agent per month, respectively, compared to what we believe to be approximately between 0.7 and 0.8 transactions per agent per month for the 10 largest brokerages in the U.S. in 2004. In order to help agents become productive more quickly, we intend to hire agents who already work for competing brokerage firms in our markets. By hiring those established agents who we anticipate will be successful within our business model, we believe we can increase our transaction volume without materially diluting the number of potential transactions per agent allowing us to further increase our market share. In addition, we believe that customer acquisition is one of our core competencies, and while we anticipate that the difficulty of acquiring a sufficient number of leads online may increase over time, we expect that we can mitigate some of that impact with repeat and referral business, as well as by increasing our visibility and credibility to potential clients over time. Since our market share has averaged less than 1% over the past twelve months in our existing markets in aggregate, we believe that there is significant opportunity to increase our market share and grow our revenues, even if the overall level of sales decline due to changing

consumer sentiment, interest rate increases or other economic or geopolitical factors. However, we anticipate the pace of our growth in percentage terms to slow as our company increases in size.

Over time, we have made significant adjustments to our cost structure and revenue model in order to improve the financial results of our business. We have modified the compensation structure for ZipAgents over time and may do so again in the future. Currently, our ZipAgents earn a compensation package consisting of a percentage of the commissions they generate for us that ranges from 40% to 80% of our net revenues after deducting certain other items, as well as an expense allowance of up to $1,500 per month. We are currently reviewing modifications to this package in connection with the lawsuit settlement described in Part II, Item 1 of this report. We currently believe we can make these modifications without materially impacting our operating margins. We also provide our ZipAgents with health, retirement and other benefits, and pay for certain marketing costs. ZipAgents may also be granted equity incentives based on performance.

We have lowered our buyer rebate percentage several times to improve our revenue model. In March 2004, we reduced our buyer rebate to 20% of our commission from 25% of our commission, up to a maximum of 1% of the home sales price. The effect of the buyer rebate reduction was recognized over a phase-in period of approximately two to four months as the reduction only affected new clients immediately while existing clients continued under the prior rebate policy for transactions already in progress and for transactions opened within a short period after the reduction was announced. We implemented these buyer rebate percentage reductions for several reasons, including our determination that our growing reputation for superior service allowed us not to compete solely on price, our efforts to improve our revenue model and agent compensation model, and our desire to offer a simplified rebate structure to our clients.

We achieved profitability for the first time in the third quarter of 2003 and maintained profitability for the fourth quarter as well, primarily as a result of increased transaction volume, higher average net revenue per transaction and improved management of discretionary expenses. However, as a result of the seasonality to which our business is subject, we again experienced a net loss in the first quarter of 2004. We returned to profitability in the second, third and fourth quarters of 2004, primarily as a result of higher average net transaction revenue and increased transactional volume due to our increased ZipAgent force and seasonal factors. We achieved profitability in the first quarter of 2005, the first time in our seasonally slow first quarter, primarily as a result of higher average net transaction revenues and increased transactional volume due to our increased ZipAgent force. While we experienced a net loss in the second quarter of 2005 as a result of a one-time charge relating to the pending settlement of a threatened class action lawsuit, we would have been profitable excluding the effect of this non-recurring settlement.

Over the past several years there has been a decline in average commissions charged in the real estate brokerage industry, in part due to companies such as ours exerting downward pressure on prices with a lower commission structure, as well as by what, in our view, appears to be an increase in consumer willingness to negotiate fees with their agents. We believe that many consumers are focusing on absolute commission dollars paid to sell their home as opposed to accepting a traditional standard market commission percentage. According to REAL Trends, while the average commission percentage decreased from 5.44% in 2000 to 5.08% in 2004, total commission revenues increased from $42.6 billion to $61.1 billion during that same period, influenced by steadily increasing sales volumes and higher median sales prices. In the event that commissions continue to decline, we have designed our business model around an attractive cost structure and operational efficiencies which we believe should allow us to continue to offer our services at prices less than those charged by the majority of our competitors.

Market seasonality, cyclicality and interest rate influences

The residential real estate brokerage market is influenced both by annual seasonality factors, as well as by overall economic cycles. While individual markets vary, transaction volume activity nationally tends to progressively increase from January through the summer months, then gradually slows over the last three to four months of the calendar year. Revenues in each quarter are significantly affected by activity during the prior quarter, given the typical 30- to 45-day time lag between contract execution and closing. While we believe that seasonality has been somewhat masked by our overall growth, we have been, and believe we will continue to be, influenced by overall market activity and seasonal forces. We generally experience the most significant impact in the first and fourth quarters of each year, when our revenues are typically lower relative to the second and third quarters as a result of traditionally slower home sales activity and reduced listings inventory between Thanksgiving and Presidents’ Day. Net transaction revenues during the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 accounted for approximately 26.2% and 25.5% of annual net transaction revenues in 2004 and 2003, respectively. Net transaction revenues during the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 accounted for approximately 43.7% and 41.8% of annual net transaction revenues in 2004 and 2003, respectively

We believe that the overall macroeconomic environment and periodic business cycles can influence the general health of the residential real estate market at any given point in time. Generally, when economic times are fair or good, the housing market tends to perform well. If the economy is weak, interest rates dramatically increase, or there are market shocks such as terrorist attacks or threats, the outbreak of war or geopolitical uncertainties, the housing market could be negatively impacted. Over the past several decades, the national residential real estate market has demonstrated significant growth, with annual existing home sales volume

growing from 1.6 million in 1970 to approximately 6.8. million in 2004 and median existing home sales prices increasing every year during that period. During that period, the volume of existing home sales has declined for at least two consecutive years only twice, namely 1979 through 1982 and 1989 through 1990. The declines in sales volumes in the 1979 through 1982 period occurred while interest rates were at historic highs, with long-term U.S. Treasury rates exceeding 10%. With rates remaining at similarly high levels, housing activity expanded during the period from 1983 through 1986. Average interest rates were lower during the second period of consecutive year declines, 1989 through 1990, than in 1988.

Many factors influence an individual’s decision to buy or sell a home, and we believe that no one factor alone determines the health of the residential real estate market. For example, while a rise in interest rates could lead to lower demand for housing or put downward pressure on prices, it is our experience that lifestyle influences, such as job relocation, changes in family dynamics or a desire to change neighborhoods, significantly impact the demand for residential real estate. In addition, periods of interest rate increases are often characterized by improving economic fundamentals, which can create jobs, increase incomes and bolster consumer confidence, all of which are factors that positively influence housing demand. It is difficult to predict which influences will be strongest, and ultimately whether the housing market will be affected positively or negatively when faced with numerous influences.

While we do not believe that increasing interest rates will necessarily have a negative impact on the housing market, increasing interest rates may lead to a lower demand for housing or put downward pressure on prices. Higher interest rates could increase monthly housing payments or reduce the amount an individual can pay, which may have an adverse effect on pricing and affordability. It is also possible that home ownership rates, which reached an all time high in 2004 during the recent period of record low interest rates, could drop as a result of fewer first-time buyers being able to afford homes. Should overall transaction activity or sales prices decline, overall commissions generated in the industry could decline as well, potentially causing the roughly $61 billion in annual commissions generated in 2004 to decline. However, should the addressable market for our services decline somewhat due to decreasing sales volume or prices, we believe the overall size of the market on an absolute basis will remain very large, providing ample addressable opportunity for us to continue to grow our business through increasing our market share.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

Our financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues, costs and expenses and related disclosures. On an ongoing basis, we evaluate our estimates and assumptions. Accordingly, our actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We believe that the following accounting policies involve the greatest degree of judgment and complexity. Accordingly, these are the policies we believe are the most critical to understand and evaluate our financial condition and results of operations.

Revenue recognition

We derive the substantial majority of our revenues from commissions earned as agents for buyers and sellers in residential real estate transactions. We recognize commission revenues upon closing of a sale and purchase transaction, net of any rebate or commission discount, or transaction fee adjustment, as evidenced by the closure of the escrow or similar account and the transfer of these funds to all appropriate parties. We recognize non-commission revenues from our other business relationships, such as our E-LOAN marketing relationship, as the fees are earned from the other party typically on a monthly fee basis. Revenues are recognized when there is persuasive evidence of an arrangement, the price is fixed or determinable, collectibility is reasonably assured and the transaction has been completed.

Internal-use software and website development costs

We account for internal-use software and website development costs, including the development of our ZipAgent Platform, in accordance with the guidance set forth in Statement of Position 98-1, Accounting for the Cost of Computer Software Developed or Obtained for Internal Use and Emerging Task Force Issue No. 00-02, Accounting for Website Development Costs. We capitalize the payroll and direct payroll-related costs of employees who devote time to the development of internal-use software. We amortize these costs over their estimated useful lives, which is generally 15 months. Our judgment is required in determining the point at which various projects enter the stages at which costs may be capitalized, in assessing the ongoing value of the capitalized costs, and in determining the estimated useful lives over which the costs are amortized. The estimated life is based on management’s judgment as to the product life cycle.

Deferred stock-based compensation

We account for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with provisions of Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, or APB 25, and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 44, Accounting

for Certain Transactions Involving Stock Compensation—an Interpretation of APB No. 25, and comply with the disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, or SFAS 123, and related Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation—Transaction and Disclosure. Under APB 25, compensation expense is based on the difference, if any, on the date of the grant, between the fair value of our stock and the exercise price of the option. We amortize deferred stock-based compensation using the straight-line method over the vesting period. We account for equity instruments issued to non-employees in accordance with the provisions of SFAS 123 and Emerging Task Force Issue No. 96-18, Accounting for Equity Instruments That Are Issued to Other Than Employees for Acquiring, or in Conjunction with Selling, Goods or Services. Effective with annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005, we will account for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment, and Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107, which requires companies to expense the value of employee stock options and similar awards.

The accounting for and disclosure of employee and non-employee equity instruments, primarily stock options and preferred and common stock warrants, requires judgment by management on a number of assumptions, including the fair value of the underlying instrument, estimated lives of the outstanding instruments, and the instrument’s volatility. Changes in key assumptions will impact the valuation of such instruments. Because there was no public market for our stock prior to our initial public offering in November 2004, our board of directors determined the fair value of our common and preferred stock based on several factors, including, but not limited to, our operating and financial performance, recent sales of convertible debt instruments and internal valuation analyses considering key terms and rights of the related instruments. We have issued warrants primarily in relation to our convertible debt arrangements, and to a lesser degree, to certain service providers. Amounts recorded in conjunction with our convertible debt arrangements are generally amortized to interest expense over the expected life of the debt using the effective interest method.

For options granted after our initial public offering, the fair value of our common stock is the closing price of our stock on the Nasdaq National Market on the date the option was granted. For options which were granted prior to our initial public offering, the deemed fair value of our common stock was determined by our board of directors, with input from management, utilizing the market approach, considering a number of factors, including, but not limited to:

comparable values of similar companies and the pricing of recent rounds of financing;

revenue growth and profitability milestones achieved and as measured to budget;

continued growth in experience of our management team;

marketplace activity and competition;

barriers to entry; and

status of capital markets.

We recorded deferred stock-based compensation of $0 and $67,000 and amortization of such deferred compensation of approximately $36,000 and $48,000 in the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. We recorded deferred stock-based compensation of $0 and $430,000 and amortization of such deferred compensation of approximately $71,000 and $85,000 in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Had different assumptions or criteria been used to determine the deemed fair value of the stock options, materially different amounts of stock compensation expenses could have been reported.

Income taxes

Deferred tax assets and liabilities arise from the differences between the tax basis of an asset or liability and its reported amount in the financial statements as well as from net operating loss and tax credit carry forwards. Deferred tax amounts are determined by using the tax rates expected to be in effect when the taxes will actually be paid or refunds received, as provided under current tax law. Valuation allowances are established when necessary to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized. Income tax expense or benefit is the tax payable or refundable, respectively, for the period plus or minus the change during the period in deferred tax assets and liabilities.

We have recorded a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets at June 30, 2005, due to uncertainties related to our ability to utilize our deferred tax assets, primarily consisting of net operating loss carryforwards, before they expire. We regularly review deferred tax assets for recoverability and establish a valuation allowance based on historical taxable income, projected future taxable income, and the expected timing of the reversals of existing temporary differences. If we conclude that it is more likely than not that we will realize the benefit of all or some of our deferred tax assets, we will reduce or eliminate the valuation allowance and will record a significant benefit to our results of operations. We have incurred annual losses for both financial and income tax reporting purposes since inception through December 31, 2003. Although we generated net income for the year ended December 31, 2004, uncertainty still remains as to the realizability of our net deferred tax assets. In the event we were to determine that we would be able to realize all

of our deferred tax assets in the future, an adjustment to the valuation allowance would increase net income in the period such determination was made.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following table summarizes certain financial data related to our operations:


	Three months ended						Six months ended
	June 30,						June 30,
Statements of operations data	2005			2004			2005			2004
	(in thousands, except per share data)
Net transaction revenues	$	25,228		$	15,902		$	42,546		$	26,562
Referral and other revenues		529			368			1,029			608

Net revenues		25,757			16,270			43,575			27,170

Operating expenses:
Cost of revenues		13,820			8,709			23,883			14,803
Product development		610			549			1,203			996
Marketing and business development		3,285			2,203			6,091			3,863
General and administrative		5,458			3,593			9,696			6,382
Stock-based compensation		36			48			71			85
Litigation		4,164			—			4,164			—

Total operating expenses		27,373			15,102			45,108			26,129

Income (loss) from operations		(1,616	)		1,168			(1,533	)		1,041


Interest income		652			20			1,252			37
Other income (expense), net		(1	)		(1	)		(3	)		(6	)

Total other income (expense), net		651			19			1,249			31

Income (loss) before income taxes		(965	)		1,187			(284	)		1,072
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		(19	)		30			—			30

Net income (loss)	$	(946	)	$	1,157		$	(284	)	$	1,042

Cumulative preferred stock dividends	$	—		$	157		$	—		$	314
Amount allocated to participating preferred shares		—			1,000			—			728

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders	$	(946	)	$	—		$	(284	)	$	—

Net income (loss) per share:
Basic	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Diluted	$	(0.05	)	$	—		$	(0.01	)	$	—
Weighted average common shares outstanding:
Basic		20,005			1,499			20,001			1,484
Diluted		20,005			1,499			20,001			1,484

Net income (loss) available to common stockholders reflects the effect of cumulative and non-cumulative dividends on the Company’s redeemable convertible preferred stock which all converted to common stock upon the closing of the Company’s initial public offering on November 15, 2004. No dividend was ever declared or paid by the Company, and all rights to such dividends terminated on the date of the Company’s initial public offering.

The following table presents our historical operating results as a percentage of net revenues for the periods indicated:


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
Statements of operations data	2005			2004			2005			2004
Net transaction revenues		97.9	%		97.7	%		97.6	%		97.8	%
Referral and other revenues		2.1			2.3			2.4			2.2

Net revenues		100.0			100.0			100.0			100.0

Operating expenses:
Cost of revenues		53.7			53.5			54.8			54.5
Product development		2.4			3.4			2.8			3.7
Marketing and business development		12.8			13.5			14.0			14.2
General and administrative		21.2			22.1			22.3			23.5
Stock-based compensation		0.1			0.3			0.2			0.3
Litigation		16.2			—			9.6			—

Total operating expenses		106.4			92.8			103.7			96.2


	Three Months Ended						Six Months Ended
	June 30,						June 30,
Statements of operations data	2005			2004			2005			2004
Income (loss) from operations		(6.4	)		7.2			(3.7	)		3.8


Interest income		2.5			0.1			2.9			0.1
Other income (expense)		—			—			—			—

Total other income (expense), net		2.5			0.1			2.9			0.1

Income (loss) before income taxes		(3.9	)		7.3			(0.8	)		3.9
Provision (benefit) for income taxes		0.1			0.2			—			0.1
Net income (loss)		(3.8	)%		7.1	%		(0.8	)%		3.8	%


	Three Months Ended				Six Months Ended
	June 30,				June 30,
Other operating data	2005		2004		2005		2004
Number of ZipAgents at end of period		1,235		717		1,235		717
Total value of real estate transactions closed during period (in millions)	$	1,236	$	770	$	2,068	$	1,302
Number of transactions closed during period (1)		3,375		2,192		5,718		3,792
Average net revenue per transaction during period (2)	$	7,475	$	7,255	$	7,441	$	7,005


(1)		The term “transaction” refers to each representation of a buyer or seller in a real estate purchase or sale.

(2)		Average net revenue per transaction equals net transaction revenues divided by number of transactions with respect to each period.

Comparison of the three months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004

Net revenues


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Net revenues	$	25,757	$	16,270	$	9,487		58.3	%

The substantial increase in our net revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was primarily due to increased transaction volume and an increase in average net revenue per transaction. Transaction volume increased by 54% and contributed $8.6 million resulting from 3,375 transactions closed in the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to 2,192 transactions closed in the three months ended June 30, 2004. Our transaction volume increased as we added additional ZipAgents in our existing markets which allowed us to attract and service new clients. Additionally, we added new agents in Las Vegas and Houston as we commenced operations in April 2005 and June 2005, respectively. Transaction volume from Las Vegas and Houston were not significant during the three months ended June 30, 2005. We had 1,235 ZipAgents at June 30, 2005 compared to 717 at June 30, 2004. Average net revenue per transaction increased by 3% and contributed $0.7 million resulting primarily from representing buyers and sellers in transactions for higher priced homes in the three months ended June 30, 2005 and as a result of a consumer rebate reduction. Of the 3% increase in average net revenue per transaction, approximately 2% and $0.5 million were due to higher home prices, and 1% and $0.2 million were due to our consumer rebate reductions. In March 2004, we lowered the rebate from 25% to 20%; the phase in of this reduction was completed by the end of the second quarter of 2004. We anticipate average net revenue per transaction to remain relatively flat in 2005 as we anticipate the rate of price inflation in existing home sales to slow down relative to recent levels and we continue to grow on presence in markets of various price points around the country. The increase in referral and other revenues was not significant.

We expect that the overall market for our services will continue to improve in 2005 as we expand our force of ZipAgents in existing markets and continue to expand into new markets.

Cost of revenues


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Cost of revenues	$	13,820	$	8,709	$	5,111		58.7	%

Our cost of revenues consists principally of commissions, related payroll taxes, benefits and expense allowances paid to our ZipAgents, and the amortization of internal-use software and website development costs which relate primarily to our ZAP technology.

The increase in cost of revenues for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was due primarily to an increase in commissions, related payroll costs and expense allowances of approximately $5.1 million related to our growth in net transaction revenues. As a percentage of net revenues, cost of revenues for the same periods increased by 0.2 percentage points due primarily to the mix of commission splits earned by our ZipAgents.

We expect our cost of revenues to increase in 2005 in absolute dollars as we continue to grow our business, but to remain relatively consistent as a percentage of net revenues.

Product development


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Product development	$	610	$	549	$	61		11.1	%

Product development expenses include our information technology costs, primarily compensation and benefits for our product development personnel, depreciation of equipment, communications expenses and other operating costs relating to the maintenance of our website and our proprietary technology systems.

The increase in product development expenses for the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and consisted of increases in salaries and benefits of approximately $0.1 million. As a percentage of net revenues, product development expenses decreased 1.0 percentage points for the same periods due primarily to the growth in our net revenues.

We expect our product development expenses to increase in 2005 in absolute dollars as we continue to grow our business but to remain relatively consistent as a percentage of net revenues.

Marketing and business development


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Marketing and business development	$	3,285	$	2,203	$	1,082		49.1	%

Marketing and business development expenses include compensation and benefits of our marketing and business development personnel and costs relating to our marketing, advertising and client acquisition activities.

The increase in marketing and business development expenses in the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and consisted primarily of increased lead generation spending of approximately $1.2 million necessary to support the increase in the number of ZipAgents, an increase of approximately $0.1 million in salaries and benefits partially offset by an decrease of approximately $0.3 in advertising. As a percentage of net revenues, marketing and business development expenses for the same periods decreased 0.7 percentage points in the period due primarily to growth in our net revenues and the availability of cost effective customer leads.

We expect our marketing and business development expenses to increase in 2005 in absolute dollars, and to modestly increase as a percentage of net revenues, as we acquire more leads for our expanding ZipAgent force and potentially expand offline marketing and advertising campaigns to enhance our brand and expand geographically.

General and administrative


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
General and administrative	$	5,458	$	3,593	$	1,865		51.9	%

General and administrative expenses consist of compensation and benefits costs of our corporate employees, field support and management personnel, occupancy costs, legal and accounting fees, and other general operating support costs.

The increase in general and administrative expenses in the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and additional costs incurred with being a public company, and consisted primarily

of approximately $0.4 million related to increased salaries and benefits, $0.1 million of related operating costs for our additional management and support personnel in our district sales offices and approximately $0.2 million related to recruiting and training our expanding ZipAgent force. Additionally corporate office expenses increased for the same periods due to approximately $0.3 million of salaries and benefits, $0.1 million of operating costs and approximately $0.5 million of outside accounting and other professional costs relating primarily to operating as a public company including Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance costs. As a percentage of net revenues, general and administrative expenses decreased 0.9 percentage points for the same periods due primarily to the significant growth in our net revenues.

As we expand our business and incur additional costs associated with being a public company, particularly Sarbanes-Oxley compliance, we expect our general and administrative expenses to increase in absolute dollars but to decrease modestly as a percentage of net revenues.

Stock-based compensation


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase			Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)			change
			(in thousands)
Stock-based compensation	$	36	$	48	$	(12	)		(24.6	%)

We record deferred employee stock-based compensation for the excess of the estimated fair value of the shares of common stock subject to such options over the exercise price of these options at the date of grant. We amortize deferred stock-based compensation expense over the vesting periods of the individual options on the straight-line method. Outstanding options will continue to vest over future periods as long as the optionee continues in service to us. At June 30, 2005, we had approximately $0.3 million in deferred employee stock-based compensation on our balance sheet.

Future compensation expense from options granted through June 30, 2005 is estimated to be approximately $0.1 million in the remainder of 2005, $0.1 million in 2006 and $0.1 million in 2007. These amounts may decrease if stock options for which deferred stock-based expense has been recorded are forfeited through cancellation or repurchased prior to vesting. These amounts will increase in annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005 when we will begin accounting for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No.123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment which requires companies to expense the value of employee stock options and similar awards.

Litigation


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Litigation	$	4,164	$	—	$	4,164		100.0	%

Litigation relates to a class action lawsuit filed by two former ZipAgents. The plaintiffs allege, amount other things, that our expense allowance policies violate California law. We have reached an agreement in principle to settle this claim in exchange for our payment of $4.164 million and is expected to include a full release from any further liability on this issue and is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. Payment is expected to be made subsequent to the court approval.

Interest income


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Interest income	$	652	$	20	$	632		3,216.9	%

Interest income relates to interest we earn on our money market deposits and short-term investments. Interest income will fluctuate as our cash and short-term investment balances change and applicable interest rates increase or decrease. The increase in interest income in the three months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the three months ended June 30, 2004 was due primarily to interest earned on investing the proceeds from our initial public offering in November, 2004.

Other income (expense), net


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,						Increase			Percent
	2005			2004			(decrease)			change
				(in thousands)
Other income (expense), net	$	(1	)	$	(1	)		($0	)		(81.0	%)

Other income (expense), net consists of non-operating items, which have not been significant to date.

Provision for income taxes


	Three Months Ended
	June 30,					Increase			Percent
	2005			2004		(decrease)			change
				(in thousands)
Provision for income taxes	$	(19	)	$	30	$	(49	)		(164.2	%)

We recorded a negative provision for income taxes in the three months ended June 30, 2005 to reverse the provision for income taxes from the three months ended March 31, 2005 because of our net loss position for the six months ended June 30, 2005. We recorded a provision for income taxes in the three months ended June 30, 2004 attributable to federal and state alternative minimum taxes payable due to limits on the amount of net operating losses that could be applied against income earned in 2004 under current tax regulations. At June 30, 2005, we maintained a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets based on the determination that it was more likely than not that the deferred tax assets would not be realized.

Comparison of the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004

Net revenues


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Net revenues	$	43,575	$	27,170	$	16,405		60.4	%

The substantial increase in our net revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was primarily due to increased transaction volume and an increase in average net revenue per transaction. Transaction volume increased by 51% and contributed $13.5 million resulting from 5,718 transactions closed in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to 3,792 transactions closed in the six months ended June 30, 2004. Our transaction volume increased as we added additional ZipAgents in our existing markets which allowed us to attract and service new clients. Additionally, we added new agents in Las Vegas and Houston as we commenced operations in April 2005 and June 2005, respectively. Transaction volume from Las Vegas and Houston were not significant during the six months ended June 30, 2005. We had 1,235 ZipAgents at June 30, 2005 compared to 717 at June 30, 2004. Average net revenue per transaction increased by 6% and contributed $2.5 million resulting primarily from representing buyers and sellers in transactions for higher priced homes in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and as a result of a consumer rebate reduction. Of the 6% increase in average net revenue per transaction, approximately 3% and $1.4 million were due to higher home prices, and 3% and $1.1 million were due to our consumer rebate reductions. In March 2004, we lowered the rebate from 25% to 20%; the phase in of this reduction was completed by the end of the second quarter of 2004. We anticipate average net revenue per transaction to remain relatively flat in 2005 as we anticipate the rate of price inflation in existing home sales to slow down relative to recent levels and we continue to grow on presence in markets of various price points around the country. The increase in referral and other revenues was not significant.

We expect that the overall market for our services will continue to improve in 2005 as we expand our force of ZipAgents in existing markets and continue to expand into new markets.

Cost of revenues


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Cost of revenues	$	23,883	$	14,803	$	9,080		61.3	%

The increase in cost of revenues for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due primarily to an increase in commissions, related payroll costs and expense allowances of approximately $9.0 million related to our growth in net transaction revenues. As a percentage of net revenues, cost of revenues for the same periods increased by 0.3 percentage points due primarily to the mix of commission splits earned by our ZipAgents.

We expect our cost of revenues to increase in 2005 in absolute dollars as we continue to grow our business, but to remain relatively consistent as a percentage of net revenues.

Product development


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Product development	$	1,203	$	996	$	207		20.8	%

The increase in product development expenses for the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and consisted of increases in salaries and benefits of approximately $0.2 million. As a percentage of net revenues, product development expenses decreased 0.9 percentage points for the same periods due primarily to the growth in our net revenues.

We expect our product development expenses to increase in 2005 in absolute dollars as we continue to grow our business but to remain relatively consistent as a percentage of net revenues.

Marketing and business development


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Marketing and business development	$	6,091	$	3,863	$	2,228		57.7	%

The increase in marketing and business development expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and consisted primarily of increased lead generation spending of approximately $2.2 million necessary to support the increase in the number of ZipAgents and an increase of approximately $0.2 million in salaries and benefits partially offset by an decrease of approximately $0.2 in advertising. As a percentage of net revenues, marketing and business development expenses for the same periods decreased 0.2 percentage points in the period due primarily to growth in our net revenues and the availability of cost effective customer leads.

General and administrative


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
General and administrative	$	9,696	$	6,382	$	3,314		51.9	%

The increase in general and administrative expenses in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due to growth in our business and additional costs incurred with being a public company, and consisted primarily of approximately $0.7 million related to increased salaries and benefits, $0.3 million of related operating costs for our additional

management and support personnel in our district sales offices and approximately $0.3 million related to recruiting and training our expanding ZipAgent force. Additionally corporate office expenses increased for the same periods due to approximately $0.6 million of salaries and benefits, $0.3 million of operating costs and approximately $0.7 million of outside accounting and other professional costs relating primarily to operating as a public company including Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs.. As a percentage of net revenues, general and administrative expenses decreased 1.2 percentage points for the same periods due primarily to the significant growth in our net revenues.

As we expand our business and incur additional costs associated with being a public company, particularly Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance, we expect our general and administrative expenses to increase in absolute dollars but to decrease modestly as a percentage of net revenues.

Stock-based compensation


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase			Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)			change
			(in thousands)
Stock-based compensation	$	71	$	85	$	(14	)		(16.7	%)

Future compensation expense from options granted through June 30, 2005 is estimated to be approximately $0.1 million in the remainder of 2005, $0.1 million in 2006 and $0.1 million in 2007. These amounts may decrease if stock options for which deferred stock-based expense has been recorded are forfeited through cancellation or repurchase prior to vesting. These amounts will increase in annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005 when we will begin accounting for employee stock-based compensation in accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No.123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment which requires companies to expense the value of employee stock options and similar awards.

Litigation


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
			(in thousands)
Litigation	$	4,164	$	—	$	4,164		100.0	%

Interest income


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase		Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)		change
	(in thousands)
Interest income	$	1,252	$	37	$	1,215		3,329.1	%

Interest income relates to interest we earn on our money market deposits and short-term investments. Interest income will fluctuate as our cash and short-term investment balances change and applicable interest rates increase or decrease. The increase in interest income in the six months ended June 30, 2005 compared to the six months ended June 30, 2004 was due primarily to interest earned on investing the proceeds from our initial public offering in November, 2004.

Other income (expense), net


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,						Increase		Percent
	2005			2004			(decrease)		change
				(in thousands)
Other income (expense), net	$	(3	)	$	(6	)	$	3		(49.3	%)

Other income (expense), net consists of non-operating items, which have not been significant to date.

Provision for income taxes


	Six Months Ended
	June 30,				Increase			Percent
	2005		2004		(decrease)			change
			(in thousands)
Provision for income taxes	$	—	$	30		($30	)		(100.0	%)

In the six months ended June 30, 2005, no provision for income taxes was recorded due to our net loss position. We recorded a provision for income taxes in the six months ended June 30, 2004 attributable to federal and state alternative minimum taxes payable due to limits on the amount of net operating losses that could be applied against income earned in 2004 under current tax regulations. 2004, At June 30, 2005, we maintained a full valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets based on the determination that it was more likely than not that the deferred tax assets would not be realized.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES

Prior to our initial public offering in November 2004, we funded our operations primarily through the sale of preferred stock and convertible notes, which provided us with aggregate net proceeds of approximately $65.8 million. In November 2004, we completed our initial public offering, which raised net proceeds, after underwriting discounts, commissions and expenses, of approximately $61.4 million.

As of June 30, 2005, we had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments of $86.8 million and had no bank debt, line of credit or equipment facilities.

Operating activities

Our operating activities generated cash in the amount of $4.9 million and $2.6 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Net changes in working capital were due primarily to growth in our business. Our primary source of operating cash flow is the collection of our commission income from escrow companies or similar intermediaries in the real estate transaction closing process. Due to the structure of our commission arrangements, our accounts receivable are converted to cash on a short-term basis and our accounts receivable balances at period end have historically been significantly less than one month’s net revenues. Our operating cash flows will be impacted in the future by the timing of payments to our vendors for accounts payable, which are generally paid within the invoice terms and conditions. Our cash outflows are also impacted by the timing of the payment of our accrued liabilities relating to commissions and related compensation costs and client acquisition costs.

A number of non-cash items have been charged to expense and increased our net loss or decreased our net income. These items include depreciation and amortization of property and equipment, amortization of debt discounts and non-cash interest expense relating to our debt arrangements, and amortization of deferred employee stock-based compensation expense and other stock-based charges. To the extent these non-cash items increase or decrease in amount and increase or decrease our future operating results, there will be no corresponding impact on our cash flows.

Investing activities

Our investing activities used cash in the amount of $11.5 million and $0.7 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively. Uses of cash for investing activities were primarily related to purchases and sales of property and equipment, changes in restricted cash collateralizing our office lease and purchases of short-term investments.

We primarily maintain a minimum amount of cash and cash equivalents for operational purposes and invest the remaining amount of our cash in investment grade, highly liquid interest-bearing securities which allows for flexibility in the event our cash needs change.

Currently, we expect our remaining 2005 capital expenditures to be approximately $0.9 million, with approximately $0.5 million to be spent in the third quarter of 2005, principally to increase server capacity, upgrade the telephone system and to outfit localized agent training facilities as we move from centralized to field training.

Financing activities

Our financing activities provided cash in the amount of $0.3 million and $6.7 million in the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. Sources of cash from financing activities primarily represented proceeds from common stock warrant and common stock option exercises.

As of June 30, 2005, we had warrants outstanding for the purchase of an aggregate of 4,620,733 shares of our common stock at a weighted average exercise price of $3.95 per share. All of these warrants are currently exercisable at the option of the holders. If all or a portion of these warrants were exercised for cash, we could receive significant proceeds at that time.

Future needs

We believe that cash flows from operations and our current cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments will be sufficient to fund our operations for at least the next 12 months. Our future capital requirements will depend on many factors, including our rate of growth into new geographic markets, our level of investment in technology and advertising initiatives. Although we are currently not a party to any agreement or letter of intent with respect in investments in, or acquisitions of, complementary businesses, products or technologies, we may enter into these types of arrangements in the future, which could also require us to seek additional equity or debt financing. We currently have no bank debt or line of credit facilities. In the event that additional financing is required, we may not be able to raise it on terms acceptable to us or at all. If we are unable to raise additional capital when desired, our business, operations and results will likely suffer.

CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS AND COMMITMENTS

We lease office space and equipment under non-cancelable operating leases with various expiration dates through July 2008. The following table provides summary information concerning our future contractual obligations and commitments at June 30, 2005.


	Payments due by period
	Less than						More than
	1 year		1 to 3 years		3 to 5 years		5 years		Total
	(in thousands)
Operating lease commitments	$	1,005	$	1,124	$	—	$	—	$	2,129

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

We do not have any off balance-sheet arrangements, investments in special purpose entities or undisclosed borrowings or debt. Additionally, we are not a party to any derivative contracts or synthetic leases.

EFFECT OF RECENT ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS

In December 2004, the FASB issued SFAS No. 123 (Revised 2004), Share-Based Payment (“SFAS No. 123 (R)”). The new pronouncement replaces the existing requirements under SFAS No.123 and APB 25. According to SFAS No. 123 (R), all forms of share-based payments to employees, including employee stock options and employee stock purchase plans, would be treated the same as any other form of compensation by recognizing the related cost in the statement of operations. This pronouncement eliminates the ability to account for stock-based compensation transactions using APB No. 25 and generally would require instead that such transactions be accounted for using a fair-value based method, with a binomial or lattice model preferred to the Black-Scholes valuation model. The lattice model can explicitly capture expected changes in dividends and stock volatility over the expected life of the options, in contrast to the Black-Scholes option-pricing model, which uses weighted average assumptions about option pricing. The FASB concluded that for public companies SFAS No. 123 (R) is effective for awards and stock options granted, modified or settled in cash for annual periods beginning after June 15, 2005. In April 2005, the Securities and Exchange Commission amended the compliance dates for SFAS No. 123 (R); the new rule allows public companies to implement SFAS No. 123 (R) at the beginning of the next fiscal year, instead of the next reporting period, that begins after June 15, 2005. SFAS No. 123 (R) provides transition alternatives for public companies to restate prior interim periods or prior years. The proforma disclosures previously permitted under SFAS 123 no longer will be an alternative to financial statement recognition. See Note 4 to the unaudited condensed financial statements for the proforma net income (loss) and net income (loss) per share for the three months ended June 30, 2005 and the three months ended June 30, 2004, as if we used a fair-value-based method similar to the methods required under SFAS No. 123 (R) to measure compensation expense for employee stock incentive awards. On March 29, 2005 the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 107 (“SAB 107”) which provides the SEC Staff’s views regarding interactions between SFAS 123 (R) and certain SEC rules and regulations and provides interpretations of the valuation of share-based payments for public companies. We are currently reviewing the impact of implementing SFAS 123 (R) and SAB 107 on our financial statements.

deduction should be accounted for as a special tax deduction in accordance with Statement 109. Pursuant to the AJCA, the Company will not be able to claim this tax benefit until the first quarter of fiscal 2006. The Company does not expect the adoption of these new tax provisions to have a material impact on its financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

RISK FACTORS

Because of the following factors, as well as other variables affecting our operating results and financial condition, past financial performance may not be a reliable indicator of future performance, and historical trends should not be used to anticipate results or trends in future periods.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY

Our business model is new and unproven, and we cannot guarantee our future success.

Our Internet-enabled residential real estate brokerage service is a relatively new and unproven business model. Our business model differs significantly from that of a traditional real estate brokerage firm in several ways, including our heavy reliance on the Internet and technology and our employee agent model. The success of our business model depends on our ability to achieve higher transaction volumes at an overall lower cost per transaction in order to offset the costs associated with our technology, employee benefits, marketing and advertising expenses and discounts and rebates. If we are unable to efficiently acquire clients and maintain agent productivity in excess of industry averages, our ZipAgents may close fewer transactions and our net revenues could suffer as a result. Also, given that our agent employee model is uncommon in the real estate industry, our compensation structure could be subject to legal challenge, such as the litigation discussed in Part II, Item 1 of this report. In addition, our agents generally earn a lower per transaction commission than a traditional independent contractor agent. If we are unsuccessful in providing our agents with more opportunities to close transactions than under the traditional model, our ability to hire and retain qualified real estate agents would be harmed, which would in turn significantly harm our business.

We have been profitable in only six quarters and may incur losses in the future, and our limited operating history makes our future financial performance difficult to assess.

We were formed in January 1999 and therefore have a limited operating history upon which to evaluate our operations and future prospects. We have had a history of losses from inception through the first half of 2003 and at June 30, 2005 had an accumulated deficit of $52.4 million. While we were profitable in the third and fourth quarters of 2003, the second, third and fourth quarters of 2004 and the first quarter of 2005, we may not be profitable in future quarters or on an annual basis. While we experienced a net loss in the second quarter of 2005 as a result of a one-time charge relating to the pending settlement of a threatened class action lawsuit, we would have been profitable excluding the effect of this non-recurring settlement.

Our business model has evolved, and we have only recently achieved significant revenues. We may incur additional expenses with the expectation that our revenues will grow in the future, which may not occur. As a result, we could experience budgeting and cash flow management problems, unexpected fluctuations in our results of operations and other difficulties, any of which could harm our ability to achieve or maintain profitability, increase the volatility of the market price of our common stock or harm our ability to raise additional capital. Additionally, as a newly public company we must work towards compliance with the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, NASDAQ and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as those requirements become applicable to us, and we may incur costs in connection with that effort that are significantly higher than anticipated, which could negatively impact our profitability.

We expect that we will continue to increase our expenses, including marketing and business development expenses and expenses incurred as a result of increasing the number of agents we employ. As we grow our business in existing markets and expand to new markets, we cannot guarantee our business strategies will be successful or that our revenues will ever increase sufficiently to achieve and maintain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis.

Our business model requires access to real estate listing services provided by third parties that we do not control, and the demand for our services may be reduced if our ability to display listings on our website is restricted.

A key component of our business model is that through our website we offer clients access to, and the ability to search, real estate listings posted on the MLSs in the markets we serve. Most large metropolitan areas in the United States have at least one MLS, though there is no national MLS. The homes in each MLS are listed voluntarily by its members, who are licensed real estate brokers. The information distributed in an MLS allows brokers to cooperate in the identification of buyers for listed properties.

If our access to one or more MLS databases were restricted or terminated, our service could be adversely affected and our business may be harmed. Because participation in an MLS is voluntary, a broker or group of brokers may decline to post their listings to the existing MLS and instead create a new proprietary real estate listing service. If a broker or group of brokers created a separate real estate listing database, we may be unable to obtain access to that private listing service on commercially reasonable terms, if at all. As a result, the percentage of available real estate listings that our clients would be able to search using our website would be reduced, perhaps significantly, thereby making our services less attractive to potential clients.

Additionally, the National Association of Realtors, or NAR, the dominant trade organization in the residential real estate industry, has recently adopted a mandatory policy for NAR-affiliated MLSs regarding the use and display of MLS listings data on virtual office websites, or VOWs. We operate a VOW, which is a password protected website which allows us to show comprehensive MLS data directly to consumers without their having to visit an agent. Individual MLSs affiliated with NAR, which includes the vast majority of MLSs in the United States, will be required to implement their own individual VOW policies consistent with the NAR policy by January 1, 2006. NAR has extended the deadline for the implementation of its rules at least three times during an investigation by the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice into NAR’s policy that dictates how brokers can display other brokers’ property listings on their websites. We presently do not know whether or when the NAR rules will be implemented in their current form or in a revised form, if at all. Once these individual MLS VOW policies are implemented, the NAR policy currently provides that member brokerages will have up to six months to comply with the policy.

The NAR policy is designed to provide structure to the individual MLS VOW policies, subject to a number of areas in which the individual MLSs may tailor the policy to meet their local needs. One NAR policy provision with which the individual MLSs must adhere, once required to be implemented, is known as an “opt-out.” This provision creates a mechanism for individual brokers to prevent their listings data from being displayed on certain competitors’ VOWs. MLS members and participants, including individual brokers, could exercise a “blanket opt-out,” which would not allow their listings to be displayed on any competing VOW, or a “selective opt-out,” in which they could selectively prevent certain competing VOWs from displaying their listings, while allowing other VOWs to do so. A few of the MLSs of which we are a member, as well as at least one of the state Association of REALTORS® of which we are a member, have adopted VOW policies with “opt-out” provisions, apparently in anticipation of their required implementation of the NAR policy. To our knowledge, to date no members or participants of any of those MLSs have exercised such an opt-out right. Should any such right be exercised, it could restrict our ability to display comprehensive MLS home listings data to our consumers, which is a key part of our business model. Should our ability to display MLS listings information on our website be significantly restricted, it may reduce demand for our services and lead to a decrease in the number of residential real estate transactions completed by our ZipAgents, as well as increase our costs of ensuring compliance with such restrictions.

If we fail to recruit, hire and retain qualified agents, we may be unable to service our clients and our growth could be impaired.

Our business requires us to hire employees who are licensed real estate agents, and our strategy is based on consistently and rapidly growing our team of ZipAgents. Competition for qualified agents is intense, particularly in the markets in which we compete. While there are many licensed real estate agents in our markets and throughout the country, historically we have had difficulties in recruiting and retaining properly qualified licensed agents due particularly to agent discomfort with using technology and being actively managed by an employer. In addition, our lower per transaction agent commission model may be unattractive to certain higher performing agents. If we are unable to recruit, train and retain a sufficient number of qualified licensed real estate agents, we may be unable to service our clients properly and grow our business.

Historically we have experienced a high degree of agent turnover, most of which occurs in the first few months after commencing employment. This turnover has required us to expend a substantial amount of time and money to replace agents who have left as we have been growing our business. If this situation worsens, our rate of expansion into new markets could be slowed and we will continue to employ a significantly higher number of new agents with less experience operating in our business model, which could cause us to be less effective at expanding our market share in our existing markets and entering new markets.

Furthermore, we rely on federal and state exemptions from minimum wage and fair labor standards laws for our ZipAgents, who are compensated solely through commissions. Such exemptions may not continue to be available, or we may not qualify for such exemptions, which could subject us to penalties and damages for non-compliance. If similar exemptions are not available in states where we desire to expand our operations or if they cease to be available in the states where we currently operate, we may need to modify our agent compensation structure in such states.

Our failure to effectively manage the growth of our ZipAgents and our information and control systems could adversely affect our ability to service our clients.

As our operations have expanded, we have experienced rapid growth in our headcount from 839 total employees, including 717 ZipAgents, at June 30, 2004 to 1,407 total employees, including 1,235 ZipAgents, at June 30, 2005. We expect to continue to increase headcount in the future, particularly the number of ZipAgents. Our rapid growth has demanded, and will continue to demand, substantial resources and attention from our management. We will need to continue to hire additional qualified agents and improve and maintain our technology to properly manage our growth. If we do not effectively manage our growth, our client service and responsiveness could suffer and our costs could increase, which could negatively affect our brand and operating results.

As we grow, our success will depend on our ability to continue to implement and improve our operational, financial and management information and control systems on a timely basis, together with maintaining effective cost controls. This ability will be particularly critical as we implement new systems and controls to help us comply with the more stringent requirements of being a public company, including the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which require management to evaluate and assess the effectiveness of our internal controls and our disclosure controls and procedures. Effective internal controls are required by law and are necessary for us to provide reliable financial reports and effectively prevent fraud. Effective disclosure controls and procedures will be required by law and are necessary for us to file complete, accurate and timely reports under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Any inability to provide reliable financial reports or prevent fraud or to file complete, accurate and timely reports under the Securities Exchange Act could harm our business, harm our reputation or result in a decline in or stock price. We are continuing to evaluate and, where appropriate, enhance our systems, procedures and internal controls. We are in the process of establishing our disclosure controls and procedures. If our systems, procedures or controls are not adequate to support our operations and reliable, accurate and timely financial and other reporting, we may not be able to successfully satisfy regulatory and investor scrutiny, offer our services and implement our business plan.

Our operating results are subject to seasonality and vary significantly among quarters during each calendar year, making meaningful comparisons of successive quarters difficult.

The residential real estate market traditionally has experienced seasonality, with a peak in the spring and summer seasons and a decrease in activity during the fall and winter seasons. Revenues in each quarter are significantly affected by activity during the prior quarter, given the typical 30- to 45-day time lag between contract execution and closing. Historically, this seasonality has caused our revenues, operating income, net income and cash flow from operating activities to be lower in the first and fourth quarters and higher in the second and third quarters of each year.

Factors affecting the timing of real estate transactions that can cause our quarterly results to fluctuate include:

timing of widely observed holidays and vacation periods and availability home buyers and sellers, real estate agents and related service providers during these periods;

a desire to relocate prior to the start of the school year;

inclement weather which can influence consumers’ desire or ability to visit properties;

timing of employment compensation changes, such as raises and bonuses;

the time between entry into a purchase contract for real estate and closing of the transaction; and

the levels of housing inventory available for sale.

We expect our revenues to continue to be subject to these seasonal fluctuations, which, combined with our recent growth, make it difficult to compare successive quarters.

Interest rates have been at historic lows for the past several years, and increases in interest rates have the potential to negatively impact the housing market.

When interest rates rise, all other things being equal, housing becomes less affordable, since at a given income level people cannot qualify to borrow as much principal, or given a fixed principal amount they will be faced with higher monthly payments. This result may mean that fewer people will be able to afford homes at prevailing prices, potentially leading to fewer transactions or reductions in home prices in certain regions, depending also on the relevant supply-demand dynamics of those markets. Since we operate in only 13 markets around the country, it is possible that we could experience a more pronounced impact than we would experience if our operations were more diversified. Should we experience softening in our markets and not be able to offset the potential negative

market influences on price and volume by increasing our transaction volume through market share growth, our financial results could be negatively impacted.

If consumers do not continue to use the Internet as a tool in their residential real estate buying or selling process, we may be unable to attract new clients and our growth and financial results may suffer.

We rely substantially on our website and web-based marketing for our client lead generation. As the residential real estate business has traditionally been characterized by personal, face-to-face relationships between buyers and sellers and their agents, our success will depend to a certain extent on the willingness of consumers to increase their use of online services in the real estate sales and purchasing process. In addition, our success will depend on consumers visiting our website early in their selling or buying process so that we can interface with potential clients before they have engaged a real estate agent to represent them in their transactions. If we are unable to convince visitors to our website to transact business with us, our ZipAgents will have fewer opportunities to represent clients in residential real estate transactions and our net revenues could suffer.

Our success depends in part on our ability to successfully expand into additional real estate markets.

We currently operate in 14 markets, including 13 of the 25 most populous U.S. metropolitan statistical areas. A part of our business strategy is to grow our business by entering into additional real estate markets and, to this end, we commenced operations in Las Vegas in April 2005 and in Houston in June 2005, and we have announced plans to open in Miami, Florida in the fourth quarter of this year. Key elements of this expansion include our ability to identify strategically attractive real estate markets and to successfully establish our brand in those markets. We consider many factors when selecting a new market to enter, including:

the economic conditions and demographics of a market;

the general prices of real estate in a market;

Internet use in a market;

competition within a market from local and national brokerage firms;

rules and regulations governing a market;

the ability and capacity of our organization to manage expansion into additional geographic areas, additional headcount and increased organizational complexity;

the existence of local MLSs; and

state laws governing cash rebates and other regulatory restrictions.

Before opening Las Vegas we had not entered a new geographic market since July 2000 and have limited experience expanding into and operating in multiple markets, managing multiple sales regions or addressing the factors described above. In addition, this expansion could involve significant initial start-up costs. We expect that significant revenues from new markets will be achieved, if ever, only after we have been operating in that market for some time and begun to build market awareness of our services. As a result, geographic expansion is likely to significantly increase our expenses and cause fluctuations in our operating results. In addition, if we are unable to successfully penetrate these new markets, we may continue to incur costs without achieving the expected revenues, which would harm our financial condition and results of operations.

Unless we develop, maintain and protect a strong brand identity, our business may not grow and our financial results may suffer.

We believe a strong brand is a competitive advantage in the residential real estate industry because of the fragmentation of the market and the large number of agents and brokers available to the consumer. Because our brand is relatively new, we currently do not have strong brand identity. We believe that establishing and maintaining brand identity and brand loyalty is critical to attracting new clients. In order to attract and retain clients, and respond to competitive pressures, we expect to increase our marketing and business development expenditures to maintain and enhance our brand in the future.

We plan to continue testing online, radio, outdoor and newspaper advertising and conduct future television advertising campaigns. We plan to increase our online advertising expenditures substantially in the near future while maintaining our offline advertising expenditures at current levels. While we intend to enhance our marketing and advertising activities in order to promote our brand, these activities may not have a material positive impact on our brand identity. In addition, maintaining our brand will depend on our ability to provide a high-quality consumer experience and high quality service, which we may not do successfully. If we are unable to

maintain and enhance our brand, our ability to attract new clients or successfully expand our operations will be harmed.

We have numerous competitors, many of which have valuable industry relationships and access to greater resources than we do.

The residential real estate market is highly fragmented, and we have numerous competitors, many of which have greater name recognition, longer operating histories, larger client bases, and significantly greater financial, technical and marketing resources than we do. Some of those competitors are large national brokerage firms or franchisors, such as Prudential Financial, Inc., RE/MAX International Inc. and Cendant Corporation, which owns the Century 21, Coldwell Banker and ERA franchise brands, a large corporate relocation business and NRT Incorporated, the largest brokerage in the United States. NRT owns and operates brokerages that are typically affiliated with one of the franchise brands owned by Cendant. We are also subject to competition from local or regional firms, as well as individual real estate agents. We also compete or may in the future compete with various online services, such as InterActiveCorp and its LendingTree unit, HouseValues, Inc., HomeGain, Inc., Homestore, Inc. and its Realtor.com affiliate and Yahoo! Inc. that also look to attract and monetize home buyers and sellers using the Internet. Homestore is affiliated with NAR, the National Association of Home Builders, or NAHB, a number of major MLSs and Cendant, which may provide Homestore with preferred access to listing information and other competitive advantages. In addition, our technology-focused business model is a relatively new approach to the residential real estate market and many consumers may be hesitant to choose us over more established brokerage firms employing traditional techniques.

Some of our competitors are able to undertake more extensive marketing campaigns, make more attractive offers to potential agents and clients and respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies. Over the past several years there has been a slow but steady decline in average commissions charged in the real estate brokerage industry, with the average commission percentage decreasing from 5.44% in 2000 to 5.08% in 2004 according to REAL Trends . Some of our competitors with greater resources may be able to better withstand the short- or long-term financial effects of this trend. In addition, the barriers to entry to providing an Internet-enabled real estate service are low, making it possible for current or new competitors to adopt certain aspects of our business model, including offering comprehensive MLS data to clients via the Internet, thereby reducing our competitive advantage. We may not be able to compete successfully for clients and agents, and increased competition could result in price reductions, reduced margins or loss of market share, any of which would harm our business, operating results and financial condition.

Changes in federal and state real estate laws and regulations, and rules of industry organizations such as the National Association of REALTORS®, could adversely affect our business.

The real estate industry is heavily regulated in the United States, including regulation under the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, state and local licensing laws and regulations and federal and state advertising laws. In addition to existing laws and regulations, states and industry participants and regulatory organizations could enact legislation, regulatory or other policies in the future, which could restrict our activities or significantly increase our compliance costs. Moreover, the provision of real estate services over the Internet is a new and evolving business, and legislators, regulators and industry participants may advocate additional legislative or regulatory initiatives governing the conduct of our business. If existing laws or regulations are amended or new laws or regulations are adopted, we may need to comply with additional legal requirements and incur significant compliance costs, or we could be precluded from certain activities. Because we operate through our website, state and local governments other than where the subject property is located may attempt to regulate our activities, which could significantly increase our compliance costs and limit certain of our activities. In addition, industry organizations, such as NAR and other state and local organizations, can impose standards or other rules affecting the manner in which we conduct our business. As mentioned above, NAR has adopted rules that, if implemented, could result in a reduction in the number of home listings that could be viewed on our website. NAR has extended the deadline for the implementation of its rules at least twice during an investigation by the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice into NAR’s policy that dictates how brokers can display other brokers’ property listings on their websites. We presently do not know whether or when the NAR rules will be implemented in their current form or in a revised form, if at all. The implementation of the rules will not limit our access to listing information, but could limit the display of listing information to our clients through our website in the manner we currently utilize, as well as increase our costs of ensuring compliance with such rules. Any significant lobbying or related activities, either of governmental bodies or industry organizations, required to respond to current or new initiatives in connection with our business could substantially increase our operating costs and harm our business.

We derive a significant portion of our leads through third parties, and if any of our significant lead generation relationships are terminated or become more expensive, our ability to attract new clients and grow our business may be adversely affected.

We generate leads for our ZipAgents through many sources, including leads from third parties with which we have only non-exclusive, short-term agreements that are generally terminable on little or no notice and with no penalties. Our largest third-party lead source in 2004, HomeGain, Inc., which competes with us for online customer acquisition, generated approximately 21% of our leads during that period. In addition, during the third quarter of 2004 our exclusive co-branded relationship which we had in four markets with one third-party lead source, Yahoo! Inc., ended, effective July 31, 2004. Leads from this source accounted for approximately 8%

of our leads and approximately 8% of our net revenues during 2004. These leads were inexpensive relative to those generated from competing sources, although they also were characterized by a lower conversion rate than is typical from our other sources. As a result, our lead replacement strategy delivered fewer leads to the agents in the areas impacted by the termination of the Yahoo! co-branded relationship but with those leads characterized by what we believe to be higher conversion potential based upon historical experience. Should this replacement strategy not be successful, or any of our other lead generation relationships become materially more expensive such that we could not obtain substitute sources on acceptable terms, our ability to attract new clients and grow our business may be impaired.

Our business could be harmed by economic events that are out of our control and may be difficult to predict.

The success of our business depends in part on the health of the residential real estate market, which traditionally has been subject to cyclical economic swings. The purchase of residential real estate is a significant transaction for most consumers, and one which can be delayed or terminated based on the availability of discretionary income. Economic slowdown or recession, rising interest rates, adverse tax policies, lower availability of credit, increased unemployment, lower consumer confidence, lower wage and salary levels, war or terrorist attacks, or the public perception that any of these events may occur, could adversely affect the demand for residential real estate and would harm our business. Also, if interest rates increase significantly, homeowners’ ability to purchase a new home or a higher priced home may be reduced as higher monthly payments would make housing less affordable. In addition, these conditions could lead to a decline in new listings, transaction volume and sales prices, any of which would harm our operating results.

Our ability to expand our business may be limited by state laws governing cash rebates to home buyers.

A significant component of our value proposition to our home buyer clients is a cash rebate provided to the buyer at closing. Currently, our clients who are home buyers represent a substantial majority of our business and revenues. Certain states, such as Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Oregon and Tennessee, may presently prohibit sharing any commissions with, or providing rebates to, clients who are not licensed real estate agents. In addition, other states may limit or restrict our cash rebate program as currently structured, including Missouri and New York. Should we decide to expand into any of these states, we may have to adjust our pricing structure or refrain from offering rebates to buyers in these states. Moreover, we cannot predict whether alternative approaches will be cost effective or easily marketable to prospective clients. The failure to enter into these markets, or others that adopt similar restrictions, or to successfully attract clients in these markets, could harm our business.

We may be unable to integrate our technology with each MLS on a cost-effective basis, which may harm our operating results and adversely affect our ability to service clients.

Each MLS is operated independently and is run on its own technology platform. As a result, we must constantly modify our technology to successfully interact with each independent MLS in order to maintain access to that MLS’s home listings information. In addition, when a new MLS is created, we must customize our technology to work with that new system. These activities require constant attention and significant resources. We may be unable to successfully interoperate with the MLSs without significantly increasing our engineering costs, which would increase our operating expenses without a related increase in net revenues and cause our operating results to suffer. We may also be unable to interoperate with the MLSs at all, which may adversely affect the demand for our services.

If we fail to comply with real estate brokerage laws and regulations, we may incur significant financial penalties or lose our license to operate.

Due to the geographic scope of our operations and the nature of the real estate services we perform, we are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations. For example, we are required to maintain real estate brokerage licenses in each state in which we operate and to designate individual licensed brokers of record. In some states, these licenses are personal to the broker. If we fail to maintain our licenses, lose the services of our designated broker of record or conduct brokerage activities without a license, we may be required to pay fines or return commissions received, our licenses may be suspended or we may be subject to other civil and/or criminal penalties. As we expand into new markets, we will need to obtain and maintain the required brokerage licenses and comply with the applicable laws and regulations of these markets, which may be different from those to which we are accustomed, may be difficult to obtain and will increase our compliance costs. In addition, because the size and scope of real estate sales transactions have increased significantly during the past several years, both the difficulty and cost of compliance with the numerous state licensing regimes and possible losses resulting from non-compliance have increased. Our failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, the possible loss of real estate brokerage licenses or litigation by government agencies or affected clients may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and operating results, and may limit our ability to expand into new markets.

We may have liabilities in connection with real estate brokerage activities.

As a licensed real estate broker, we and our licensed employees are subject to statutory due diligence, disclosure and standard-of-care obligations. In the ordinary course of business we and our employees are subject to litigation from parties involved in transactions for alleged violations of these obligations. We self-insure some of this risk and, as we expand our business to include larger deals, we may not be able to obtain third party insurance on these larger deals with attractive terms. In addition, we may be required to indemnify our employees who become subject to litigation arising out of our business activities, including for claims related to the negligence of those employees. An adverse outcome in any such litigation could negatively impact our reputation and harm our business.

We may be subject to liability for the Internet content that we publish.

As a publisher of online content, we face potential liability for negligence, copyright, patent or trademark infringement, or other claims based on the nature and content of the material that we publish or distribute. Such claims may include the posting of confidential data, erroneous listings or listing information and the erroneous removal of listings. These types of claims have been brought successfully against the providers of online services in the past and could be brought against us or others in our industry. In addition, we may face liability if a MLS member or participant utilizes an opt-out provision, as previously discussed, and we fail to comply with that requirement. These claims, whether or not successful, could harm our reputation, business and financial condition. Although we carry general liability insurance, our insurance may not cover claims of these types or may be inadequate to protect us for all liability that we may incur.

We monitor and evaluate the use of our website by our registered users, which could raise privacy concerns.

Visitors to our website that register with us receive access to home listing and related information that we do not make available to unregistered users. As part of the registration process, our registered users consent to our use of information we gather from their use of our website, such as the geographic areas in which they search for homes, the price range of homes they view, their activities while on our website and other similar information. They also provide us with personal information such as telephone numbers and email addresses. While our registered users consent to our internal use of this information, if we were to use this information outside the scope of their consent or otherwise fail to keep this information confidential from third parties, including our former agents, we may be subject to legal claims or government action and our reputation and business could be harmed. While we do not share website use and other personal information with any third parties, except with our clients’ consent to third parties involved in the transaction process, concern among consumers regarding our use of personal information gathered from visitors to our website could cause them not to register with us. This would reduce the number of leads we derive from our website. Because our website is our primary client acquisition tool, any resistance by consumers to register on our website would harm our business and results of operations, and could cause us to alter our business practices or incur significant expenses to educate consumers regarding the use we make of information.

We may need to change the manner in which we conduct our business if government regulation of the Internet increases.

The adoption or modification of laws or regulations relating to the Internet could adversely affect the manner in which we currently conduct our business. In addition, the growth and development of the market for online commerce may lead to more stringent consumer protection laws that may impose additional burdens on us. Laws and regulations directly applicable to communications or commerce over the Internet are becoming more prevalent. For example, both the U.S. government and the State of California have enacted Internet laws regarding privacy and sharing of customer information with third parties. Laws applicable to the Internet remain largely unsettled, even in areas where there has been some legislative action. It may take years to determine whether and how existing laws such as those governing intellectual property, privacy, libel and taxation apply to the Internet.

In addition, because each state in which we do business requires us to be a licensed real estate broker, and residents of states in which we do not do business could potentially access our website, changes in Internet regulation could lead to situations in which we are considered to “operate” or “do business” in such states. This could result in potential claims or regulatory action.

If we are required to comply with new regulations or new interpretations of existing regulations, we may not be able to differentiate our services from traditional competitors and may not attract a sufficient number of clients for our business to be successful.

Our reputation and client and agent service offerings may be harmed by system failures and computer viruses.

The performance and reliability of our technology infrastructure is critical to our reputation and ability to attract and retain clients and agents. Our network infrastructure is currently co-located at a single facility in Sunnyvale, California and we do not currently operate a back-up facility. As a result, any system failure or service outage at this primary facility would result in a loss of service for the duration of the failure or outage. Any system error or failure, or a sudden and significant increase in traffic, may significantly delay response times or even cause our system to fail resulting in the unavailability of our Internet platform. For example, earlier this year we experienced an unscheduled outage that lasted approximately 12 hours. During this period our clients and prospective clients were unable to access our website or receive notifications of new listings. While we have taken measures to prevent unscheduled outages, outages may occur in the future. In addition, our systems and operations are vulnerable to interruption or malfunction due to certain

events beyond our control, including natural disasters, such as earthquakes, fire and flood, power loss, telecommunication failures, break-ins, sabotage, computer viruses, intentional acts of vandalism and similar events. Our network infrastructure is located in the San Francisco Bay area, which is susceptible to earthquakes and has, in the past, experienced power shortages and outages, any of which could result in system failures and service outages. We may not be able to expand our network infrastructure, either on our own or through use of third party hosting systems or service providers, on a timely basis sufficient to meet demand. Any interruption, delay or system failure could result in client and financial losses, litigation or other consumer claims and damage to our reputation.

Our business is geographically concentrated, which makes us more susceptible to business interruption and financial loss due to natural disasters, inclement weather or other regional events outside of our control.

Presently, our business is conducted principally in a few states in the western United States, especially California, and along the eastern seaboard. For example, we derived over half of our revenues during the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 in the state of California. In addition, our servers and other technology infrastructure are located principally in the state of California. Our geographic concentration makes us as a whole more vulnerable to the effects of regional disasters in these areas, such as earthquakes, harsh weather or other events outside of our control. These events could cause us to sustain a business interruption or other financial loss that would be greater than if our business were more dispersed geographically.

Our intellectual property rights are valuable and our failure to protect those rights could adversely affect our business.

Our intellectual property rights, including existing and future patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and copyrights, are and will continue to be valuable and important assets of our business. We believe that our proprietary ZAP technology and ZipNotify, as well as our ability to interoperate with multiple MLSs and our other technologies and business practices, are competitive advantages and that any duplication by competitors would harm our business. We have taken measures to protect our intellectual property, but these measures may not be sufficient or effective. For example, we seek to avoid disclosure of our intellectual property by requiring employees and consultants with access to our proprietary information to execute confidentiality agreements. We also seek to maintain certain intellectual property as trade secrets. Intellectual property laws and contractual restrictions may not prevent misappropriation of our intellectual property or deter others from developing similar technologies. In addition, others may develop technologies that are similar or superior to our technology, including our patented technology. Any significant impairment of our intellectual property rights could harm our business.

We may in the future be subject to intellectual property rights disputes, which could divert management attention, be costly to defend and require us to limit our service offerings.

Our business depends on the protection and utilization of our intellectual property. Other companies may develop or acquire intellectual property rights that could prevent, limit or interfere with our ability to provide our products and services. One or more of these companies, which could include our competitors, could make claims alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. Any intellectual property claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming and expensive to litigate or settle and could significantly divert management resources and attention.

Our technologies may not be able to withstand any third-party claims or rights against their use. If we were unable to successfully defend against such claims, we may have to:

Ø		pay damages;

Ø		stop using the technology found to be in violation of a third party’s rights;

Ø		seek a license for the infringing technology; or

Ø		develop alternative non-infringing technology.

If we have to obtain a license for the infringing technology, it may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all. Developing alternative non-infringing technology could require significant effort and expense. If we cannot license or develop alternative technology for the infringing aspects of our business, we may be forced to limit our product and service offerings. Any of these results could reduce our ability to compete effectively, and harm our business and results of operations.

If we fail to attract and retain our key personnel, our ability to meet our business goals will be impaired and our financial condition and results of operations will suffer.

The loss of the services of one or more of our key personnel could seriously harm our business. In particular, our success depends on the continued contributions of Eric A. Danziger, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and other senior level sales, operations, marketing, technology and financial officers. Our business plan was developed in large part by our senior level officers and its

implementation requires their skills and knowledge. None of our officers or key employees has an employment agreement, and their employment is at will. We do not have “key person” life insurance policies covering any of our executives.

We intend to evaluate acquisitions or investments in complementary technologies and businesses and we may not realize the anticipated benefits from, and may have to pay substantial costs related to, any acquisitions or investments that we undertake.

As part of our business strategy, we plan to evaluate acquisitions of, or investments in, complementary technologies and businesses. We may be unable to identify suitable acquisition candidates in the future or be able to make these acquisitions on a commercially reasonable basis, or at all. If we complete an acquisition or investment, we may not realize the benefits we expect to derive from the transaction. Any future acquisitions and investments would have several risks, including:

Ø			our inability to successfully integrate acquired technologies or operations;

Ø			diversion of management’s attention;

Ø			problems maintaining uniform standards, procedures, controls and policies;

Ø			potentially dilutive issuances of equity securities or the incurrence of debt or contingent liabilities;

Ø			expenses related to amortization of intangible assets;

Ø			risks associated with operating a business or in a market in which we have little or no prior experience;

Ø			potential write offs of acquired assets;

Ø			loss of key employees of acquired businesses; and

Ø			our inability to recover the costs of acquisitions or investments.

Accounting for employee stock options using the fair value method, could significantly reduce our net income in future periods.

In December 2004, the FASB issued its final standard on accounting for share-based payments, SFAS No. 123R (revised 2004), that requires companies to expense the value of employee stock options and similar awards. In April 2005, The Securities and Exchange Commission amended the compliance dates and, accordingly, we will be required to record an expense for our stock-based compensation plans using the fair value method beginning on January 1, 2006. This expense will exceed the expense we currently record for our stock-based compensation plans and correspondingly reduce our net income in future periods.

The value of our services could be diminished if anti-spam software filters out an increasing portion of the emails we send.

Our ZAP system includes a feature that sends out personalized email messages to our registered users on behalf of our agents. Given the volume of these messages, anti-spam software used by Internet service providers and personal computer users sometimes treats these messages incorrectly as unsolicited email, or “spam,” and filters them out. If this problem becomes more pervasive, the value of this aspect of our marketing and communication approach could be diminished, which could harm our business.

OTHER RISKS RELATED TO OUR STOCK PRICE

Our stock price may be volatile.

The trading price of our common stock may fluctuate widely, depending upon many factors, some of which are beyond our control. These factors include, among others, the risks identified above and the following:

Ø		variations in our quarterly results of operations;

Ø		announcements by us or our competitors or lead source providers;

Ø		the relatively low level of public float and average daily trading volumes of our common stock;

Ø		changes in estimates of our performance or recommendations, or termination of coverage by securities analysts;

Ø		inability to meet quarterly or yearly estimates or targets of our performance;

Ø		the hiring or departure of key personnel, including agents or groups of agents or key executives;

Ø		changes in our reputation;

Ø		acquisitions or strategic alliances involving us or our competitors;

Ø		changes in the legal and regulatory environment affecting our business; and

Ø		market conditions in our industry and the economy as a whole.

In addition, the stock market in general, and the market for technology companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies. These broad market and industry factors may seriously harm the market price of our common stock, regardless of our actual operating performance. Also, in the past, following periods of volatility in the overall market and the market price of a company’s securities, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against these companies. This litigation, if instituted against us, could result in substantial costs and a diversion of our management’s attention and resources and could harm the price of our common stock. Although we carry general liability and errors and omissions insurance, our insurance may not cover claims of these types or may be inadequate to protect us from all liability that we may incur.

Our share price could decline due to the large number of outstanding shares of our common stock eligible for future sale.

The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of substantial amounts of our common stock in the public market, or from the perception that these sales could occur. These sales could also make it more difficult for us to sell our equity or equity-related securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate.

As of June 30, 2005, we had 20,161,936 shares of common stock outstanding. The 5,232,500 shares sold pursuant to our November 2004 initial public offering are currently tradable without restriction. Almost all of the remaining shares are eligible for sale, subject in some cases to the volume and other restrictions of Rule 144 and Rule 701 under the Securities Act of 1933.

In addition, after the closing of our initial public offering, we registered approximately 4,131,875 shares of common stock that have been issued or reserved for future issuance under our stock incentive plans. Of those shares, options for 1,797,391 shares were vested as of June 30, 2005 and, if those options are exercised, those shares are eligible for sale after the expiration of the lock-up agreements. Also as of June 30, 2005, we had outstanding warrants for 4,620,733 shares that were fully vested and, if those warrants are exercised, those shares will be eligible for sale after the expiration of the lock-up agreements.

Our principal stockholders, executive officers and directors own a significant percentage of our stock, and as a result, the trading price for our shares may be depressed and these stockholders can take actions that may be adverse to your interests.

Our executive officers and directors and entities affiliated with them, in the aggregate, beneficially own over two-thirds of our common stock. This significant concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price for our common stock because investors often perceive disadvantages in owning stock in companies with controlling stockholders. These stockholders, acting together, will have the ability to exert control over all matters requiring approval by our stockholders, including the election and removal of directors and any proposed merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. In addition, these stockholders who are executive officers or directors, or who have representatives on our board of directors, could dictate the management of our business and affairs. This concentration of ownership could have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, or impeding a merger or consolidation, takeover or other business combination that could be favorable to you.

Our charter documents and Delaware law could prevent a takeover that stockholders consider favorable and could also reduce the market price of our stock.

Our amended and restated certificate of incorporation and our bylaws contain provisions that could delay or prevent a change in control of our company. These provisions could also make it more difficult for stockholders to elect directors and take other corporate actions. These provisions include:

Ø		providing for a classified board of directors with staggered, three-year terms;

Ø		not providing for cumulative voting in the election of directors;

Ø		authorizing the board to issue, without stockholder approval, preferred stock with rights senior to those of common stock;

Ø		prohibiting stockholder action by written consent;

Ø		limiting the persons who may call special meetings of stockholders; and

Ø		requiring advance notification of stockholder nominations and proposals.

In addition, the provisions of Section 203 of Delaware General Corporate Law govern us. These provisions may prohibit large stockholders, in particular those owning 15% or more of our outstanding voting stock, from merging or combining with us for a certain period of time.

These and other provisions in our amended and restated certificate of incorporation, our bylaws and under Delaware law could discourage potential takeover attempts, reduce the price that investors might be willing to pay for shares of our common stock in the future and result in the market price being lower than it would be without these provisions.

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk:

Interest rate sensitivity

We do not have any debt and thus do not have any related interest rate exposure. Our investment policy requires us to invest funds in excess of current operating requirements. The principal objectives of our investment activities are to preserve principal, provide liquidity and maximize income consistent with minimizing risk of material loss.

As of June 30, 2005, our cash and cash equivalents consisted primarily of money market funds and our short-term investments consisted primarily of investment grade, highly liquid interest-bearing securities. As of June 30, 2004, our cash and cash equivalents consisted primarily of money market funds. The recorded carrying amounts of cash and cash equivalents approximate fair value due to their short maturities and short-term investments are carried at fair value. The amount of credit exposure to any one issue, issuer and type of instrument is limited. Our interest income is sensitive to changes in the general level of interest rates in the United States, particularly since the majority of our investments are fixed income investments. If market interest rates were to increase or decrease immediately and uniformly by 10% from levels at June 30, 2005 and 2004, the increase or decline in fair market value of the portfolio would be approximately $0.2 and $0 million, respectively.

Exchange rate sensitivity

We consider our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations to be minimal, as we do not have any sales denominated in foreign currencies. We have not engaged in any hedging or other derivative transactions to date.

Item 4. Controls and Procedures:

(a)		Disclosure controls and procedures. Our management evaluated, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report. Based on this evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer have concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report are effective to provide reasonable assurance that information we are required to disclose in reports that we file or submit under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.

		The evaluation included certain internal control areas in which we have made and are continuing to make changes to improve and enhance controls. In designing and evaluating the disclosure controls and procedures, management recognized that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management is required to apply its judgment in evaluating the cost benefit relationship of possible controls and procedures.

(b)		Changes in internal control over financial reporting. In the second quarter of 2005, we continued our assessment of our internal controls to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We accordingly made changes to our internal controls, primarily with respect to better documentation and enhanced controls. We believe the changes made during the second quarter of 2005 did not, individually or in the aggregate, have a material effect on, and are not reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.

PART II – OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings:

On August 3, 2005, the Company was named in a class action lawsuit filed in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Diego, Central Division, Sullivan, et al v. ZipRealty, case number GIC851801, by two former employee agents for the Company. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company’s expense allowance policies violate California law. The Company has reached an agreement in principle to settle this claim in exchange for the Company’s payment of $4.2 million. That agreement is expected to include a full release from any further liability on this issue and is subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. We are not currently subject to any other material legal proceedings. From time to time we have been, and we currently are, a party to litigation and subject to claims incident to the ordinary course of our business. Other than the litigation discussed above, management believes that there are no claims or actions pending or threatened against us, the ultimate resolution of which will have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity or results of operations, although the results of litigation are inherently uncertain, and adverse outcomes are possible.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds:

On November 9, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission declared effective our Registration Statement on Form S-1 (File No. 333-115657) for our initial public offering. We commenced our offering immediately thereafter. We completed our sale of 4,550,000 shares of common stock on November 15, 2004 at a price of $13.00 per share, and on November 18, 2004 we sold the remainder of our registered shares of common stock (682,500 shares) at the same price per share pursuant to the underwriters’ exercise of the over-allotment option. UBS Securities LLC, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Thomas Weisel Partners LLC and Pacific Growth Equities, LLC acted as the underwriters for the offering.

The aggregate purchase price of the offering was $68,022,500. The net offering proceeds received by us after deducting total estimated expenses were $61,402,410. We incurred total estimated expenses in connection with the offering of $6,620,090, which consisted of $1,796,117 in legal, accounting and printing fees, $4,761,575 in underwriters’ discounts, fees and commissions, and $62,398 in miscellaneous expenses. No payments for such expenses were made directly or indirectly to (i) any of our directors, officers or their associates, (ii) any person owning 10% or more of any class of our equity securities or (iii) any of our affiliates.

We have not used any of the net offering proceeds from the offering for operational purposes. We currently estimate that we will use the net proceeds as described in the prospectus for the offering: for general corporate purposes, including working capital. We have not assigned specific portions of the net proceeds for any particular uses, and we will retain broad discretion in the allocation of the net proceeds. Although we evaluate potential acquisitions of complementary businesses, technologies or other assets in the ordinary course of business, we have no specific understandings, commitments or agreements with respect to any acquisition at this time.

Pending such uses, we have invested all of the net proceeds from the offering in short-term, investment-grade securities. We cannot predict whether the net proceeds invested will yield a favorable return.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders:

At our annual meeting of stockholders held on May 10, 2005, the following individuals were elected to the Board of Directors as continuing Class I directors, each for a term of three years:


Nominees	Votes For		Votes Withheld
Matthew E. Crisp		13,989,077		217,653

Donald F. Wood		14,023,935		182,795

Marc L. Cellier, Robert C. Kagle, William Scott Kucirek, Ronald C. Brown, Eric A. Danziger and Stanley M. Koonce, Jr. continued as either Class II or Class III directors of the Company.

Also at the annual meeting of stockholders, the following proposal was adopted by the margin indicated:

Proposal

Votes For

Votes Against

Votes Abstained

Ratification of appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the Company’s independent accountants for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005

14,185,199

4,998

16,533

Item 5. Other Information:

As reported in the Company’s Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 28, 2005, on July 26, 2005, on the recommendation of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, the Board of Directors (i) elected Elisabeth H. DeMarse as a Class I Director of the Company to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of director Matthew E. Crisp, and (ii) named Ms. DeMarse as a member of the Compensation Committee to fill the vacancy created by the departure of Mr. Crisp.

Item 6. Exhibits:

The exhibits listed in the Exhibit Index are filed as a part of this report.

SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


	ZIPREALTY, INC.
	By:	/s/ Gary M. Beasley
		Gary M. Beasley
		Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

Date: August 11, 2005

Exhibit Index


Exhibit
number		Description
3.1(a)(1)		Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation

3.2(a)(1)		Bylaws

4.1(1)		Form of Common Stock Certificate

10.11*		Director Compensation Policy

31.1		Certification of Chief Executive Officer, as required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

31.2		Certification of Chief Financial Officer, as required by Rule 13a-14(a) or Rule 15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

32.1		Certification of Chief Executive Officer, as required by Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)

32.2		Certification of Chief Financial Officer, as required by Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. 1350)


(1)		Incorporated by reference to the exhibit of the same number to the Registrant’s Registration Statement on Form S-1(File No. 333-115657) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2004, as amended.

(2)		Incorporated by reference to the exhibit of the same number to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (File No. 000-51002) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2005.

*		Identifies a management contract or compensatory plan of arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this report.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents