Member Info for cyberduck

Just spotted this. https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2019/03/26/galliford-try-chief-quits-to-join-crest-nicholson/

No mention of this in the AGM statement. JDS must have turned them down then :)

Steph,

>TM made it sound simple

I'm sure it is complicated but most people aren't interested in complicated. Most people read tabloid newspapers which i think shows they don't like complicated. Politicians whose job it is to be interested can't even agree and half of them don't seem bright enough to understand complicated matters but they like the sound of their own voice.

People are fed up to the back teeth with it all. If you look at the poll results I posted below 18% of people care enough to want things to continue. And that's with them not being involved in more details. If they'd had to put up with even more debate and even more involvement, discussing complicated matters, essentially being more involved in the negotiations that have been going on behind closed doors with the EU for 2 years, then I think after 2 years with no notice given they'd want to commit harikiri (apart from the 18%).

I understand some people find all the technicalities fascinating but I don't believe the average man or woman on the street does. People are getting more and more frustrated by it all. Perhaps you don't see that living overseas (is that right?)

If parliament's mandate had been to negotiate a deal with the EU then I could understand but I'm quite happy that the government have gone to the EU with one idea and then come back to parliament to see if they agree. If they don't then leave without a deal. Nobody said there had to be a deal when people voted. If it turns out to be a disaster then have a referendum to see if people want to rejoin the EU.

Steph,

>Before article 50 was ever triggered what was needed was a white paper followed by town hall meetings and workshops up and down the country narrowing the Brexit options to 2 or 3 front runners perhaps decided upon by a referendum without remain on the ballot. This openness is the opposite of TM. That would have created clarity and stability around a single Brexit option. Those whose favorite Brexit option was not in the final could at least feel they had their say and their opportunity.

I don't think most people are bothered enough to go to town halls. It's hard enough to get people to vote. I'm sure what people heard at town halls would be the same sort of nonsense we heard on TV and in the press before the vote.

>That would have created clarity and stability around a single Brexit option.

I disagree. There would be complaints about how the options were presented.

What if the EU rejected? More town hall meetings and another referendum. There were 2 years of negotiations to get to the current deal. How long would it take if we added town hall meetings and a new referendum every time the EU said "no" to a particular aspect?

People had their say in the referendum and more than half of the mps voted against a "no deal" outcome which if it had been legally binding would have allowed the EU to block us leaving so they have effectively voted against the referendum result.

If they are prepared to do that then they could easily come up with a reason to ignore the outcome of all those town hall meetings and any new referendum. Too complicated or to many abstentions comes to mind.

Easy in hindsight to criticise but let's face it mps are playing games. It really is an impossible position for TM. If they have anything other than leaving the EU in their minds whether there's a deal or not then they are being dishonest. People just voted to leave, not leave with a deal.

There's talk that other options will be put before parliament now and quite possibly they will. They could go through this process and parliament could still refuse to accept the result. With a majority wanting to remain they can say they will only vote for their first choice option of leaving.

If on the other hand options are put to parliament and it results in them voting one of them through and the EU accept it without modification then all well and good and we can criticise TM for not doing this in the first place but but my money would be on the mps or the EU rejecting the deal.

The latest ComRes poll has parliament in General as the main villains with just 3% saying it has come out well during the negotiations and 78% badly.

TM herself has 11% versus 68%.

Jeremy Corbyn 9% versus 66%.

48% just want Brexit sorted and don't care how and 34% don't know. This included 28% of the original remain voters.

41% want to leave on 29th March 36% want a delay.

35% say should abandon process to leave, 24% say leave on 29th March, 14% leave later with new deal, 12% leave with TM's deal.

https://www.comresglobal.com/polls/daily-express-brexit-poll-march-2019/

Out of those questioned 36% originally voted to leave, 34% voted to remain. So 51% versus 49% which means slightly more remainers asked than ideal, so results slightly biased towards remainers.

Steph,

I don't think any other way would have been any better with the way politicians have behaved. Most of them have shown no intention of honoring the result of the referendum.

You have to ask why we had a referendum in the first place if politicians won't accept the result. If you are looking for somebody to blame then perhaps Cameron is the one. Given that parliament would have to vote on anything other than "no deal" he should have put the vote to parliament and they would most likely have voted to stay in the EU.

Personally I interpret the result of the referendum to mean leave the EU whether there's a deal or not. I think those who voted thought it would be better even if there was no deal. Perhaps the fact that Cameron didn't go to parliament first suggests he interpreted the vote the same way I do. There was certainly no guarantee of a deal so people were voting on that basis as far as I'm concerned.

Cameron of course resigned and TM stood up to be the scapegoat whilst the more politically intelligent and perhaps less honourable of the Conservative MPs were steering well clear of leadership. The Labour party only interested in somehow getting an unelectable leader (in normal circumstances) into Office.

If it's not sorted soon it could lead to another recession if companies and individuals hold back on spending. Although the recent statement from Philip Hammond not suggesting there's a problem yet.

I didn't read the Guardian article. Too biased in my opinion. Overseas commentaries being my preferred source with the BBC being less biased in my opinion.

Steph,

People will complain and feel cheated whatever happens.

There's no guarantee parliament would accept a new referendum decision.

There's no guarantee votes in parliament on all the different options would result in something both the EU or parliament accepted. It might sound like a better way to go about it but I look at all the tactical voting and Labour trying its best to use Brexit as a chance to damage the Conservative party and don't have any faith it would have been any better.

>For those of us who think it is a disaster the risk of that disaster has gone up in spite of what appeared to be a large parliamentary vote which May herself supported that instructed the government to do no such thing.

All that vote was is an expression of preference by mps. It can't really be referred to as an instruction.

The only reason I can think that the vote was taken was to demonstrate to those mps who want to leave without a deal that they're not likely to get it so they should compromise and accept the current deal.

I think May's approach is to gradually increase support for the current deal.

As the deadline approaches it is probably expected that enough mps who are voting tactically either because they want to remain in the EU or because they support their party will bottle it.

TM could also be bartering here and there for a few votes.

Could be wrong but that's the only sense I can make out of having that non-binding vote,

USA

Yes Sain, LPEs must be feeling a little insecure in the US, Axel Springer's money assigned to expanding more rapidly in the USA running out perhaps?

"The vast majority of short-term investment will be focused on the Los Angeles and Florida markets. As a result of this, the Board does not expect the amount of US revenue to be sufficient to meet its expectations in this financial year. "

LPEs from California (outside of L.A.), New York & Arizona perhaps feeling less secure than the others. Maybe a decision to be made by Axel Springer (or others) very soon as to whether to invest more for the USA expansion?

I agree the market doesn't like the idea of crashing out but was that really a concern? I think the market would be quite happy if TM's deal was accepted and the sooner the better. Or any other quick solution that didn't involve crashing out.

If I'd been forced to vote in the referendum I'd have probably voted remain (devil you know) but at least TM has always stuck to the referendum decision even if it was her own version. I know the vote over "no deal" is not legally binding but the mps who voted in a way contrary to the referendum decision would be the ones I'd like to see kicked out first. If the vote was legally binding it would effectively have given the EU power to keep us in the EU by just refusing any proposed deal. Disgraceful.

Finding it hard to work out what's going on in Parliament.

Are we going to have a series of votes where every single scenario that involves leaving the EU is voted against?

Is this a clever plan to get more mps to accept TM's deal or am I missing something?

https://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/balfron-tower-makeover-slammed-by-campaigners/5098342.article

Sain,

Is 50% BTR by the end of 2019 even feasible given there must be limits to the rate at which they can grow the pipeline?

For every 6 new BTR units they have to add 4 affordable. In LBTH anyway.

50% BTR by the end of 2019 is sounding a little unrealistic to me.

>Sounds a very solid partner and Invesco have access to some serious wedge .Just what the doctor ordered and no doubt will expect TEF to deliver some meaty monsters

Sain, how many new BTR deals do you expect to get into the pipeline before the end of 2019? I'm guessing there will be about 6000 units with 3000 BTR.

In November they said they had 5000 units and included 9 Elms.

Please check the following reasoning....

I think there were also about 300 BTR units in that 5000 from the original 4 developments. Originally just short of 500 units I think and one or two completed. Pretty sure they all will be by the end of 2019.

They are switching 3 of the current open market deals to BTR, so how many units do you reckon 700?

We've probably had 45 completions from the required 60 talked about and other open market developments will complete before the end of 2019.

The Equipment Works will get added. That's 257 BTR and 80 affordable.

Then there's International Way which could be 190 BTR and 190 affordable.

They have added 194 open market homes at Oldfield Lane North, Greenford the site they bought from Greystar with planning permission.

i make that about 2150 BTR and about 3400 open market by the end of 2019 without any new additions. I'm not sure of the timing of completion of open market units prior to the end of 2019 so that 3400 number will come down by the number that complete.

Another 1000 BTR units to be added in the short term perhaps? Then of course the nightmare over planning starts. Will that 50% by the end of 2019 be achieved even with the problems you seem to get with planning applications? 9 Elms now 14 months later than expected.

>So their is no reason that they should not be successful,provided that contract hurdle costs are right.

It's the rental side of things that may take time to evaluate. There are no guarantees from Invesco & M&G by the sounds of it so if they don't get the return they are hoping for from rental income then they just decline the offer for new developments from TEF.

If TEF switch back from BTR to open market then they will switch from profits accounted for every year to profits accounted for after 3 years. The market won't like that I don't think. It will be another profit warning.

Terrace,

Perhaps after missing guidance for 2019 and 2020 guidance reduced by about 50% the market is concerned about them missing current guidance?.Being able to maintain the dividend even?

Low anticipated ROE for the next couple of years and a transition into BTR is a jump into the unknown.

Hopefully the SP moves on anticipation of the BTR story being a success but it will be a good while before that can be evaluated.

>After last week Steffy wont be factoring in very much at all for unsold apartments at Calders He wont be going down that road again !!!

I would have thought JDS would be basing his estimates on what he has seen with recent sales in terms of volumes and discounts and has stated "At this time we do not anticipate a significant improvement in the individual sale market in the short term and as a result we expect a continued impact on sales rates and margins during FY 2020"

Are you saying you think things aren't that bad? If so why?

Sain,

>A development which has certainly put a capital "D "in delay .all outside TEF's control In this particular case over 7 years !!!! However this has worked in TEF;s favour with 40 % HPI to add to the party

Is this not all factored into TEF's statement for 2020 which is that it will be significantly less than the £40m for 2019.

The expected £50m of profit for 2020 from Analysts now being £24m. You say you expect more, can you explain why?

Work Sundays too.

According to my proxy there were around 524 total listings on Zoopla yesterday. 123 of these were listed by Purplebricks.

Just had a quick look at AIM rules.

General disclosure of price sensitive information
Rule 11: General disclosure
This rule promotes prompt and fair disclosure of price sensitive information to the market.

(d) Information that would be likely to lead to a significant movement in the price of its AIM securities includes but is not limited to information which is of a kind which a reasonable investor would be likely to use as part of the basis of his or her investment decisions.

If TEF have been providing price sensitive information to certain Analysts then they could be in breach of Stock Exchange rules.

Of course the Analysts may have come up with 2020 & 2021 numbers from the general comments made in the RNS which means they are completely worthless because what does significantly worse mean? How can you put a number on profits start to rise again?

>The house brokers probably have access to financial matters that the general public does not

Is that legal? I know companies generally say things like "no information will be provided to analysts that has not already been released". I've seen this for site visits at least.

Why should the Analysts close to a company have inside information to pass on to their clients? Seems a bit dodgy to me. Anybody know anything about the law on this matter?