Member Info for Oi_Oi_Savaloy

Anyone got an opinion on the sustained drop in share price? Can't understand it. I thought volatility was good for this share. Perhaps the mkt feels the customers might be making money maybe (at the expense of Plus I mean).

Thanks skid :)
I agree on drum - get out of kcr - when appropriate - and just be an IT investor. I'm actually pretty much all in on housebuilding shares. Particularly INL (inland) - where the ex-owners of Drumz (Wicks and malde) are currently directors (and where my interest in energiser originated). I'll keep to drumz for my cyber investment :)

What else are you guys invested in/interested in?

Can't they use the buy-back scheme's money to buy his shares?

I've got quite alot of money in energiser/drumz and have often thought - 'should I invest in kcr too'? They've always, to my mind, been interlinked (Dominic White being the link in the past). He's still at KCR of course.

I think there are air-rights opportunities within KCR's portfolio - further opportunities to enhance/sweat their asset base. I'm a firm believer in cyber security and the demand for acuity's services (thus sticking with Drumz) but I do feel that perhaps kcr might have some potential, at their current share price. Be curious to hear others opinions too.

I have to agree with the sentiment regarding he atmosphere on the Board/chat here. It's very similar to INL chat on LSE; broadly positive, constructive in criticism and thought and the belittling and name calling at an absolute minimum.

I'm much more heavily invested in INL- Inland Homes - than here - but amgo is where the action is presently.....!) :) I'll never be joining the million balls of titanium club sadly here :)

Has anyone spent any time (sorry, I haven't!) looking into whom they could possibly buy? They've kept money back for a war chest, mentioned it (or alluded to it - forget the actual wording in the results) - thought I'd ask to see if anyone has taken that on and looked into things a bit more. I bet there will be an Israeli angle to the first purchase too - just to put the downers on the share price even more....

Any new undefined tax creates inertia in the market and land owners will further suffer (or decide not to sell their land) with lesser land values the inevitable consequence of increased taxes. Look at what the stamp duty holiday has done to the housing market (and what it does when it's instigated). An unintended consequence of this new levy is that affordable housing unit numbers might start to fall (because developers will be able to justify , through the affordable housing toolkit/viability test - the government algorithm that dictates the % of affordable housing a site can viably sustain/deliver - a lower percentage of affordable housing on a given site). Every new cost that the govt announce and implement has an unintended consequence. (Grenfell Tower and the awful cladding situation is an awful, awful thing and I'm not saying that it doesn't need to be sorted - it absolutely does). All I can talk about is what it's going on, on the ground. Depending on the deal structure these new costs might be catered for, within the existing deal structure. If anyone wants more info on deal structures I'm happy to explain in a separate post. Or in fact - if anyone wants anymore info on anything to do with land buying - just let me know.

There hasn't been much talk of it, amongst the people I've spoken to, to be honest. And there's a reason for that. Extra levies (like the S106 agreement attached to a planning permission, that in the old days was the way councils took money off the developer for education and medical provision plus other stuff) has, for the most part, been taken over by CIL (Community Infrastucture levy - and if in London Mayoral CIL2 on top - the extra levy for crossrail.....). Technically the developer is liable for these extra taxes but whom ultimately pays for this? The Landowner. Be it public or private, it's the landowner. Obviously that's different if the tax comes in and applies to land bought retrospectively - it'll be the developer in that case - but if not and the tax is known about - it simply forms part of the purchasing costs. And the amount one can pay for the land is what is left over once all costs have been met and the developer's profit allowed for. Ideally that should be at least 25% profit on costs (and thus nets down after sales and finance costs, to circa 15%-20% - depending on lots of variables that I don't have space for here.) The only mothballing done is when onerous planning policies kick in, particularly in respect of affordable housing (again a loss leader unless you're in a v v good sales area), or vendor price expectations are over the existing market value of their land. In terms of the politics - the tories seem to have lost their way somewhat - the threat of the left ever present perhaps? Social media maybe? - so many reasons why they've given in it would seem - think they've forgotten that entrepreneurial spirit drives wealth creation which in turn drives tax receipts that pays for everything. They should reward and rejoice in that rather than vilify. But I digress. Never buy a site off a council that has given themselves a planning permission - it aint going to go well if you try to appeal it and intensify the use.

Strictly - fire away on Vod - I've been in them for so long but I think it's time to move on from them. I'm busy reading the war and peace, that is your blog, at the moment! :) I value your input - even if it's counter to what I've decided - I'm very interested in seeing the other side - tbh I've forgotten why I invested in them it's so long ago......it's not exactly been a stellar experience it has to be said.

Just emailed you SeagullsFan :)

Am I reading it right - that Plus are saying that FY2021 is going to be similar to FY2019? So Revenue $354m, EBITDA $192m, generating $293m in cash?

definitely off air Strictly - sorry - must have misread things when briefly looking. I'll go back to bwy chat and scroll through. the game sounds interesting. I'm at a loss, right now, what to go for next tbh.

Am going to have a look Strictly. I also note you're in Vodafone, as am (v heavily actually), as is my dad (far more so than me - he's held them since they came out of racal in '88). I've also kept my verizon shares too Am going to go and have a look at the vod sharechat too.

Strictly - a really good post that - appreciate it. You work the numbers (I don't go on TEF or BWY chats - maybe i should) but I can't talk about that side of things because I don't have enough knowledge (perhaps I should you say - and yes you're right!). I think t's best to try to only speak from your strengths so I never talk about the numbers - I just try to fill in the gaps from a rationale/on-the-ground/direct-experience perspective - that way I don't clog the board up with nonsense or fiction (that doesn't help anyone).

I still think Inland are spread a little thin too (but they'd argue that their hugg homes, for example, is brilliant at sweating a given asset as it generates income whilst waiting for planning to come through). I'd agree on that point but I also think that that concept could be massively rolled out for much more robust long-term income (but should that be rolled out via a split-off different company or within inland?) - there are lots of good ideas within the business but is there enough personnel to do it all I wonder? the affordable/contracting elements will get them through the difficult times but there's barely money in it and depending on the contract, you can be caught with a fixed-price and abnormal/unspecified costs cropping up of course. But it's cashflow - gets you through. What I think they want to do is capture the planning and sell the land for the uplift with the build contract as a stipulation of the deal - there's definitely money in that. Affordable Housing companies tend to struggle when buying land in m experience (although there are some v canny exceptions to that general opinion I have - some v good people in HA's but overall, not).

It's funny - when I was at a national building firm that Bovis were a rival of; we were always impressed with how their employees in our patch bought land and worked the market. I'm surprised they've gone off the boil tbh. St Modwen's was always a betwixt and between company for me - spread too thin across too many disciplines. You simply can't employ that many top line specialists (too expensive!). I've never given them a second thought. I'm still in workplace, berkeley and Inland. Tbh - it's going to need to the Telegraph or somone to highlight the benefits of inland to a wider audience - just can't see the shares moving soon? Might be wrong? I'm certainly not selling however.

Demos - yes - I read 'legacy sites' as those that were bought for too high a price (or deal structure .....or both......) that means the site is always going to struggle to make a massive profit. There's clearly demand out there for sites (note Avanton's recent announcement that they've £500mill for a BTR development pipeline and are now looking for suitable sites) etc etc. I'm going to have to park these shares and come back in 2 years time or something. Doesn't feel like anything is going materially change for a some time.

The master brewers has been around for years and hillingdon always seemed to have a problem with the site. I think traffic is an issue (it's technically on the wrong side of the junction to both the shops and the station. Tesco owned it for years and years (if i remember correctly!) and failed dismally to get planning (combinatiion of locals up in arms and planning policies/traffic).

Yes to BTR; easy commuting etc etc but I always found that area (the micro area I mean) a bit soulless, downtrodden, wind-swept and noisy (you've got the M40 and the airport - raf northolt - literally on your doorstep) I'd be amazed if it was £500psf around there. Hang on I'll just check.....it's actually £501psf for terraced houses and flats around there. £506psf for just flats. Which is actually where Inland, I feel, will thrive - sites that deliver £450-£750psf. Perfect.

Stephen Wick's is in this week's Property Week - regarding delays in planning......;

Stephen Wicks issued the advice after he wrote to housing secretary Robert Jenrick last month lambasting his decision to call in the developer’s Hillingdon scheme (pictured) on a former Master Brewer site.

Jenrick U-turned on his decision just days after receiving Wicks’ letter and Property Week understands Inland Homes is expecting to receive the go-ahead for the 514-home scheme from the Greater London Authority in the coming week.

“Planning is now so bad and it’s become so political, I think you have no choice but to try and make a fuss,” Wicks told Property Week.

“We were going at it not only as a direct lobbying approach to Robert Jenrick, [through the] media, and I think we started to make them feel slightly uncomfortable.

“If you make them uncomfortable, you will get a certain amount of traction — that’s really our strategy. I think you will see a much more assertive Inland.”

Wicks estimated that the delay after the call-in on the brownfield site had cost the business around £750,000. He urged other developers to follow in its footsteps and apply pressure on government to move schemes on.

“We are hoping that other developers will help us to try and get the politics out of planning, which is what we need if we’re going to get to these targets the government are asking [of] us.”

Earlier this week, Inland Homes reported pre-tax profits of £3.7m to the year ended 30 September 2020, down from £25m in 2019. Revenue also dipped, coming in at £124m compared with £147.9m a year earlier. Net asset value per share fell to 103.97p from 113.69p.

The group said it had been “actively disrupted” by the Covid pandemic.

In the UK rhatton - sorry - I'd forgotten about that and just jumped onto plus and logged in (but I don't use it to trade I just wanted to have a login to see what it looked like) - I'm not a day trader or active in the markets tbh. Sorry for the forgetfulness there.