Member Info for strictlybricks

"Also, as pointed out on this thread, PSN have by far the best operating margin of the major builders. This is because their strategy is to carry a little land as possible, and purchase it as required on a just in time basis. They operate an asset light strategy and target the low cost first time buyer segment. The market perceives this as superior. "

…………………………………

Wigan, thanks for those details on Persimmon and Taylor Wimps and, yes, Persimmon's return (you look at operating margin and I look at return on equity) has been bordering on awesome over the now fairly long term.

To compare with Redrow rather than Taylor Wimps (as I'm certainly not looking to make a case for the latter, even though this is a TW. thread, as I haven't held their shares for some years now) Persimmon's average ROE from 2013 to 2021 has been 24% compared to Redrow's 19%.

So, that's quite a gap.

However, Persimmon's very big percentage returns to investors via dividends has two disadvantages:

Firstly, because they paid out 73% of earnings in dividends they only achieved asset growth of 83% since 2013 compared to Redrow's asset growth of 252%.

So, to expand on the implication of this, imagining that each company started 2013 with 100p book value per share, Persimmon's BVPS would now be 183p, upon which their past average ROE of 24% would mean they make 44p EPS for 2022.

Whereas Redrow's BVPS would have increased from 100p to 352p, upon which their past average ROE of 19% would mean they make 67p EPS for 2022.

The other problem with paying out big dividends for Persimmon is as follows:

If you take scribblers' projected figures for end of 2021, being EPS of 247p and dividend of 236p, by my reckoning, Persimmon's book value per share at that point would be 1,057p.

So, that dividend would represent a payout on net asset of 22%, which, for a house builder, is stellar.

However, unfortunately, Persimmon's price to book value is also stellar, at currently 2.65.

The problem this creates for shareholders is that it reduces the dividend yield to 8.4%.

And the only additional underlying comfort for shareholders, based on the scribblers’ figures, would be a measly 11p of added book value, i.e. about a further 1%.

I’m not a Persimmon shareholder, but, if I was, I might be wondering what might happen to the price if Persimmon stumble, for example if the first time buyer market runs into trouble..?

Because, from a PBV of 2.65 back to the average PBV of the other builders, that’s a long way to fall.

In no way am I making any predictions here, but this is one concern that keeps me clear of Persimmon’s shares.

Strictly

"CRST share price has underperformed as you mention but they were overpriced on the basis of a crazy dividend policy which has now been corrected. And the market has overreacted on the downside. Just an opinion."
....................................

Demos,

Ahhh, predictions.... dangerous game, that...! :-)

For me, Crest is still too expensive... and I appreciate that, like you, Cyberduck is on the other side of that one...

I have Crest on a prospective ROE 10% to 12% for the next three years, against Bellway 14% to 15% and Redrow 16% to 17%.

And given Crest's recent penchant for overstating performance, I'm hoping that a minus 20% book value weighting for them as against both Bellway and Redrow will prove sufficient bordering on slightly over-cautious.

And Bellway's projected ROE is a little behind Redrow, but then they earn brownie points in other respects as we have discussed elsewhere...

Seekers of dividends, and seekers of perceived best value.... hmmmmm.... two different tribes, I reckon...? :-)

And I'm looking forward to reading the fruits of your homework elsewhere in due course...

Strictly

Krusty,

I'm pretty much a 100% rear view mirror investor and am a fully paid up subscriber to the notion of the four most dangerous words in investing being "it's different this time".

And I appreciate that most would see my investing strategy as a risky one but, funnily enough, I truly consider myself to be the most wussy investor out there and based on the numbers I find all other sectors apart from house builders to be either too scary or they seriously under-perform house builders in terms of underlying progress.

If you've come across Vlad's postings here, you might be aware he has a yardstick he terms "shareholder surplus" and, as I understand it, he comes up with the same calculation as I have done in my earlier post today although I don't think he is anywhere near as anal as me in terms of scratching at the numbers 'till my fingers bleed...! :-)

I consider myself to be a seeker of best perceived value, and part of that is being happy to let go of short and medium term market outcomes.

However, IMO, both value and opportunity are like beauty ~ in that they are in the eye of the beholder... hence the word "perceived".

Part of how this has worked for me for the past two decades is being prepared to move around between different house builder shares on small perceived value gaps.

This, IMO, is much more straightforward to assess and to do given that I am only working with the one sector.

And that is helpful to me because apart from being an investing wuss I'm also quite lazy ~ so I can give my time to just trying to understand the one sector rather than attempt to be an all-knowing jack-of-all-trades.

And anyway, the rear view mirror approach allows me to not be too fazed by wherever interest rates may go... my fear is the opposite, actually, that we are at risk of rampant inflation but that fiat currencies world wide have painted themselves into the corner of huge government borrowings and the best long way out for them is financial repression, and this ~ as far as I understand ~ is how the nation successfully dug itself out of WW2 debt?

Certainly better than government default if you happen to be holding gilts (I've got some of those, index linked, as plan B)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...?

Anyway, that's going off the point somewhat… ??

The bottom line for me is, taking Bellway for instance as my benchmark share, its shares can currently be bought for just 15% above the cost of its tangible assets.

And those assets are building plots in Blighty (you can almost hear me humming Rule Britannia, can't you?), I mean, I could think of plenty worse things to tie one's money up in... :-)

Strictly

Demos,

If you read my blog comment from last night, my comment below is largely a reiteration of that.

And included in that was a mention that someone was likely to pull me on that it is a long time period, and that some might see that as being less useful...

Funnily enough, I was thinking of you when Iwrote that....! :-)

I haven't done the most recent four or five year trend, maybe that's something I'll get round to, but what I've done already was enough number crunching for one week, I reckon...

On your other point, I suppose we have Crest to potentially point the way...?

They seem to have extracted themselves from the high dividends corner that they'd painted themselves into ~ I suppose that's a reflection of a new boss now running the show ~ and our pals, Sid & Doris, have given them a bit of a kicking for it thus far as their share price is only up 3% for the year against Redrow's 15% and Bellway's 8%.

For my money, Crest are still too expensive against Bellway, though the gap has closed and if that trend continues they may get there soon.

Taylor Wimps, though, are way too expensive currently for the likes of me ~ more than 40% over-priced against Bellway by my reckoning...?

Hence I'm not currently holding any, whereas I do have a lot of Bellway.

Strictly

Zac & Krusty,

You seem to have opened up an interesting conversation here, so I thought I would add a few points...

I've been investing solely in house builders for the past twenty years, as the name implies, but I have maintained much better record keeping of statistics and numbers since the start of 2013.

I currently track eight house builders, that's BWY (my benchmark share), BVS, BDEV, CRST, INL, PSN, RDW & TW.

I've just updated my figures so as to have a comparison of these against each other based on underlying progress made since the start of 2013, including dividends re-invested at the price as it was on the day paid each time (so sorting that is a bit of a mission ~ it requires calculating all the fractions of shares to be bought with each div paid in each case).

Anyway, Redrow are top, at 329%.

Whereas Taylor Wimps come in at second to last, on 184%.

It's not that they particularly under-performed trading-wise, it's more that, like PSN, they paid out too much in dividend, which hurts according to how high the PBV is...

In PSN's case, that's a lot... they have, by some margin, the best return on equity of all, but then they paid out so much in dividend at such a high PBV that they only come fifth in this league, on 201%.

So, Taylor Wimps are okay, but no cigar.

The other thing to bear in mind is the movement of the PBV, of which obviously the price is one of the two components.

While the PBVs for each house builder can, and do, fluctuate fairly significantly from time to time, given the cyclical nature of the game, they do all tend to average out at around 1.4 to 1.5 over the long term.

Persimmon is currently way above this, at 2.7, which is pretty much uncharted territory for house builders, but this is almost certainly a direct consequence of their very big divs paid out which, IMO, has distorted some investors' thinking because some people, I'm convinced, don't play out the numbers on a spreadsheet as would be prudent to do if they're investing their hard earned cash.

Right now, Taylor Wimps is on a PBV of 1.3, i.e. a bit below the long term average.

By contrast, Redrow, the star performer of the sector on the above basis, is only on 1.2.

So, while I do appreciate that there is some frustration expressed here from time to time about the lack of share price progress, one could argue that, if the market is having a downer on one of them, it's Redrow, not Taylor Wimps, because in the case of the latter it is allocating a higher PBV for a lower performer.

Anyway, I'm happy to flesh out a few of these numbers if anyone wants them...?

Strictly

"That is exactly my argument, why does one builder do better than another on making profits?"
..............................

Trunky, you could apply that question to any sector....

However, me being a simple soul, that is beyond my paygrade to answer, I'm afraid....

Much easier, in my view, is to try to understand the "what" rather than the "why".

I mean, I don't need to understand why my benchmark housebuilder Bellway is a better company than Taylor Wimps, on any important metric, I just need to understand that it is, rate them comparatively accordingly, then wait for Mr Market to come off his meds and make a mistake in my favour....

And, from time to time, he always has ~ made mistakes in my favour from time to time, that is ~ insofar as that's been my experience of the past twenty years in this.

And, as I've referred to previously, there's the trading performance of the companies, and then there's how they treat shareholders...

And Taylor Wimps pay much a bigger percentage of earnings out in dividends than Bellway, and I'm pretty sure that many who comment here and who seem enthusiastic about big divs have likely never played the numbers through properly on a spreadsheet to see how painful this is for shareholders..?

Whereas it typically works for the directors as it tends to push up share prices...

Which in turn, makes the high divs even more painful because they’re coming out on an even higher PBV....

I'm imagining that if Vlad, or Bogdan as he is known by in the Telegraph investing section, reads this, he would likely endorse what I am saying as this is bang in line with his oft quoted "shareholder surplus" and we are very much on the same song sheet about this.

Providing you get to the right numbers ~ and these are not necessarily the ones declared & bigged up by the companies themselves like the EPS figure, as the place to go to for the right ones is the balance sheet ~ then these numbers are the cold marble slab of truth upon which any bullsh.t is laid bare....

And I don't really need to know anything about the "why" to make that work for me...! :-)

Anyway, hope that helps....?

At the least, it's good to have a little spurt of worthwhile discussion on one of the house builder share chats here....

They’ve seemed a bit thin on the ground lately...

Strictly

Trunky, if you're comparing like with like, then, measured on a price to book value basis, Taylor Wimps are more expensive than either Bellway or Redrow ~ both of which have outperformed Taylor Wimps over both the short term & the long term ~ and just behind Barratt, with whom they are more or less on par on performance.

I agree that they are priced well below Persimmon, but I would say that that's another story altogether.... King Jeff, now abdicated, at Persimmon, was clearly a very smart guy when it came to promoting Persimmon to potential investors and, as pretty much everyone is now aware, he did very well for himself as a consequence.

However, that is neither here nor there, and while I would say that in a world of likely crazy over-valuation of anything remotely tech-related, house builders' shares are most likely seriously cheap, within just that sector, IMO Taylor Wimps is not relatively under-priced.

Obviously that's just my opinion.

If it was otherwise, they'd no doubt be either one of my current holdings or at least directly on my radar.

Which they're not.

Strictly

"Strictly - just so we're both referring to the same thing, I'm referring to individual share holder total returns i.e. share price movement plus dividends received. Is that what you're referring to with your figures?"
.......................

Zac, well, I just gave the average ROE, but if you allow for the pain to shareholders of dividends being paid when the share price is above a PBV of 1.0 (which is pretty much always because some folks love nothing more than a good dividend and, without checking back, Taylor Wimps has spent plenty of time up around 2.0 PBV.... ouch...) and go with shareholder return then yes, I haven't worked the figure out for that period but, in line with my point 2) to Wigan yesterday, the high div as percentage of EPS is a big black mark against Taylor Wimps in my book..!

So, I suspect if we went through the numbers in detail, we'd probably be on the same song sheet..?

I appreciate that Taylor Wimps is clearly a popular share in these parts given the amount of comments in the share chat over the long term compared to that of other housebuilders, but being a popular share isn't necessarily the same as being a good share..?

Against most of the FTSE100, no argument, it is, IMO, but not against Bellway and Redrow.

So then it comes down to whether you're up for going all in on a share...?

I'm currently 76% of portfolio in Bellway with the remainder in Inland.

And if that old b.stard, Captain Hindsight, had been with me late last autumn, it would most likely now be 100% in Bellway.

But Redrow now ain't very far off at all from being a trade back in from Bellway.... most of the money had moved into Bellway from Redrow this August.... just a few percent more relative shift required, as I'm happy to make a round trip gain of just 5%, if it comes to it..

Strictly

Zac,

Several points to this...

If you give Taylor Wimps a longer run at it, from 2012 to 2020, i.e. nine years, then they've averaged 16.1% ROE by my records.

And they're not in the top stream performance-wise, anyway, as they got it seriously wrong coming into the credit crunch and nearly went belly up as a consequence....

Whereas, Bellway have averaged a 16.0% ROE since 1983.

And the 20% you mention.... that's not just from the builders' underlying performances, as I'd said. That includes a trading component, between just house builder shares, which has added another 6% a year on average over the past nine years since I've been maintaining reasonably accurate records on this.

Strictly

"Personally, I always thought that Keynes could also generate a pithy aphorism … maybe “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent…” is one of his truisms :-)"
.......................................

Wigan, based on firstly my own experience these past twenty years, but also based on records I have on house builder share prices and book value graphs going back almost a further twenty years, I now have several rules of engagement for myself for investing.

One of these, that I painfully came to following the credit crunch, is that I need to be able to go five years, at any point, without touching investments or relying on their dividends.

The credit crunch took that to six years in that instance but, to be fair, it was the biggest bad boy to befall the market in the past eighty years.

So, what you say is correct, IMO, for someone not in a position to wait five years, but not necessarily so for someone who can....

Make it six years, and that then covers the credit crunch too...

Of course, if there's an even bigger bad boy than the credit crunch coming down the pike at some point, well, I don't have an answer to that...!

Strictly

"Strictly, I'd like to add that I'm not against buy and hold, I do have such stocks in my portfolio. If it's a great business I don't sell it at intrinsic value because I'm confident it will keep growing. However, I'm not sure a house builder is that kind of stock - it's a mature business and the growth potential is somewhat limited."
..................

Dimi,

A couple of points....

Firstly, as I implied in my comment to Wigan on Tuesday, not all house builders are equal...

Taylor Wimps pays out most of its earnings in dividends, as that's what gets a certain type of investor excited, even though it makes little financial sense in a market where we're constantly told we're only building a fraction of the houses required by the nation.

However, Bellway only pays out one third of earnings as dividend, and has consistently done so since the early '80's ~ which is the point from which I have financial records on them ~ so, by definition, I would say that makes them a two thirds growth company...?

My other point is that, if one is invested solely in this sector ~ which, as the name implies, is me for a start ~ then experience suggests it is possible to pretty accurately call the relative value between different house builders' shares at any point, and thus be able to trade between them on thin margins so as to be able to take opportunities more often.

As I'd said previously, this has earned me an extra 6% a year for the past nine years (I didn't keep accurate enough records before that to be able to say), then there was the additional bonus on top of largely swerving covid (something I singularly failed to do when it came to the previous credit crunch, so I took the full force of that on the chin).

Given that decent house builders, over the long term, make around an average annual 15% return on equity, this then gives an overall long term average investment return ~ albeit a pretty bumpy one, taken year to year based on share prices, and not everyone can cope with that ~ of around 20% a year.

To be frank, I'm more than happy with that ~ though I do appreciate that it may pale currently with what some may be making on crypto currencies and tech shares, but then I see that as riding "a wave of bigger fools" and it scares the pants off me...! :-)

Strictly

Oi_Oi,

Well, based on the encouraging update, I've just decided to now go with the scribblers' forecast EPS for 2021 of 4.5p, plus an adjustment of 0.3p IMO understated for the first half, so that's 4.8p for me for the year as projected reality check earnings.

This is as against the 2p EPS 2021 that I'd (hopefully over-cautiously) had them in for up to today.

And I've also improved Inland's book value weighting from minus 45% to minus 40% (against Bellway), and the combination of the two changes above has put Inland back in the zone for me as best perceived value against the others ~ "others" being namely Bellway, Redrow & Crest in that order, as the rest aren't in the frame for me at current prices ~ although I'm not looking to buy more Inland as I have a shedload already....

Though I'm imagining there'll be one or two on the blog saying something like "I knew I should have bought some Inland at last week's prices...!" :-)

But let's see what Mr Market brings us today, I guess...?

Strictly

"Strictly, I agree that it might sound like timing the market and of course that's always a risk. Personally, I calculate an intrinsic value for each share that I'm interested in"
........................

Dimi, okay, thanks for the reply...

Does it demonstrably work for you, as compared to buy & hold...?

Strictly

"As trunky mentioned, this is a cyclical business - it depends on the housing market which depends on the interest rates and the overall health of the economy. So for me it's not a buy and hold type of business"

...................................

Dimi,

The above taken from your previous comment implies that you're happy to call the market when it comes to house builder shares...?

Is that the case?

If so, do you have specific criteria/yardsticks upon which you do that..?

I ask this out of interest as I have never had the cojones to do that, apart from in order to swerve the covid iceberg last year.

Other than that, I have remained invested throughout, and that includes through the credit crunch ~ which was painful...!

I am, however, prepared to call the relative perceived value between different house builders which, based upon the fruits having done so for the past twenty years, is achievable, and worthwhile, to do.

So, to the extent that you are up for discussing this, and also obviously if you have tracked your performance in this, do you have an idea of how well that has worked...?

As an exchange of information in this area, I can tell you that trading between house builder shares had given me an additional 6% a year gain over and above Bellway's gain since 2013, up to covid, but that swerving covid and going to a mix of cash and index-linked gilts for a while before reinvesting has upped that average percentage overall to 10% a year.

However, I consider the covid dodge to most likely be a one-off achievement and that my addition gain from here likely to be nearer to 6% a year once more...

Or maybe less if this year's thin pickings in trading opportunities between Bellway, Redrow et al continue....?

I'd appreciate hearing back from you on this.

Strictly

"Ask yourself why Wimps have underperformed the sector. Why should that be the case. "
.................................

Wigan, if you are including non FTSE100 house builders in this, I mean specifically Bellway, then I'd like to offer you a different perspective on this.

Within our investing group, we have Bellway as our benchmark share, as they've been by far the most consistent house builder over nearly 40 years.

I seek best perceived value at all times in this game ~ which I've been in for more than twenty years ~ and part of that is letting go of what the market thinks...

Not always easy...!

To draw a perceived value comparison between Bellway and Taylor Wimps, on three points on four years pre-covid performance, 2016 to 2019, as follows:

1) BWY has made an average ROE of 24% compared to TW.'s 20%

2) BWY has only paid out 33% of earnings as dividend compared to TW.'s 77%. While many investors here might think that's a good thing, for any company paying out a dividend when the PBV is above book value hurts investors in their pockets ~ though I suspect many don't work this through on a spreadsheet to see it for themselves. The best witness for the prosecution in this respect is Warren Buffett, who has never paid a dividend.

The upshot of 1) and 2) combined is that, over the four years to 2019, TW.'s book value per share only grew by 17% compared to BWY's 46%.

I suspect the big div % payouts were a "me too" action, following Persimmon, who, in turn, probably got the idea from Berkeley Homes...?

And Berkeley never got to complete theirs because they were head off at the pass by the credit crunch...?

And the upshot of 1) and 2) combined for our group of investors is that we allocate a book value weighting of minus 20% to TW. against BWY.

Now factor in 3), which is that, as of prices just now, TW. is on a PBV of 1.29 against BWY's 1.16.

Move this up to weighted PBV and you then have BWY still at 1.16 (as they are the benchmark share for us, remember) but with TW.'s WPBV now 1.61.

And that makes TW. 39% more expensive than BWY in terms of perceived best value as far as our investing group is concerned.

So, between us, we're holding a shed-load of Bellway, but zilch Taylor Wimps.

So, for me, as things stand, Taylor Wimps are some way still from being in the investment zone, even though they have moved significantly in the right direction this year to date in terms of their share price movement compared to Bellway.

I appreciate that none of this deals with the tax issue.... I suppose it comes down to pain now or pain later....?

Or, as The Clash would have it, "Should I stay or should I go?"

Strictly

bbrinkw,

“Analysts’ old rule of thumb is that house builders are potentially cheap if they trade on one times book – or net asset – value or less and potentially expensive if they trade on two times or more. Barratt currently trades toward the low end of that range, at 1.3 times book value per share."
..............................

To apply that yardstick ~ which, broadly speaking, I agree with ~ you need to take out goodwill & intangibles first.

Barratt has rather a lot of those, bordering on £1 billion.

Which then takes their BVPS as at end of June 2021 down to 445p.

Which makes them more expensive on that basis than Bellway, Redrow or Taylor Wimps.

Still reasonable value on any long term measure based solely on PBV, mind ~ just some way off best in show.

Strictly

Vlad,

One thing I have just taken a look at re Henry is their pension scheme....

I thought that defined benefit pension schemes were madness thirty years ago, let alone now, and all my investing life I've swerved companies that offer them like the plague...

And I just checked and these nasties are still available, accruing more benefits to the participants each year, to existing members of Henry's scheme...!

The gross liability for Henry as at the 2020 accounts was £235m, up from £208m in just a year....

This represents 76% of Henry's tangible net value.

I appreciate that it's a gross figure, and that the net liability is £36m, but I see it as an iceberg ~ most of which is below the surface of the water....

That alone knocks out Henry for me, I'm afraid - I must have missed that when I invested in them for a while some years ago.....

The other house builders kicked these defined benefit schemes into touch many years ago so just have the legacy of past entitlement accumulation to deal with and, no doubt, that reduces as now retired staff run and run to catch up with the sun...

But it's sinking, racing around to come up behind them again...

The sun is the same in a relative way but they're older...

Shorter of breath, and one day closer to death....

With apologies to Roger Waters...

Strictly

Oi_Oi_, Madikwe & Vlad,

Thanks all of you for all your points here about Henry....

As, at least, Oi_Oi_ and Vlad know ~ based on all the stuff I've written previously here & elsewhere over the years ~ I'm more than happy going into the in's & out's of a duck's a@se when it comes to crunching any which way the numbers I use from a company's figures (just four of 'em, the financial equivalent of cyan, magenta, yellow & black) but I'm not up for questioning the balance sheet itself as that then opens Pandora's Box in a way I've never needed to do to date.

The aforementioned four numbers (providing you gather them every year and over a long enough time scale) have always told me everything I need to know about a company for the past twenty one years that I've been investing, and have served me more than tolerably well...

As it so happens, it's the subject matter of my next blog post, so the two of you may like to come back at me about it when it appears...? :-)

And, separately, I'm pretty much with Demos in respect of his comment here about Inland last Monday...

If I'm being brutally honest, and no doubt like Demos, if I'd had a crystal ball at the end of last year, I no doubt wouldn't have been buying Inland back then, but we are where we are ~ and all that's neither here nor there, now, as it's a matter of when & what I (we?) do next...?

Strictly

Vlad,

As I said in my previous comment, I'm happy to be 100% in one share if it comes to it (and I'm not intending to try to justify that, as I'm not handing out investing advice here) and, until such time as it seems to have become necessary to do otherwise, I don't call out balance sheets.

And thirdly, the 78% extra value that Henry would have to have tucked away off balance sheet in order to match Bellway's performance over the past eight years is hardly a trifling amount.

So, while I acknowledge that you have caught my attention in respect of Henry, I'm happy to be an observer rather than a participant ~ and I stand ready to be shown to have made the wrong decision in that...

And I am interested to read what Oi Oi has to say on this if he expresses a view about this here...?

Strictly

Oi Oi,

Vlad the Impaler and I have been having an ongoing discussion about the relative merits, or otherwise, of Inland and Henry Boot...

It's fair to say that Vlad is far from being a fan on Inland, so let's not get into that one... :-)

Whereas, when it comes to Henry, on the one hand Vlad sees substantial hidden value in his balance sheet and, on the other hand, I have never called out a balance sheet for investment purposes any time during this century, beyond dismissing goodwill & intangibles.

And through that time I've done okay without feeling the need to resort to that....

However, as this is your area of understanding given that it's part of what you do for a day job, do you have a view on how much potential upside there may be to Henry's balance sheet in respect of the land plots that Vlad reckons are under-valued..?

Currently, Henry and Bellway (as I think you know, Bellway is my benchmark share for all other shares) are in the same ball park in terms of PBV.

However, by my calculation, Henry has made an average ROE of 10.2% against Bellway's 18.4% for the eight years to the end of accounts year 2020.

So, if you ignore divs paid for this exercise in order to not unnecessarily complicate things, over that eight years, Henry has turned £100 into £217 and Bellway has turned £100 into £386, i.e. 78% more.

So, in order to be on a par with Bellway, and given that at the point of the above calculation, Henry's BVPS was 237p, he would have to find 185p per share of hidden value to take his ROE up to match Bellway at 18.4%.

Given your experience in this area, what do you think the likelihood is of this..?

And I'm not for a moment suggesting Henry isn't a good share to hold ~ I've owned it at times in the past myself ~ but unless Vlad has got this seriously right in seeing something that's not at all obvious, Henry is far from being on par with Bellway value-wise and, as someone prepared to not only put all my eggs into one basket, but also happy to commit to just a single egg (I think I've got to brass it out with my other holding, Inland, until I see the end of year figures, otherwise right now I would say I'd be 100% in Bellway), I'm far from being tempted to buy any Henry at respective current PBVs.

Strictly