Member Info for Svend

Thanks, Ben. That is a very useful colour from the coalface.

That is exactly the point I keep coming back to. Private housebuilding is struggling because the average buyer is being asked to buy at champagne prices on lemonade wages. Until affordability improves meaningfully, open-market volume will always be hard work.

That is why Vistry’s move toward housing associations, local authorities and government-backed delivery may prove more sensible than the market currently wants to admit. It is almost full circle, as you say: Linden, Galliford Try, Bovis, Vistry > the names and attitudes change, but the demand for affordable/social housing has only become more urgent.

The irony is quite something. What was once seen as the less glamorous side of the business may now be the more reliable route to volume, funding visibility and long-term work.

Of course, Vistry still has to prove the boring but vital stuff: margins, cash conversion, net debt and delivery discipline. Being “in bed with government” is helpful, but only if the mattress is paid for and the springs do not collapse.

Captain’s read: private buyers are still stuck on the quay counting their pennies, while the HA/government ship has a full manifest of homes needed. If Vistry can keep the build costs tight and the cash barrel intact, it may yet be sailing in the right convoy.

Cev,

For context/clarity:

JPMorgan was not among the backers of Rolls-Royce's 2020 rights issue. The £2 billion rescue rights issue was fully underwritten by a syndicate of 10 banks. The joint global coordinators were BNP Paribas, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, HSBC, Jefferies, and Morgan Stanley, with Crédit Agricole CIB, Santander, SMBC Nikko, and Société Générale acting as co-lead managers. JP Morgan was not involved in underwriting the equity raise.

Note: While JPMorgan acted as an adviser on other Rolls-Royce financial operations around that time, its analysts held a notably bearish view of the stock during the 2020 crisis. > Perhaps missing the boat was one reason they(Perry) had a nonsensical kickout at the Rycey teams.

RE,

That is a perfectly fair point > government can turn urgency into a national sport of committees, feasibility studies, consultations, reviews and funding frameworks before anyone has even found the shovel.

But I think the more relevant point for Vistry is not whether a brand-new state developer appears overnight. It clearly will not. The important signal is policy direction.

If the state is moving toward owning or funding more land, then appointing private builders to deliver the homes, that is very close to the Partnerships model Vistry is already built around. In other words, the immediate plan may continue, but the longer-term direction could still favour businesses that can deliver public-sector-backed housing at scale.

So yes, nothing changes tomorrow morning. The July update and September results remain the real near-term tests. But if the policy wind is increasingly blowing toward state-backed land, public-sector frameworks and private-sector delivery, Vistry may not be facing a new enemy at all. It may be looking at a larger future customer.

Captain’s translation: government may take three years to design the harbour, appoint a harbour committee and debate the colour of the lighthouse > but if Vistry is already one of the few shipbuilders in port, that still matters.

The Burnham Vistry Housing Bazooka is being loaded up and aimed squarely at the shorts. When they start to burn/cover their short positions, Vistry is going to fly like a 🚀✈

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2jw5q5pdzo

This is where the short-seller mood could become a little less comfortable.

At first glance, a state-owned housing developer sounds like another threat to the quoted housebuilders. But when you look at the proposed structure, it may actually fit Vistry’s model rather neatly. My understanding is that Homes England, or a similar state-backed body, would buy or control the land, organise the development framework, and then appoint private builders to deliver the homes.

That is not miles away from the Vistry Partnerships model. In fact, it could be very close to it.

For Vistry, the attraction is obvious. If the public sector supplies or funds the land, and the partner structure provides the development capital, Vistry does not need to keep as much cash tied up in a traditional landbank. That potentially reduces one of the market’s biggest current concerns: the cash squeeze between assets, working capital and delivery.

That matters because the short case is not simply “Vistry has no assets”. The short case is more likely that Vistry has plenty of assets but not enough freely available cash at the right moment, forcing land sales, further margin pressure, debt stress or even dilution. A government-backed land-and-delivery model could weaken that argument if it gives Vistry a clearer route to cash-light volume.

Of course, the shorts will not panic on political headlines alone. They will want to see whether this turns into real contracts, acceptable margins and actual cash flow. They will also argue that a state developer could become a tough price-setter and squeeze private-sector margins.

But the mood music changes. Instead of government being seen only as a political risk or a possible competitor, it may also become a bigger, cheaper-funded customer. That is uncomfortable for shorts because it supports the long-term logic of Vistry’s move away from traditional open-market housebuilding and toward Partnerships.

So the practical read is this: it is not an instant short squeeze trigger, but it does make the bear case less clean. If July shows guidance intact, cash under control and no rights issue, then this kind of policy direction could turn from background noise into a serious headache for the short sellers.

Captain’s version: the sharks were betting Vistry needed to carry the land, the cash and the cannonballs itself. If Homes England turns up with the land and the wallet, and asks Vistry to build the fleet, the sharks may suddenly find the water getting rather warmer.

Ben,

As Sparhawk said

''My understanding was that Homes England would buy the land then, get a builder to build the houses, this seems to match the Vistry model exactly''

That would be a fresh win/win for Vistry with less cash to keep back for the landbank..

Ben1

What a thought🤣

''Stalin-style politics" > or Stalinism> refers to the totalitarian system Joseph Stalin established in the Soviet Union from 1927 to 1953. It is defined by the supreme concentration of power, violent purges of dissidents, a massive police state, rigid economic command, and a powerful cult of personality.

Ahoy, crew. Rycey is still sailing with the main trend firmly at its back, but after the charge into the 1,400p+ waters, the ship is now circling the harbour wall rather than firing all cannons at once.

The key deck level is now 1,400p. As long as Roycey holds above that level, the breakout remains alive. The next proper battle line is 1,418–1,442p. A clean break and hold above 1,442p would put the bulls back on the bridge and open the route toward 1,475p, then the big round 1,500p, with 1,530p+ as the stretch target if momentum keeps blowing.

If the price slips below 1,388p, the lookout should stop waving flags and start watching the bilge pumps. That would likely bring 1,367–1,375p into view, then 1,350p, with 1,325–1,335p the deeper support shelf where the medium-term chart starts asking harder questions.

The bigger picture still looks shipshape: daily and weekly trends remain positive, price is well above the major moving averages, and the long uptrend has not been broken. The shorter-term sails, however, are fluttering a little, so chasing mindlessly at the masthead is risky.

Captain’s verdict: bullish trend intact, but wait for either a clean breakout above 1,442p or a disciplined reload near support. Above 1,442p, the cannons reload. Below 1,388p, tighten the ropes. Below 1,350p, the Captain puts the rum away and checks the lifeboats.

Enjoy the voyage IV🙌💨🏴‍☠️⚓

Lodan1,

If a light-hearted nautical theme is the most embarrassing thing on an investment forum, then we're sailing through remarkably calm seas.

Some people use charts, some use metaphors. The important part is whether the analysis holds water, not whether the captain wears a hat.

That said, it's a little rich coming from someone who spends half their time discussing the oil price on a homebuilder board. If we're handing out awards for staying on topic, I suspect your compass has been pointing due Brent instead of due Vistry.

I'll stick with the ship. At least it's still floating.

Captain’s version:

Burnham may be promising a fine new housing fleet from Number 10 North, and Vistry could be one of the main shipbuilders. But before anyone fires the victory cannon, Vistry still has to get through the July reef and September harbour inspection with the cash barrel intact.

Sg0913,

Visible disclosed short interest is still bobbing around the 15.37%–15.40% mark, and the latest fund moves look mixed rather than a full-scale retreat from the shark fleet.

But remember, that is only the bit of the iceberg showing above the waterline. Add in all the smaller short positions lurking below the 0.5% disclosure threshold, and you potentially have a whole flotilla of future buyers sitting in the fog.

At some point, if Vistry steadies the ship, hits guidance and the heat turns from smoke into volcanic ash, those same short sellers may discover that the exit door is rather narrower than the entrance.

Captain’s read: plenty of sharks still circling, but if the RNS fires the right cannon, they may all be trying to squeeze through the same lifeboat hatch at once.

Ahoy, crew! 🏴‍☠️

The S&P has sprung a tiny 3% leak, but there be no reason to abandon ship. Every time the Iran seas get choppy, the market takes on a bit of water... then the moment the diplomats start waving white flags, the buyers come charging back aboard.

Last week was all squalls, whirlpools and sailors falling overboard. Plenty of noise, but here's the important bit > the ship's keel (the intermediate trend) never budged. When the waves are wild, but the hull stays solid, ignore the splashing and keep your telescope on the horizon.

This week's cargo is all about jobs data. As long as payrolls arrive roughly as expected, the Federal Reserve is unlikely to fire its interest-rate cannons. Oil is behaving itself too, which keeps inflation from mutinying and leaves the door open for rate cuts later in the year.

The war? Keep one eye on it, but so far every flare-up has fizzled out quicker than the cook's rum ration.

As for the S&P, a drift towards 7,200-7,100 wouldn't sink the fleet, with 7,000 as the emergency lifeboat. But overall the wind still favours the bulls. Every dip seems to attract eager deckhands with shopping baskets.

Captain's verdict: Expect more chop, plenty of shouting from the crow's nest, but no sign the ship has changed course. Until the keel moves > not just the waves > the voyage continues.

Rossannan

Aye, geography and geopolitics certainly provided the wind, but they didn't steer the ship.

Markets often have a reason to start a move, but the magnitude of the move tells its own story. Plenty of shares get a geopolitical tailwind; very few nearly double in the space of a quarter.

And yes, four months ago it was around 300p... which rather reinforces the point. The voyage from 300p down to 173p and back up through 400p isn't evidence of calm seas > it's evidence of spectacular volatility.

The Captain wasn't claiming to know why every wave appeared. He was simply pointing out that when the ocean starts throwing up swells of that size, sensible sailors pay attention rather than argue about which gust started them.

Besides... it's difficult to call it "bilge" when the chart itself is doing most of the talking. The tea leaves don't care who brewed the storm > they simply record that one happened.

The target price of 1438 is based on the combined estimates of the analysts (19) covering the company.

Rosannan,

Where are the facts?

They're printed all over the tea leaves... or, for those who prefer numbers to nautical charts, they're on the monthly price chart.

A move from 173 to 410 in barely three months isn't poetry—it's a fact. That level of turbulence is enough to let the fizz out of even the most optimistic champagne bottle.

The Captain's post didn't claim inside knowledge or present a regulatory announcement. It was making an observation: when a share behaves with that degree of sustained momentum, it's perfectly reasonable to ask why. Whether it's institutions accumulating, changing market sentiment, or improving fundamentals, the question is valid even if none of us can yet prove the answer.

As for the "mysterious 3-million-share buyers", that was clearly presented as a question, not a statement of fact. Markets are full of clues long before they're full of explanations.

The Captain simply reads the wake behind the ship. Sometimes the tea leaves tell the story long before the history books do.

A more precise wording would be:

"Homes England has asked bidders to re-profile grant requests because demand for the programme has exceeded the level of grant available in the early years of the 10-year funding profile. This reflects the Treasury's planned spending profile, which allocates larger annual budgets later in the programme than at the beginning."

What we know

The government has committed £39 billion over 10 years, not all upfront. Annual spending ramps up over time, reaching around £4bn per year by 2029-30 before rising with inflation.

Housing associations have submitted very ambitious bids, and sector bodies say demand currently exceeds the funding available in the programme's early years.

The National Housing Federation has written to the Chancellor urging that more of the funding be brought forward, arguing that delaying grant could reduce housing delivery by around 17,000 homes over the next three years.

Why this matters for Vistry

For companies like Vistry Group, this is more a timing issue than a funding cut. If grant payments are pushed further into the decade:

Some affordable housing starts may be delayed.

Housing association partners may phase projects over longer periods.

The total £39bn commitment remains in place, but cash flow into the sector is slower initially.

That said, because Vistry's partnerships business typically has multi-year forward order books, a re-profiling of grant timing is generally less damaging than an outright reduction or cancellation of funding. The main effect is likely to be on the pace of delivery rather than the existence of the work itself.

Dim Tim,

It does seem there's a strange belief in some quarters that if a project doesn't begin with 10,000 people, a brass band and fireworks, it can't possibly succeed.

By that logic, every Formula One car should be judged by the number of mechanics standing around the garage before qualifying.

The "£12 million hut" line is my personal favourite. Rolls-Royce has spent more than that on engine testing programmes and probably burns through more than that in R&D before most of us have finished our morning coffee.

And let's not forget—the much-discussed "hut" is just one brick in an entire wall. Focusing on that single brick and declaring you've seen the whole building is rather missing the point. Major industrial programmes are assembled piece by piece, milestone by milestone, not unveiled overnight like a flat-pack shed.

Some people see a small team of highly specialised engineers and conclude, "that's all there is." Others see the foundation stone of an industry that could run for decades.

It's often easier to count bricks than to appreciate the blueprint.

Cevo,

Thank you for the kind words > they're genuinely appreciated.

To be fair, investing is a game of different perspectives, and we've all started somewhere. If I can help explain a process or clear up a misunderstanding, then it's time well spent. Healthy debate is what makes a good forum, even if we don't always agree.

As for tomorrow's news, the market will no doubt have its own opinion. One thing I've learned over the years is that patience often proves more valuable than winning an argument.

Here's hoping everyone has a good Sunday, and that Monday brings more light than heat.

Rossannan,

"Ramping" usually involves making exaggerated claims without evidence.

Pointing to published financial results, order books, cash generation, buybacks, dividends, and long-term strategic projects is simply a discussion of publicly available information. People are, of course, free to disagree with the conclusions, but dismissing any positive view as "ramping" isn't much of an investment thesis.

Debate the facts, not the label.

NT2Y,

I think you're confusing the size of the workshop with the size of the opportunity.

The first 40 engineers aren't there to build dozens of reactors > they're there to complete one of the most complex design, licensing and manufacturing programmes on the planet. Once the design is approved, the workforce scales dramatically. Nobody builds the factory before they've finished the blueprint.

It's a bit like suggesting Rachel Reeves could run Rolls-Royce because she can balance a spreadsheet, while Helen has already drawn the engine, built the prototype and is halfway through certification. One counts the beans; the other designs the beanstalk.

As for revenues, they won't come from "sticker books." Early income comes from engineering services, development contracts, licensing work, partner funding and milestone payments. The truly meaningful revenue starts to arrive once reactors move from paper to production.

Judging the SMR programme by today's headcount is rather like judging an aircraft by the number of people holding the pencils during the design phase. The real army turns up when it's time to build the fleet.