Skip Navigation
 

A Housing Market Bottom

Published in Company Comment on 21 August 2008

Persimmon, one of the country’s largest house builders, has seen house sales level off after their recent slump. Could the worst be over for this battered sector?

In early July most of the major house builders issued dire trading updates. This seemed to mark a low point for their shares though and many have seen their share prices increase by a third since then. Those which had fallen furthest in the preceding twelve months, Taylor Wimpey (LSE: TW) and Barratt Developments (LSE: BDEV), have put in the best recovery with their shares up 60% and 200% respectively.

Today saw the first set of full results for the sector with figures from Persimmon (LSE: PSN). Taylor Wimpey and Bovis (LSE: BVS) report next week while Redrow (LSE: RDW), Barratt and Berkeley (LSE: BKG) follow in mid-September.

Has trading worsened?

Although it’s only been a few weeks since those trading updates, the question most investors were asking is have things got any worse?

As far as Persimmon is concerned the answer is no. Its sales volumes have flattened out and it says visitor levels are reasonable and cancellation rates have fallen from their recent high of 40% to 33%. The dithering over stamp duty has had an effect but it appears to have eased. Still, Persimmon says it is applying extreme caution to all its business decisions and is no mood to make any predictions for 2009 until it sees how this autumn’s selling season progresses.

As for its results, they were as grim as expected. Sales were down by 34% to £1bn and operating profits before exceptional costs were down by 56% to £140m as margins contracted due to a combination of lower selling prices and a near doubling of marketing costs (i.e. sales incentives).

After exceptional costs of £64m and interest of £39m, earnings per share fell from 65.5p to just 8.8p. The interim dividend was slashed by 73%, far more than expected, to 5p.

Land write downs – more to come?

The exceptional costs included the restructuring of the business with 1,100 jobs lost and a £40m write-down in the value of its £2.5bn land bank. That write-down was based on sales price falls of 5% so far this year and 5% over the next six months.

At the start of July, Persimmon said it didn’t expect to make any significant write-downs and this has proved to be the case although many analysts expect this will the first of a number of write-downs if property values continue to fall. The company owns or controls 76,000 plots at the moment, equivalent to seven years’ of sales at current volumes.

In common with most other house builders, it’s running down its land bank in reaction to lower sales volumes. After spending £840m on land in 2007, this year’s spending is expected to be £440m with the two following years dropping to £200m and then £100m. Still, a lot of its land bank is relatively recent, with 62% bought since 2005 and a further 18% of controlled plots where the values are yet to be agreed.

Debt on the way down

The slowdown in sales has seen Persimmon’s debt rise to £900m although it expects to generate free cash flow of £200m in the second half of this year to help pay this off. £280m of this debt comes from a £800m revolving facility that is due for renewal in November 2010. The remainder is loan notes, with an average of £100m per year due to be paid off over the next three years and the remainder after 2012. Provided the cash does come through as predicted in the next six months, these debt levels look manageable.

Finally, we come to valuation. At 300p per share this business is valued at £900m. If trading does indeed remain stable and there are no more exceptional costs, then this business should generate profits before tax of around £200m per annum, which translates into a price earnings ratio of between six and seven times.

The dividend yield is more difficult to gauge but a repeat of last year’s ratio between the interim and final payments suggests a full-year payout of around 14p for forecast yield of 4.6%. On this basis of these two ratios, Persimmon is cheap but not screamingly so.

If the downturn in the housing market is more prolonged, then it’s a different story. With so much land bought in the last few years, write downs could turn out to be substantial and it could be some time before profits recover.

It’s a tough one to call. Persimmon remains one of the best ways to play this battered sector but it will be rough ride and suit only the bravest of investors.

More: Demolition Work  

Buy and sell shares via The Motley Fool Sharedealing Service.

Like this article? Get our best articles delivered direct to your inbox at no cost. Sign up for Foolwatch Daily by entering your email below.

Share & subscribe

Comments

The opinions expressed here are those of the individual writers and are not representative of The Motley Fool. If you spot any comments that are unsuitable hit the flag to alert our moderators.

Superskuller 21 Aug 2008 , 2:15pm

I think it's a brave investor who buys builders or mortgage lenders in 2008 and probably much of 2009.

I'd be astounded if one of the big building firms doesn't go to the wall before Easter 09.

Milsonman 21 Aug 2008 , 3:50pm

I think yuo are right on sentiment. I have bought Berkeley as they have NO DEBT and superb management.

humaninvest 22 Aug 2008 , 5:49am

It is far to early to expect the bottom of the market while major elements such as the oil price impact have not had their effect on existing contracts.

We are always too optimistic even though we have the 2012 Olympic factors and the rebuilding of East London and many other large projects.

Nickolarge 22 Aug 2008 , 7:47am

I don't think it is remotely possible that we have reached the bottom but if you take the view that some of these companies will eventually recover, then they are very cheap to buy now. Bit of a lottery though.

19julius52 22 Aug 2008 , 8:37am

I think that the housing market will bump along the bottom for a while now. The shortfall of supply against demand is still there and the need for new housing is still strong.
Unfortunately this simplistic supply & demand model doesn't apply because this is a triangular market, with the availability of mortgages and the size of deposits required critical to market recovery.
If the house builders are not too damaged by the collapse in the housing market, they could resume building relatively quickly. What is not clear is how long it will take the financial sector to recover its confidence.
The assumption that government funded 'affordable' housing may off set some of the decline is naive because in England represented only 12.5% of the market and a large part of this was based on Section 106 agreements - with so many private house building developments put on hold, associated Section 106 agreements will also be on hold.
If it takes a year to 18 months for the financial market to learn to trust itself and recover its confidence, it could take the housing market another year or two beyond that to recover. i.e. we could be looking at up to four years, or possibly longer, before we see house building levels restored to the pre-credit crunch levels, which were already not meeting the demand.

TheHaunted 22 Aug 2008 , 9:28am

The housing market still has a long way to fall. I don't think that will bode well for these companies over the next 12-24 months. At some point they will be a prudent investment, I just think that this is way too early.

Fazzersix 22 Aug 2008 , 9:36am

Its not a property or land price crash.

Its a lenders crash however lenders cannot maintain their lack of lending.

They are geared for lending money, so lend money - or go bust soon !

Fazzersix 22 Aug 2008 , 9:43am

Another point houses in my area are cheap right now.

As the house lenders get their act together and sales increase, there will be a shortage of property because of letting.

Properties were for sale but let instead are tied to a tenancy agreements, which take time to expire, then properties will be available again.

I think you will get the jist !

Phil135 22 Aug 2008 , 9:52am

In my view this is a self fulfilling prophecy, which makes a further downturn likely.

As highlighted in the article, Persimmon have had to cut 1100 jobs. So 1100 people are now probably unlikely to upsize, first time buy and are likely to downsize or even get repossesed - bearish for the housing market!

Persimmon have also cut their spending on land - bearish for land values!

They are contributing to their own demise. This is precisely why markets always over-extend. If you apply this principle on aggregate then we are still well and truely in a bear market. This will only change when firms like Persimmon get the confidence back to buy more land and take on more people.

solo55 22 Aug 2008 , 9:53am

I like the point made on A "lenders Crash". Properties which do eventually sell get knocked back at the mortgage or valuation stage.

I'm sure this affects Lenders in the long run, but in the short term they're asking for much higher deposits, and offering almost nil 100% mortgages. This must offset the lower overall turnover.

Phil135 22 Aug 2008 , 10:08am

It may be a lenders crash but you have to think of the concequences of this...

One of the reasons we have seen huge gains in the property market is because of the advent of 100% and 125% mortgages. The most ridiculous thing since the sinclair c5, an investment with zero risk on the investors part. This lenders crash as you call it will bring an end to these products, possibly and hopefully forever.

In my opinion, it is the need for deposits that keeps a lid on the housing market. People these days struggle to pay off debt let alone save for a deposit and so the need for one to buy a house keeps them out of the market for some time, reducing demand. It will also prevent the whole of Britain and his grandmother "getting into buy to let" and buying up scores of houses on a paper-boys wages.

Lets face it, the signs are there that we have had an unsustained bubble which is now in the process of bursting.

TonyBritten 22 Aug 2008 , 11:10am

Everyone is overstating the gloom. I see things differently. Most stock market cycles run in 5 year ups and 2 year downs. The housebuilding section is no exception. It is true that most lenders were over-eager to lend (blame this on individuals performance targets to get their annual pay increases) and as always Estate Agents always as greedy as ever. However that part is in the past and the cleaning up is now going on.
I see the Construction sector as of interest now with firms like Balfour Beatty & Galliford Try with strong balance sheets and lots of big contracts in the books. The housebuilding sector will pick itself up over the next 2/3 years with better profits in 3/4 years. However, you have to get your entry point timed correctly to achieve the best share price and yield.

MCMXCIX 22 Aug 2008 , 11:56am

People these days struggle to pay off debt let alone save for a deposit

Phil135 hits the nail squarely on the head. Many potential-FTBs are in debt. They have no deposit. Mortgage-lenders will not lend without deposits. FTBs cannot buy a house without a mortgage. House-sellers cannot sell a house without someone to sell to.

Face it folks, the banks can't afford right now to lend huge amounts of money without first securing 10% deposits and almost nobody can stump up a 10% deposit with house prices at current levels - the only conclusion is that house prices have a long, long way to crash.

Anyone want to party like it's 1999? ;-)

MCMXCIX 22 Aug 2008 , 12:07pm

While we're waiting for the "return of affordable homes", here's a comedy piece from the BBC with some painful home-truths (geddit?):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00d2xqb/b00dcqp0/

Fazzersix 22 Aug 2008 , 12:13pm

My opinion when talking about house prices being expensive.

They are not high in many area's, we dont all live in prime locations.

I live in Nottingham i can find an ideal investment property for around 60/75k !

Or a modernised semi 110k !

Lenders need regulation, its natural for buyer to want the best, instead of what they can afford.

If regulated 1st time buyers would buy a terrace instead of semi or detatched and be within their budget during hard times.

Regulation regulation regulation !

chasbmw 22 Aug 2008 , 12:21pm

I would question the persimmon write down of £40M on a land bank of £800m.

Currently there is no market in residential land and even savills are predicting reductions in land values of 25%. This might indicate to me there is a significant downside risk of investing in Persimmon and the other Housebuilders at the moment.

bimber 22 Aug 2008 , 3:19pm

@Fazzersix

Another point houses in my area are cheap right now.

As the house lenders get their act together and sales increase, there will be a shortage of property because of letting.


And a corresponding shortage of buyers because of renting, so what are you saying will be the effect on the supply/demand equation?


Properties were for sale but let instead are tied to a tenancy agreements, which take time to expire, then properties will be available again.

Available for the renters to buy? Once they've leanred the joys of renting will they want to buy in a falling market? Again, what effect will this have on prices?

I think you will get the jist !

I don't get the gist at all.

As for the effect of renting, I think in general a higher level of renting over owning will lead to houses being priced closer to the level which can be sustained by an income rather than a cheap loan. So we'll get closer to the long term average below 3.5x income rather than the credit-fuelled level above 5.5x income. Responsible lending will also return us to those levels (after the market has overcorrected below them).

limeynick 22 Aug 2008 , 6:27pm

Bimber,


always been intrigued by this 3.5 x income equation people refer to. and how it is supposed to work.

I appreciate it must be based on an average of the house-price/salary ratio, but are we talking household income or individual income? Perhaps the fact that these days more households have dual incomes than they did 20 or 30 years ago means the old yardsticks are out of date. My partner and I earn fairly average London salaries, and not long ago we bought a 2 bed flat in a very nice north-London location for 3.5 times joint salary (£240,000) . Had we been prepared to move out of London we could have gotten a 3-bed house with garden for a similar amount, but we wanted a more central location so we had to sacrifice space.

I just wonder if people are sometimes a bit unrealistic in their expectations of what money can buy you and where?

bimber 24 Aug 2008 , 9:35pm

According to National Statistics Online, in the last census 30% of households were one-person households, up from 26.3% in 1991. I can't find out how many single-income households there are but with an increasing divorce rate and a declining marriage rate I'd expect that to be up too.

There is some data for the US housing market here (go 6 minutes in)
http://www.chrismartenson.com/bubbles
which shows that house prices have been above their long term mean for over 50 years (relative to the price of other goods) so dual-income households may have some effect, but I don't think it explains the shape of the chart which is revealed on 7 minutes. With downward pressure on wages and increases in food and fuel prices I think banks will be looking back to lending ratios which have proven to be sustainable over long periods.

The long term average (25 years) for FTB lending has been 3.5x income. That's not to say 3.5x is sustainable of course.
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-ftb-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php

matchmade 26 Aug 2008 , 12:23am

Bimber, if there is a mean to draw between all the records in that Housepricecrash chart, it shows a rising trend, not a static one, rising from 2.5x in 1983 to 4.5 now. And why start the chart at 1983 in the first place, rather than, say, 1978, or 1972, or whenever really? People are talking here as if 3.5x is some fact of nature, like the speed of light, but why? It seems to me just an arbitrary figure, which might have been true for a certain period of the post-war housing market, but needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. Why are people so hung up on this 3x, 3.5 or 4x salary figure? What about the level of interest rates, or the question of affordability? What about the increasing wealth in the economy, so more and more people have independent savings to add to what they believe they can afford as a proportion of their salary? Why should the price-income multiple of FTBs be so crucial, especially now that rental investors use their capital to buy into the market and compete with first-time buyers? My first house purchase was a buy-to-let property in 1996, with the interest guaranteed by my parents, whilst I continued to rent myself - does this count as a FTB or not?

bimber 26 Aug 2008 , 3:55pm

That 2nd chart starts in 1983 because the data comes from Nationwide and they don't have any before that. The first one is over a far longer period and we (well, the US at least, but we're similar) are clearly above precedented levels.

If you want to look at the trend in the 2nd chart you should cover a full cycle instead of the full range of the data. Going from 1990Q2 to the current period the trend is much steeper, in fact extrapolating a linear regression shows that FTBs will be borrowing 20x income by 2044! At 5% they'll not have room for anything else.

Clearly the trend idea is wrong. The only way to analyse this data is to see that when it gets very low it goes up again and when it gets very high it goes down again, as banks realise they're being either too cautious or too reckless. When it's somewhere in the middle it's probably about right.

First Time Buyers, First Time Renters and Second Home Buyers are the bottom of the pyramid, they are the point where new money comes into the market, and the First Timers are the biggest chunk. As such it is the financial position of this population that matters most, and it's not in good shape. The "increasing wealth in the economy" doesn't trickle down and young people are in large amounts of debt (a lot of what looks like wealth is actually debt).

Join the conversation

Please take note - some tags have changed.

Line breaks are converted automatically.

You may use the following tags in your post: [b]bolded text[/b], [i]italicised text[/i]. All other tags will be removed from your post.

If you want to add a link, please ensure you type it as http://www.fool.co.uk as opposed to www.fool.co.uk.

Hello stranger

To add your own comment, please login.

Not yet registered? Register now.