Is this "affordable" housebuilder and land traderset for continued growth despite interest rate poised to rise?
Following latest prelims to end-June the FTSE Small-cap stock is up 8% to 670p, still below its 2017 high of 705p, representing a 12-month forward price/earnings (PE) ratio of about 12.5 times and yielding 4.1%, twice covered by projected earnings.
Cash flow lags earnings (see trend in table), although this last year it's mainly due to a £22.3 million increase in inventories, which is fair enough in a busy schedule. Yet the board has opted to hike the dividend 66% to 24p, a firm vote of confidence in medium term prospects.
It comes after pre-tax profit rose 17% to £33 million on revenue up 13% to £160 million, with earnings per share (EPS) similarly up 14% to 48.5p. Return on capital employed is also very respectable, up from 23.2% to 25.4%.
Management intends to double the size of its house-building operation (65.4% of operating profit) within five years, taking the view "affordable homes" are a growth business irrespective of economic and political change. With a milestone target of 1,000 home sales a year now achieved, 2,000 has been set for within five years.
"Affordability remains very attractive and demand exceeds supply with buyers queuing on site opening days," the company says. Gleeson Homes' land pipeline is up from 9,284 to 11,588 plots, equivalent to more than 11 years of sales at current build rates.
The strategic land trading business also continues to do well amid "extremely strong" demand for prime quality sites in southern England. For the current year it is cited obtaining planning consent on six sites and entering agreements on six new sites potentially adding another 1,846 plots for development.
How significant is cheap finance for home-buyers?
When I first drew attention to the stock at 408p in May 2015, I wrestled with the longevity of Help to Buy, although it was Gleeson's prioritising affordable homes in the North of England that attracted me.
Addressing a critical gap in the market, this strategy seemed capable of riding out volatility in "subsidised finance" – be it exceptionally low interest rates or taxpayers' money used to help buyers for homes under £600,000. This is the listed house-builder most oriented towards relatively low-priced homes.
Gleenson's land trading profits appear more cyclical according to what extent of land is bought at attractive prices relative to subsequent housing demand, although negotiating planning permission generally adds value also.
Two years or so ago, the stock also traded at a 70% premium to its last declared, net asset value, indicating that Help to Buy is boosting earnings/dividends such that PE and yield look attractive despite the premium to NAV.
Analysis of listed housebuilders shows their regaining pre-2008 operating margins of 20%-plus (see the table for Gleeson), sceptics argue as a result of new-build pricing adjusted higher to compensate for the subsidy.
Gleeson concedes it is enjoying keen demand while mortgages remain highly affordable and two-thirds of its customers are using Help to Buy; yet its average home price this last financial year was £122,210 and the highest £183,445, well below the current subsidy limit.
The typical buyer is said to be young blue collar: "Our chosen segment of the market is large, mostly untapped and not really affected by politics or the economy, because their outgoings relating to buying a Gleeson home are significantly less than renting a council or housing association house."
Doubling the homes' business within five years will be achieved, they say, by growing the pipeline of sites, investing in new office locations (two new offices in Cumbria and East Yorkshire besides seven in the North and North Midlands), developing staff (up from 333 to 405 over last year), mitigating costs and listening to customer needs.
So, although the stock may continue affected by sentiment towards house-builders, Gleeson is in a sound niche operationally.
|MJ Gleeson - financial summary||Consensus estimates|
|year ended 30 Jun||2013||2014||2015||2016||2017||2018||2019|
|Turnover (£ million)||60.7||81.4||118||142||160|
|IFRS3 pre-tax profit (£m)||5.8||12.2||17.3||28.2||33.0|
|Normalised pre-tax profit (£m)||5.8||12.2||18.6||28.4||36.0||39.3|
|Operating margin (%)||9.4||15.1||16.1||20.3|
|Return on capital employed (%)||5.2||9.5||13.9||18.8|
|IFRS3 earnings/share (p)||18.9||32.8||23.0||43.2||48.3|
|Normalised earnings/share (p)||19.0||33.5||25.4||43.9||48.7||52.7||57.2|
|Earnings per share growth (%)||192||76.2||-24.3||73.0||10.9||8.2||8.5|
|Price/earnings multiple (x)||13.8||12.7||11.7|
|Historic annual average P/E (x)||16.3||15.5||14.7||17.3||13.5|
|Cash flow/share (p)||-15.9||10.3||14.9||25.7|
|Dividend per share (p)||0.5||3.1||7.6||11.8||16.5||26.8||29.0|
|Dividend yield (%)||2.5||4||4.3|
|Covered by earnings (x)||38.4||11.0||3.4||3.7||3.0||2.0||2.0|
|Net tangible assets per share (p)||212||241||254||283|
|Source: Company REFS|
Help to Buy to run to 2027 under a Labour government?
Housebuilding shares were hit early last August after the London School of Economics was tasked by the government to evaluate Help to Buy, its scrapping or tapering seen as possible.
While the Conservative government seeks to contain public expenditure, its very survival is at stake with a poll suggesting more than twice as many voters under the age of 45 think Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party is now "on their side".
A sense is growing that Help to Buy will extend much further than 2021, potentially closer to Labour's last election manifesto of 2027. Thus the Conservatives' response, pledging another £10 billion with the government lending up to 20% of a home purchase price (40% in London).
The stockmarket is aware how significant it is for housebuilders' profits, with 40% of completions using the scheme; hence the likes ofrising rapidly at the start of this week.
Off-the-radar as a small-cap, Gleeson offers more attractive risk/reward given its focus on affordable homes also the North of England where prices are now rising fastest in the UK amid keen demand.
Major shareholders only slightly trimming exposure
After the stock's strong run (from about 170p in 2013) there has been some selling, but it looks like prudent risk management for long-term holders than a "sell" verdict.
Figures vary: according to Company REFS, North Atlantic Value LLP holds 14.8%, although REFS also cites Christopher Mills who's both a non-executive director of Gleeson and the founder of Harwood Capital which runs the North Atlantic fund, holding 18.6%.
Page 40 of Gleeson's 2016 report cites Harwood owning 20.4% and a holdings' RNS exactly a year ago showed it reducing below 19%.
The REFS figures are also a bit odd where Schroder Investment Management is cited owning 11% but a holdings' RNS from last April shows this fund manager reducing its stake from 11% to 10%.
According to another RNS last March, Mrs J C Cooper also reduced her stake, from 5% to 4%, though is cited by REFS as owning 4.7%. All these investors are implicitly medium to longer-term confident otherwise they would not retain sizeable stakes in a £360 million housebuilder.
With recent uncertainty over Help to Buy removed by the Conservatives and the Bank of England likely only to raise interest rates very modestly, the house-building cycle looks set to extend plenty further as political parties jockey to claim they help the young.
MJ Gleeson looks about the best-risked company in the sector to capitalise on this while limiting downside as an "affordable" home specialist. Its high rates of return should therefore persist, hence a "buy" rating.
These articles are provided for information purposes only. Occasionally, an opinion about whether to buy or sell a specific investment may be provided by third parties. The content is not intended to be a personal recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument or product, or to adopt any investment strategy as it is not provided based on an assessment of your investing knowledge and experience, your financial situation or your investment objectives. The value of your investments, and the income derived from them, may go down as well as up. You may not get back all the money that you invest. The investments referred to in this article may not be suitable for all investors, and if in doubt, an investor should seek advice from a qualified investment adviser.
Full performance can be found on the company or index summary page on the interactive investor website. Simply click on the company's or index name highlighted in the article.
We use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis in forming our view as to the valuation and prospects of an investment. Where relevant we have set out those particular matters we think are important in the above article, but further detail can be found here.
Please note that our article on this investment should not be considered to be a regular publication.
Details of all recommendations issued by ii during the previous 12-month period can be found here.
ii adheres to a strict code of conduct. Contributors may hold shares or have other interests in companies included in these portfolios, which could create a conflict of interests. Contributors intending to write about any financial instruments in which they have an interest are required to disclose such interest to ii and in the article itself. ii will at all times consider whether such interest impairs the objectivity of the recommendation.
In addition, individuals involved in the production of investment articles are subject to a personal account dealing restriction, which prevents them from placing a transaction in the specified instrument(s) for a period before and for five working days after such publication. This is to avoid personal interests conflicting with the interests of the recipients of those investment articles.