…this lunchtime, brief comment about the Housing market/needs as part of a five minute vignette from a ‘visible’ Berkeley Homes site in London (Sajid Javid with a company hard hat on) and another 300-home site under way in Southampton showing building in progress - no logos visible, but a short talking head to camera identified Inland Homes’ CE. Marketing opportunity rather lost there…
Yes i saw it too and wondered if anyone who had been looking to invest in Inland might
have been persuaded by it. best regards s.i.
Bound to have been some people thinking ‘never heard of them, looks like they might win out in the budget, I’ll maybe have a punt’ … and a few of them will remember the name and actually have one.
Yes, he could have grabbed an Inland Homes hard hat with ‘INLAND HOMES’ printed across it (I doubt many would would recognise the logo alone - I wouldn’t!) but it might have looked a bit desperate and presumably he was talking on behalf of the smaller section of the sector.
Every bit of publicity helps. If INL were really switched on they’d get a copy of the whole piece on their web site and follow up with a handful of local press releases over the next few days. Possibly ensure a link from the piece on the BBC website (assuming its there) to the INL site. Probably easier said than done it being the BBC.
The people that will have known the name already, or definitely noted it, are potential customers for INL’s products. Almost all publicity is worthwhile and adds to the value of the brand.
About 25p added to the value of the brand via the stock price would do me very nicely right now. I’ve been averaging down in anticipation of the up-coming budget announcements and current white paper.
wouldn’t be surprised if a bigger house builder snapped them up - I’d accept 90p a share. At that price the current land bank would be reasonable value to somebody like, say Galliford Try - sudden Linden Homes influx onto the Inland plots ?
just saying…I’ve been wrong many times before though!
Pete the manager,
I’d be a little bit surprised if they were snapped up, chiefly because M&A activity in the sector through this cycle has been absolutely minimal. I think because many companies got caught out with way too much debt from financing the ‘buying of growth’ when the financial crisis brought the last housing cycle to an abrupt end.
Also, the current white paper I refer to is floating the idea of a ‘use it or lose it’ (has an ominous ring to it, that phrase, that politicians would love to use in a sound bite) when it comes to land banks with planning permission. I.e. A time limit between permission being granted and work starting.
Needless to say that the industry has roundly condemned the idea, which is once again implicitly trying to shift the blame for lack of supply to meet demand onto the industry, suggesting that they purposely pursue a policy of tying up land to deny it to competitors and so that they can control the rate of supply and thus keep house prices elevated.
As far as I’m aware, there is no actual evidence for this, and the extended land bank pipelines of builders appears to be genuinely due to the inordinately extended process of gaining planning permission, along with all the extra section 106 orders (I think they’re called) that local authorities add to virtually every development to ensure a mix of housing including a percentage of ‘affordable’ properties.
I doubt anyone will be looking at buying additional land plots with permission until this ludicrous idea has been nixed. If it isn’t, there might be a sudden glut of land with planning permission for sale - but who is going to buy it and have the ability to develop it given the skills shortage etc?
The whole idea is so flawed, it makes me think it is a bit of a ‘flanker’. I.e. The government floating such a bad idea that when their real, preferred alternative is put up, it will have more likelihood of support from the industry (whom the government are reliant on for achieving their housing supply targets, after all) through a mixture of relief and the desire to kill the idea permanently.
Having said all that, I wouldn’t be displeased with @90p per share myself, but I think INL may be worth more than that once they have put the hiccups from 2016 behind them once and for all. After all, they very nearly reached that level without anyone having to offer a premium to the market at one point as the chart shows.
I find it interesting that INL’s peak came some time after the general peak in the sector for this cycle (assuming that was it around late summer 2015). I’ve attempted to show BDEV on the same chart as a typical example of the sector’s cycle, but one never knows if such things will show up on the chart after submission.
The fact that INL was still peaking later in the cycle shows their trajectory is somewhat different to the standard at this stage in their development.