Good morning. Welcome to the Taylor Wimpey plc trading update call. Today's conference call will be hosted by Taylor Wimpey Chief Executive, Pete Redfern, and Group Finance Director, Chris Carney, followed by the Q&A. I would now like to turn the conference over to Pete Redfern, Chief Executive. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for joining us. I think this is a fairly straightforward update and obviously given the timing very early in 2020, it's more a confirmation on 2019 and a first flavor of the year we've just come into, but obviously early to give you too much sense of how the market has started this year. Looking back at 2019 overall, I think the key thing you'll take away is overall in line. No surprises in the latter part of the year, very much where we guided to through the second half. Probably slightly higher volume than you expected overall. Everything else very much in line, but probably the strong order book, even stronger than you might have expected.
Those sales rates up 19% year-on-year in half two, even if I exclude bulk deals, and in the low 20s with them, I think particularly strong, which we'll come back to and give you a flavor of particularly where our objectives are for 2020, more than necessarily where the market will be, which we'll touch on what we think it might look like, but still, as I say, too early to say. I think last quarter of the year, no major market changes. The cost pressures easing that we talked about in the late autumn, we continued to see being the same pattern and sales, by the time the election result happened too late in the year to see any meaningful change before the reservations we take after that would always be low.
Definitely finished the year post-election with more of an air of confidence, across the sector with agents, with our own salespeople and to the extent that we can judge it with customers coming through the door as well. I'm going to keep saying it's very early to say how that will go into 2020. I'll probably say it an annoying number of times in this overview and in the Q&A but it is. I think if you look at the first, and we really have one trading week in January, positive, no surprises, definitely more of a feel of confidence, but statistically not particularly meaningful. I think there's potential for market upside this year on last.
We'll be able to give you a much better feel and I think in all honesty, we'll probably have a very good flavor for it by the time it comes to the prelims. I think what's most important in that though, and probably the most important takeaway is where our balance is year-on-year. To a certain extent through 2019, the way I would express it, we were managing for risk. A lot of uncertainty, particularly on cost, but actually in the market as well, while trading continued to be strong and the sales rates were strong.
With the uncertainty of Brexit and the inevitability of a general election at some point of the year and the potential range of outcomes, actually ending the year with a strong order book was always a very key goal for us and being able to get the volume growth and that strong order book, we exceeded our expectations. I think as we go into 2020, whilst risk hasn't completely gone, we still clearly have a Brexit process to go through. We do feel it's materially reduced, and so I think the balance of where we're managing will switch and it's that, and we'll balance risk and opportunity. I think where we will see that most clearly and where we're most focused on the moment is the balance between sales rate and price.
A strong order book and we'll come on to whether that's selling too far ahead or whether it's about right, but actually it gives us choices. We would not be disappointed to see sales rates slightly down in the first quarter, if we can make up that difference in price. That's where our focus is. I don't mean 3%, 4%, 5% on price, but actually in this kind of market with balanced cost and price movements, every half a percent makes a big difference either way. I think that's where our emphasis will be, and it will be slightly different to last year. I'm not flagging that sales rates will be materially down. They may not, but actually, our balance and our focus is slightly more weighted towards price in this environment.
That election result and the air of confidence that that has created, I think gives us the feeling that that's A, the right balance, and B, that there is the potential for some price growth, which is quite important in our chase to recover some margin. I think if I run through the other key areas, I touched briefly on costs, but less pressure in late 2019 than we'd seen. It was particularly earlier in 2019 that we saw the material cost pressures that had eased by the time we got to September, October. We haven't seen that change in very late on in the year. Obviously, again, too early to call where that will be strongly this year, but certainly start from a normal year overall on costs, with a bit of upside against that potentially.
Very much again, I think our focus is the important point that I want to put across through the last quarter of last year and going into early 2020, I think our cost focus is much stronger, and I would say it's slightly broader than just cost. It's cost and simplification. We've done a lot over the last three or four years on customer service, on quality. We don't want to go backwards, we want to do less new stuff in 2020 and make it easier for our people to focus on cost and efficiency, and really delivering that customer service, that quality, but in as simple and efficient a way as possible, changing less things. I think that message is quite strong in the business at the moment, and has landed very well.
I think both on price and cost, our focus is on self-help in a world that we can't control, sort of rather than just on what the market can do for us. Not a lot to say on the land market. I think, sort of unchanged through the year. Again, I think a year in 2019, where we were managing slightly for risk, looking at the uncertainties politically and not wanting to go too deep. Our purchases were focused very heavily on strategic land. I think we would like to see more potential outlets coming through. It's not a short-term sort of pressure point, and it's not deeply concerning, but I think that sort of general reduction in outlets that we've seen over time is not something we want to see continue.
Making sure that we've got the right balance of investment between smaller and larger sites is going to be important to us. If we get that right, I wouldn't be surprised to see 2020 being a bit of a stronger land purchasing year. I would say at that point that I don't want you to overread that. I'm not talking about something that would impact materially on cash or our sort of dividend strategy or anything like that, but definitely on balance after a year where the focus has been on risk, just being, sort of edging forward a little bit more to build the outlets for 2021, 2022. I think coming on for sort of an overview of outlook, and I've touched on sort of several things. We talked about in the statement, sort of a half two weighting.
I think, we still got a bit of tailwind from 2019 on margin and on cost, which affects particularly, I think, half one. We have the sales in the order book, but we still got to deliver properly on the completions and very committed to getting that build quality right and not putting the teams under too much pressure. We do think it will be a smoother half one, as in not too weighted towards June, but sort of actually the weighting of completions will continue to be more towards the second half of the year. Our focus is on reducing that as we go through 2021 and 2022. I think price, as I touched on, very key factor, probably the most important for us in 2020. Sort of we come into the year with a pretty clear set of targets.
I'm not going to be explicit on what we think we can achieve because it's too early. I'm sure when we come back to the prelims, we will. Cost control in our own gift on control, a better environment than we saw last year. Areas where we can make, not massive, but meaningful reductions in overheads and efficiency, and as I say, particularly simplifying things for people and not giving them too much new stuff. Relatively stable volume over 2019. I think 5% was the top end of our growth expectations. It was higher than we came into the year expecting. Some of that was sort of that our strategy on sales rates, on private sales was more effective. Some of it was that we consciously decided to take bulk sales given the overall market risk.
I think 2020 won't see continued volume growth, but I don't think it will be a meaningful shift either way. Our focus will be on maximizing the margin as we deal with the sort of 2019 cost follow on, but try and get price back and set ourselves up for 2021. Chris, anything next?
Yeah, just a couple of things from me, Pete. Firstly, I think at the time when there's a growing interest and appreciation of the importance of company culture from all stakeholders, I think it's worth noting that we were included in Glassdoor's top 50 places to work in the U.K. for the third year running, which is pleasing. Secondly, just on Spain, 2019 was another strong year for us. An increase in demand from Eastern European buyers comfortably offset any Brexit related uncertainty from U.K. buyers. Although we'd expect operating margins to moderate over time from what was a very high level of 28% in 2018, we still expect them to compare favorably to, say, U.K. margins in 2019 and as we move into 2020.
Lastly, I suppose it would be remiss of me not to remind everybody that with GBP 546 million of net cash at the end of the year, we retain a very strong balance sheet, and there is no change in our dividend plans for 2020 with the ordinary dividends at GBP 250 million, plus GBP 360 million of special dividends in July, subject to shareholders approval, yielding a total dividend for 2020 at GBP 610 million.
Thanks, Chris. If we can open up for questions, Nadia, please.
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the question and answer session. If you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone keypad and wait for your name to be announced. The first questions come from the line of Ladysia. Please ask your question.
Thank you. Good morning, both of you. Two questions from my side. First one is, have you seen any, if you can give a reasonable flavor of price increases or sentimental change like price improvements post-election, whether it's in the north or it's across regions or is it broad-based, or it's only specific site-specific? Have you done any kind of blanket increase of prices? If you can give a little more flavor on price improvements post-election, that would be great. The second one is on the outlets. Appreciate your guiding outlet. Average outlet will be flat this year compared to last year. Considering that there'll be your intention to increase the land buying, would you expect that outlets to be materially higher in 2021 compared to 2020? If you can link that to the impending changes in the Help to Buy program from March 2021.
How do you want to basically balance that out? Thank you.
Thank you. As I touched on in terms of price movements post-election, what's actually happening in the marketplace, it's too early to say. The feel is positive, it would be wrong to give you too strong a confident view of how that plays out over time, because the evidence just isn't there yet either way. I wouldn't expect it to be. We've had a month since the election, of which at least three weeks is a period where active sales are always very low because of the time of year in calendar-wise. What I can touch on, but I won't go too deeply into, is our own plans on price. We have made a, almost entirely across the board, change to price from the 1st of January.
I'm not going to tell you the exact amount because I think we don't know how much of that will land and that will vary geographically, and that's how we would tend to do it. That's certainly pushing harder than we were 12 months ago. Largely because we feel that the environment is there, and a little bit because we feel on the balance, as I touched on before, on the balance sheet sales rate and price last year, we were switched slightly the other way. A bit of that is making up some ground. It isn't just a case-by-case piece. I think the most important bit of that, but the hardest piece to call, is what happens in London and the Southeast. You obviously saw Savills comments yesterday.
There is more potential upside in terms of recovery in London than the Southeast. It really is too early to say, and I think it will take a little bit longer. The air is more positive there. I think it will take a little bit more time for people to really think, "Yeah, actually, there is enough certainty now for me to take a big decision." I think it's reasonable to say it will be more positive than 2019. The degree to which it's more positive, well, it's far too early to say. I think, for me personally, I'm more interested in what happens in London than the Southeast in terms of price than anything else, because I think it's a big swing factor. That part of the business for us has been relatively tough for the last 18 months to two years.
It's probably, if you split things out geographically, is a more meaningful headwind. The impact is more significant. I think on outlets, do we expect outlets to be materially higher at the end of the year? No. We just want to make sure that we have the opportunity to maintain and grow outlets as we go through the next two to three years. Coming back to your risk question about Help to Buy, it's not that we think, "Oh, right, election, that means it's time to go deep into land." We just have to push harder, and we touched on this in the last half of last year, on making sure we get the balance of sites between smaller sites, which help our outlet numbers more, and longer sites, which help our margins more, right.
Smaller sites have certain extra risks, but certain extra risk mitigations as well. It's getting that balance right. If I could get a bit growth in small sites, and that means a bit more land spend, but still see through the higher margin strategic purchases, that's where it might be that we would spend a bit more on land. The risk element of that is not significantly different. We are very focused on the risk of Help to Buy, but that's about making sure we've got the right product on those sites. We've got the right timing for the product we bring forward through the period of price caps and the initial period after Help to Buy is removed. It's also about working out what are the choices our customers have got and how we, mortgage providers and government, can help them with that.
Thank you. That's all clear.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next questions come from line of Aynsley Lammin. Please ask your question.
Hi. Morning. Just two quick ones from me.
Morning, sir.
Morning. First of all, could you just remind us of the bulk sales you did in 2019? I wondered if you'd have a kind of estimate of the impact on the net margin of those bulk sales. Secondly, just coming back on the land market and the confidence post the election. Have you seen, I know it's early days and all the comments, but just in London, is there a bit more activity in the land market? Just interested in your views there, what you may have seen and expectations specifically for London land. Thanks.
I'll pass the first question to Chris, but I'll take the second one just to give him a second. I still think it's too early to see any movement on land in London. Sort of deals that were lined up for the end of the year happened. I'm not just talking about our deals. I think looking at the sector overall, people who might have been waiting for the election result as a swing factor went ahead with those deals as far as I can see in the marketplace. You could point to that as a sign, and that probably colors somebody like Savills very strongly in terms of their perspective. I also think you see a meaningful change in inquiries from the both overseas and local buyers of higher end of London product. It's a feeling rather than a big sort of movements overall.
I think it will take time before you see London land really get back to some sort of normality. I think we've had the political sort of a market uncertainty, but we still have the planning and more local political uncertainty, which I think is still an issue around Central London land and getting sites to be truly viable. I think it certainly will be talking about through the course of the year, and I hope by the time we get to the half year, I'll be able to give you more certainty, but I certainly am not expecting us to be making material Central London land purchases, for instance, in the first six months off the back of an election result. I just think it removes one of the shadows.
I think what will also be interesting in the budget process is to see if anything happens to stamp duty, because obviously that's one of the other big shadows that has been on the higher end London market, and that will also have an impact on that. I think that in the general market, including the Southeast and more normal London product, I think we could see a positive effect kind of develop and be measurable over the course of the next two to three months. I think in London land in the higher end, it's a bit slower, but I may be wrong on that.
Yeah. On bulk deals, Aynsley, I haven't got the exact numbers at hand. To give you a feel for it, through the course of the year, I think there were probably in the range of something like 10-15 bulk deals done anywhere from 10 units to over 100 units. The impact on margin, it varies quite significantly from deal to deal. At the end of the year, I think in the November trading update, we referenced a couple of bulk deals in Central London where there was an opportunity there for us to liquidate some stock, and that did have an impact on margin. Actually some of the other bulk deals earlier in the year, you'll recall, we did at the point of land acquisition, that had absolutely no impact on the margin.
It's probably not quite as much as you might think it would be.
Sure. Just to clarify, for 2020, at this point, you wouldn't really expect any bulk deals, the need for any, given you're focusing a bit more on margin?
I think we'd expect less. I think it'd be a strong statement because I don't think we look at them and think, "Oh, no, we wish we hadn't done that." Where you've got large sites and actually the main aim of some of the bulk deals, and one of the reasons they tend to push up the order book a bit is because they don't sacrifice your short-term completions. If actually where we've got large sites and a good strategic land bank where we can replace those large sites, there is still a very strong logic doing them. To say we wouldn't expect any would be wrong. To say the balance of risk and opportunity is slightly different and would expect less is a much more reasonable statement, I think.
Great. Thank you very much.
Thank you. The next question comes from line of Will Jones. Please ask your question.
Morning, guys. Three from me as well, if I could, please. The first was just around, I guess, outlets, just reflecting on the decline in the numbers last year of, I think, 20 or so on an average basis. How would you split those, do you think, if you're broadly speaking, between what was in your control, i.e., was a function of either your higher sales rate through the year than you anticipated or maybe that, as you say, lack of land spend versus say, things like planning delays, just trying to get a feel for to what extent you control the fate on that number this year. I guess within that, how quickly do you think you get up to the 250 number that you expect to average versus the 240 today? The second area was just around margin.
Obviously, price and build costs are going to be two big inputs to that, which it's too early to call. When you look at other moving parts, I guess mix issues around the quality of land coming through YoY, London's impact or not, just are there any other kind of factors that you have visibility on at this stage around margin you could help us with? I guess the final one was just around the cash flow side of things. It's probably too early, Do you know your cash land spend number for last year and any idea on how that may move this year and the other stuff?
I think we have the guidance on the extra tax from November, but provision payments, again, just anything you can help us with in terms of the cash moving parts as well. Thanks.
Yeah. I'll let Chris take the cash flow question in a second. On outlets, I would actually say, this has been true for years, but I've always felt uncomfortable when I see our peers kind of complaining about planning and its impact on outlets, because if you don't understand the planning impact on outlets, then you don't really know what the business is about, if you see what I mean. I'd always resist complaining about that. Actually, I'd say it would be completely unfair for me to complain about that this year. Planning process remains hard. We have delays that we didn't expect, but actually, we're forecasting them very well. Our outlet opening timings are very much in line with what we expect. We tracked it far more closely during 2019. It is more to do with things that are in our control.
Actually, it's more to do with, I think, land purchase and large sites versus small sites than it is to do with sales rates and closing outlets more quickly. If we were taking bulk sales to close out outlets, sacrificing price, but not then having the choice in the marketplace of having the outlet, I think that would be the wrong strategy. Those bulk sales are on large sites where we have lots of potential. We're not closing that outlet because of those sales. It's in our control. If you look at the land spend piece, if you look at 2018, 2019, for instance, the balance of our land spend, I've already touched on, weighted towards larger sites, weighted towards strategic land, weighted towards higher future margins, but not weighted therefore towards giving us more outlets.
Also geographically, because of the uncertainty in London, and to a certain extent, the wider South East market, if you looked over the last two years at our sort of purchases, they've been weighted away from London and the South East, where site sizes tend to be smaller and therefore they proportionally push up your outlet numbers. Now, I don't regret any of those things. You still got to look at the outlets and think, I don't want the number to continue to decline. If we see a bit more certainty and potential in the South East than, as I say, over the course of six months, then that weight pushes us towards slightly more smaller sites. We've been actively pushing our teams to look at a broader mix of sites, then that's what I'd like to see happen overall.
I think the outlet movements, it isn't that we are getting disappointed because we're losing five openings in a month or a quarter. That's just generally not happening. We've got much better at forecasting than allowing for the planning delays that happen. It is underlying, we've got to make sure we've got the broader mix of sites. It's finding a balance. If we can get that long-term sales rate balanced right, and we want to continue to maintain the sales rate, which is above the sector norm and above history. There's nothing I've said on that price volume balance that moves away from that. It's shading it a bit. We don't need as many outlets and actually bigger, higher value outlets where there is less competition is the right place for us to be.
It's balance, and I just don't want that balance to push too far that way. On margins, you've got the main moving parts. There is the 2019 cost movements that impact on 2020. There are some bulk sales in 2019 that will come through in the first half of 2020. Those two affect the first half, second half weighting. Our cost savings come through a bit in the first half, but actually more weighted towards the second half inevitably because of timing. The big movement is about price, and can we squeeze our price over the course of the next two to three months? Because if we can, it impacts on this year, again, particularly in the second half completions. I think the potential is there in a way that it wasn't during the course of last year, and the focus is there.
That's what we'll be updating you on with the prelims, I think.
Great. As you reflect on that experience last year, I think you said sequentially you were pretty flat in the first half. I know obviously autumn was a tad weaker in London and the South East. Would you say group wide, you were flat again in the second half, so it was a year of no movement?
I would've said so, yeah.
Yeah.
Small local movements, but overall.
Yeah.
To the level of experimental measurement error.
Flat. Yeah.
I think I'd be disappointed if this year was flat. It's too early to call what that number is.
Yeah.
Just going back to your question on cash, Will, the net land spend in 2019 was around GBP 680 million, so around about GBP 100 million more than 2018. A bit early to be giving you year-end cash guidance, I'll aim to give you something on that at the prelims, as ever, land will be a key element of that. Touching briefly on 2020, I previously mentioned the fact that we have two extra UK corporation tax bills in the first half amounting to about GBP 70 million. Those, together with about GBP 50 million of spend on the exceptional provisions, amount to about GBP 120 million of one-time cash flows in 2020. That alone would suggest a net reduction in the cash balance at the end of 2020 compared to 2019.
I'll give you more of a feel for the quantum of that in February when we see how trading has gone in the first couple of months.
Got you. Great. Thanks a lot.
Thank you. The next question come from line of Gregor Kuglitsch. Please ask your question.
Hi. Good morning.
Hi, Gregor.
I've got a couple of questions. Just sorry to come back to the margin. Just to be crystal clear, are you suggesting, given where the order book is, obviously you've sold forward quite a lot, as you said, that in the first half your margins will be down year-on-year? Is that what you're hinting at? On a similar note, as we think about the year as a whole, I appreciate the pricing variable is obviously too early to call, and still very early, but if you have a similar situation as last year where pricing is flat, are you suggesting you'd be down? In other words, you need some price increases to hold the line on margin? Just to sort of get a sense where to start on that.
I think on the first one, in the first half, I think, yes, that is what we're saying that actually it's not so much about selling forward, although that obviously means we know what the price is, more or less. Because we have the cost inflation in 2019 in those first half numbers, and we know more or less what the price is, yes, I think we are saying that the margin would be down year-on-year. I think for the full year, same sort of answer in a way. We've got cost inflation that came through last year, which isn't fully annualized. We've got cost inflation that we expect, albeit significantly reduced in 2020, but are obviously not a full year impact. If you saw nothing on price, then we can offset some of that by our actions.
Yes, you would expect to see margins down. I think mathematically, that's absolutely right.
Okay.
I think there is an awful lot of potential that the second half margin actually is up. Certainly on the first half, but also up YoY.
Okay. That's clear. Thank you. If you could just give us anecdotally what you've procured on the major cost center. I was thinking bricks, blocks, tiles, and then perhaps on the key labor items. Just to give us a little bit of a sense. I don't know if you're at this point securing new six, nine months contracts or whatever, how the inflation rates are trending on some of the items.
Yeah. I would say, and I'm not going to get into specifics. Overall, I would say we've obviously been generally talking about a cost inflation environment of 3%-4% through the last three or four years, which then picked up to 4%-5% last year, and then softened again a bit during the course of the year and ended at about 4.5. I think if I were to give that same number today, you're probably about 3%. When I said at normal, we're at the low end of what we've seen as normal on cost. I'd say there's probably a bit of upside against that. I'm probably being slightly cautious in how I'm reporting on what's happening. I think on materials, it's more like 1%-2%, and on wages, it's more like 2%-3%.
Right now, 3%, maybe a little bit lower.
Okay. Thank you. That's really helpful.
Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Charlie Campbell. Please ask your question.
A couple of questions from me, if I can. The first question was just trying to square the order book with the comments on the weighting for the year. Is that because there's quite a lot of maybe affordable in there that comes through in the second half? Is that what's there, or is the comment really that actually the year is just less second half weighted than last year, but still second half weighted? Just to clarify that. Then secondly, I know you said at the beginning it is early days, but I was just really curious about some of the leading indicators, i.e., thinking about things like website traffic, visitors on the ground or inquiries. Just any sort of quantum you can give us on how that's moved, I suppose in the months since the election.
On the order book, there is a higher proportion of affordable in the order book at the end of this year, but that's not the main reason for the growth. I think the private order book is up 12%. The affordable order book is up a bit more, but both are up materially. Yes, that means you can't mathematically take the order book and proportionately work it through, but there is still meat to growth in there. We are sold slightly further ahead. We have to build those homes and build them properly. It's about matching the build and the sales. I think I said I would touch on it, then I didn't, to when you can be selling too far ahead, and particularly from a customer service point of view.
We were one of the first to say, look, if we sell too far ahead, then we create more uncertainty for our customers if we're not careful, and more likelihood that dates will shift. I think what we felt during the course of last year, that having invested heavily in build process and quality, we are far more confident that we can execute our build programs to our original plan. Our outlet openings are really good outlet openings. That may sound like a trite comment, but it means when we open, we know what we're going to do. We have all the information, and the plan is off and running. It feels far more controlled. That gives us the confidence of that from a service point of view. Of course, you always have a price versus risk dynamic in that.
If prices were increasing by 6% or 7% a year, then it becomes a meaningful trade-off. If, say, this year prices increased by 2%, the impact of selling ahead an extra two months is academic, if you see what I mean.
Yeah.
Although at this point in time, when we've had a year last year where prices were under pressure and a year where we hoped it'd be better, you kind of think, well, maybe the balance isn't quite right. Actually, generally, I think a longer order book gives you the confidence to sell well and both on price and from a customer service point of view. I don't think we're losing out a lot from that, but I wouldn't want to see it get much bigger.
Yep.
I think the balance is about right. Sorry, I missed the other part of the question, Chris.
The lead indicators.
Sorry.
The lead indicators, yes.
I think generally positive, but not big swings. You'd never see big swings in visitors and website inquiries and things in December. Actually, lead indicators were all very good through 2019. They all look positive, but they haven't not looked positive. It's just that what we are seeing is more people coming through the door, the conversation we have is more confident, and I think I would expect over the course of the next couple of months cancellation rates to be a little bit lower, which makes a bit of a difference to net sales rate. All of those things are there, but I think it would be wrong to say suddenly a switch has turned on. Last year it wasn't bad, but actually just trying to grind our price was tough.
I think that environment feels better, and we can sort of see that from our early conversations, but it is really, really early.
Yeah. Yes. Can't blame me for trying. Yeah, thank you very much, and good luck with the year to come. Yeah, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from the line of Jon Bell. Please ask your question.
Good morning, Pete, Chris, Debbie. three I think I've got. First one is on customer satisfaction. I think the last time you updated it was seeming quite likely you'd drop down to four star, albeit cigarette paper below five star. I'm just keen for your updated thoughts on that. Second one was on London. I wonder whether you could just update us at Postmark on sales rates and prices. Then third one, finally, on Help to Buy regional price caps. There was some discussion some time ago about some lobbying, maybe to iron out some regional inconsistencies. Is that still going on? Any traction, anything like that? Thank you.
Yeah. On customer satisfaction, I think no change. Unfortunately, on the year ending in October 2019, I think we will be at 89.4 or 89.5, so just under the five-star rating. Yeah, that's partly a pride and a signaling thing that is frustrating, but I think that's highly likely. We have about 500 completions in the new customer care year, so we've still not got the full set of results for last year. That's the way the timing works, about 500 are new, and they're at five-star. The trend, as I've said before, has been at five-star, but I think unfortunately we will dip below that sort of level. I don't know if Chris has got up-to-date Postmark data. He tends to, so I'll let him.
Yeah. We sold 83 units at Postmark in 2019. That makes a sales rate, I think, 1.92 since we opened there. That's pretty pleasing.
I think on regional price gaps, you may remember me saying before, we specifically as a business have not lobbied on regional price gaps. I have a view with how we deal with government, that when they know what they are trying to do, and they do it, and what they do makes sense to what they're trying to achieve, then lobbying to change it isn't particularly effective and helpful for a long-term relationship. I think the price gaps look anomalous if you look at it from a developer's point of view. From a government point of view, what they're trying to do is steer towards certain parts of the market, and therefore they are conscious regionally. We have not lobbied for that. I'm aware that conversation happened. As far as I know, that conversation has sort of fizzled out, and there isn't a change.
I haven't argued for one because I think what they are doing is reasonable, and it's up to us to manage it. I think what will be interesting, and it's the one bit where although you know I have a long-term view that we should be finding a way out of Help to Buy, I do think having a much smaller, in terms of the volume of customers that it can affect, but a bridging piece of Help to Buy post 2023. I think as we get closer, I think that will be an interesting conversation with government. That maybe is means tested and is focused on customers who are not just first time buyers, but maybe marginal first time buyers.
It's a bridge between affordable housing and private housing, but at maybe 10%-15% of the volume of Help to Buy, not 50% or 60%. That I think I would be happy to lobby for because I think that will be long-term sustainable and healthy from a market point of view as a bridge.
Very good. Thank you.
Thank you. The next question comes from line of Samuel Cullen. Please ask the question.
Yeah. Morning, everyone. Just one left really from me. Just kind of following on from Will's question on outlets, really. I guess if you do see a-- I take your point, it's two weeks into the year. If you do see a volume recovery across the whole market as we move through January, February, March, how quickly can you guys respond to that? I take your point that you want to take price over volume, but at some point, clearly, if the market does recover more rapidly, you want to take volume also. Yeah, how quickly can you increase the outlet numbers across the group?
I think in terms of increasing the outlet numbers in a meaningful way, we can't, and neither can anybody else. It's just if you have outlets that you are able to open in our business, then you open them. There might be a delay that you consciously choose to take of a few weeks as you get the details and the information right or get your sales presence in the right place. You don't have outlets waiting in the wings. I could see that might be slightly different for a very London-centric developer at the moment who maybe had a few sites they've mothballed that they could then open up again. In a more general sense.
What we can do, and what I think we are better placed than anybody else to do, and last year, to a certain extent, was about testing this, is increase our capacity on individual sites. Those same large sites which can be a challenge to average outlet numbers are an asset in letting you be flexible with the market. That's why we wanted to test the higher sales rates and what the balance was. If I look at the last five years, there's been a missed opportunity because we didn't have the control over our build to be able to step up by 20% over the course of a year and feel like we could do it properly, manage quality, manage customers, resource it. I feel we are much better placed to be able to do that.
It still takes six months for that to have an impact on completions at least. Still, we can actually make that shift quite quickly and impact on half two next year and into 2021. Whereas in the past, actually stepping up build on individual sites, we didn't very nervous because it would tend to come with quality problems and real management issues. I feel much more confident that we have the control and the production mentality to be able to get that right.
Okay, thanks.
Thank you. Dear participants, as a reminder, if you wish to ask a question, please press star and one on your telephone keypad and wait for a name to be announced. The next question comes from line of Ami Galla. Please ask your question.
Good morning, guys. Just one question from me. On the land bank, I was wondering if you could give us some comment on the plot cost to revenue ratio at the end of the year, were there any meaningful shifts as a result of the strategic conversions that you're seeing? On the broader land market, I hear your comments in the London and the Southeast, but on the broader land market, do you see more competition tightening the intake margins in this space?
I might need to get you to repeat the second one. On the first one, I don't think, because we are not going to fully process the account, I don't think we can give you a specific number on plot cost to revenue ratio. I certainly don't expect it to have moved significantly over the course of 2019. Certainly, generally, it has remained low by long-term historic standards, and a combination of the strategic land and the overall land environment will help to continue to make it do so. Sorry, the question on London land, I missed the question.
No, my question was really on the intake margins in the broader land market. Do you see that tightening over the course of 2020 to an extent?
No. Sorry, it wasn't about London at all, was it? No, I don't particularly expect that to tighten. In a way, the earlier question about Help to Buy and risk is part of that. Whilst I think inevitably there is more of an air of confidence in the market overall, and that includes therefore the land market. I don't think the dynamic that we've seen for the last 10 years, which is what's driven that higher intake margin, lower plot cost to revenue, I don't think that's changed. I don't think it's about to change. In the same way as I don't suddenly think that with a general election result, somebody turned the switch on the market. I think that is true on land as well.
It is a more positive environment, but actually, I think it might actually help us on intake margins, particularly in London, because as we touched on before, actually, there is a level below which land sellers won't go. There's a level in London where alternative use starts to kick in over residential, and that's made buying land at reasonable margins very difficult in central London for a little while. Actually seeing a more positive market environment will actually help that because it will, I think, help residential compared to certain other land uses, and it will help the maths on site. That's not me flagging the margins will go up materially on purchase, but I don't see that we've sensed an era where there's a meaningful extra degree of pressure.
Thank you.
That concludes our question and answer session for today. I will now hand over back to Pete Redfern for the closing remarks. Thank you.
Thank you, and thank you, everybody. Not many extra remarks to close with. Look forward to seeing you with the prelims when we will be updating you on really the key first two months of trading. Thank you very much.
Thank you for joining the Taylor Wimpey plc trading update call. This call has been recorded and will be available to listen on demand on Taylor Wimpey's website later today. Thank you.