Good morning, and welcome to the Taylor Wimpey PLC trading update call. Today's conference will be hosted by Taylor Wimpey Chief Executive, Pete Redfern, joined by new Group Finance Director, Chris Carney, and followed by a Q&A. At this time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Pete Redfern, Chief Executive. Please go ahead, sir.
Thank you. Morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us. Obviously, this is a AGM trading update call, so it's a relatively short statement, and particularly with our capital markets day in two and a half weeks' time, where we'll be with you face-to-face. We see it as fairly much a flash update. Happy, obviously, to take any questions, but there's not an enormous amount of new news. Chris Carney is obviously with me for the first time, and I'm sure if there are questions for him, he can pick those up as well. If I give you just the usual overview to begin with. Underlying trading has been very solid.
I'm not going to labor the strong comparative for last year, but if you look at sales rate of 0.85, it's probably our second highest for this period of the year that we've ever recorded, so we feel pretty comfortable with that. I think that gives a sense of underlying market conditions where, despite the interest rate movements at the back end of last year, interest rates that people are paying have continued to fall a little, so underlying market conditions remain very solid. I don't think we feel the market has got a sudden resurgence and bounce coming. It feels solid and stable, but certainly pretty comfortable with where that sits. I think we've obviously flagged it in the statement and probably the one kind of bit of different kind of commentary, the impact of weather, which is very unusual.
I don't think in my time in the business we've ever made a comment on weather. It was particularly unusual and just does slightly distort some of the statistics, particularly on build, which I'll come back to. On sales, we effectively had two very poor weeks in March, and you can see from that sales rate net of that effect, it didn't have a massive overall effect and does pretty quickly catch up. Weather effect on sales, not particularly significant. Weather effects on build, a little bit more meaningful, which I'll come back to, which is the main reason that we've touched on it. Overall, our guidance for the year remains the same, but there is a bit more to do in the second half.
Just give you a sense of that, if you look at the range of completion splits first half, second half over the years. Worst case has been 40-60. The best case has been about 46-54. I am slightly nervous as I go through this that some of these numbers don't add up to 100, but I know they do. I think my best sense at the moment is we're about in the middle of that range, so about 43% in the first half, give or take. There could be spurious accuracy in that, but it gives you a sense of what we mean when we say second-half weighted. It does give us a bit more to do, particularly on construction. I think on sales, we feel there's a lot of room in the order book, pretty happy with where the order book is overall.
On construction, losing 20 days, which is more or less on average across the country what we've lost this year compared to a more normal six-ish, makes a difference. It's perfectly catchable up over the course of the year. I think we can map out detail of how an individual site catches up, and that can be done relatively quickly. Where we get a little bit more cautious is when the whole industry is trying to catch up in the same way, and that just stretches the supply chain and the skills base. I don't see that as being a big concern for 2018 as a whole, but it does just push that first-half weighting.
We remain absolutely committed to making sure that the homes we hand over are fully complete and have had the time after they're complete to really be properly checked and tested. Because you've seen elsewhere some of the pain where that goes wrong, so that also colors our commentary. It's better for us to identify that now rather than have our teams battling in June to hand over homes that are not quite ready. Not a huge amount to add on the land market and on build costs. The land market is similar. You can see we continue to add plots through the year. Our land bank is slightly higher than it was at the end of the year, and that's consistent with the signaling that we gave you at the prelim stage. Financial metrics, very, very similar.
I think the one new comment I would make is that we're seeing the planning regime in London being tougher than it's been historically. I think as you sort of see a new mayor kind of flexing his own sort of commitments, that doesn't make it easier. It makes sites that already have a planning consent actually more valuable and more important. I think as we look ahead at the next two to three years, it's actually probably going to have a measurable impact on supply in London because it will take time for that to work through and then work back. I think kind of used to that. It's life. You shouldn't read into that, me signaling anything about our position in London going forward.
It is definitely a dynamic that we're looking at at the moment on new sites coming through, that planning is tending to take longer as it goes through that process in London specifically. I think generally across the country still of the view that the planning environment is better than we have been used to and is reasonably positive. To say not a lot to add on costs. I think we've literally repeated verbatim our guidance and still of the view that with small selling price increases of the order of 1.5%-2% and cost inflation of 3%-4%, they more or less wash their face. Net net, the market impact on margin is pretty neutral. I don't think there's anything new in that, but important to restate it for your confidence.
I'm not sure there's anything else I want to highlight, so if we open up for questions. As I say, if you want to particularly ask Chris a question, that's great. Or I can pick up the general questions and feed them to Chris if it makes sense.
Thank you, sir. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, please press star one to ask a question. We can take our first question from Aynsley Lammin from Canaccord. Please go ahead.
Just two from me, please. Firstly, just wondered if you could comment on pricing. I didn't see any comment in the update. Just any comment with regard to regional pricing and also maybe sales incentives, any changes there. And then secondly, in the comment on the land, you kind of say that operating margins similar to those achieved in recent years. Just wondering, is that a slightly more cautious tone there in terms of what you're finding land in the market at, or we shouldn't read too much into that? Thanks.
Okay. I think on the pricing and sales incentives, you're right, there's nothing in the statement, but I did touch on, we still see 1.5%-2% price inflation. As always, that comment is net of any sales incentives. No, increase in sales incentives at all. The sales rate that you see, sort of as I say, which we feel pretty comfortable, it's not something we've had to sort of drive hard to get to. It is the natural level and the natural rate, and that kind of underlies our relative sort of comfort with the sales position as we go through the year. I think on operating margin, no, absolutely not. Our words are exactly the same. They're certainly supposed to be. There is no change. It's still very much the same level.
There's not kind of any softening of our view on what the acquisition kind of metrics are on new sites. I don't know, Chris, you've been sort of close to that. Yeah. I was just going to open that second bit to Chris, Aynsley, to just see if he had a view in sort of the promised time in the Southeast.
Yeah. Just going back to pricing, actually. The only thing I'd add to that is, central London is probably a bit flatter than the balance. Definitely agree with Pete, 1.5%-2% on the balance. Yeah, the guidance on the operating margins in land acquisitions just hasn't changed. It's exactly the same wording that we've used in previous years, and it reflects a comparison to the 2017 data that I think we produced at the prelims. Very much at that level.
That's great. Thank you very much.
Very s-
Thank you. We can now take our next question from Gavin Jago from Peel Hunt. Please go ahead.
Morning, Pete. Morning, Chris. A couple from me if I could, please. The first one is just the outlet numbers. I don't know if you're going to give any guidance on where you expect these to be for the full year, and maybe just pad out a little bit where you might be having any other pressures besides London in terms of getting those outlets open. The second one is just around what your kind of central assumptions are at the moment with the future of Help to Buy and what might come out of the Letwin Review, just what you're working on assumption-wise at the moment.
Just on outlet numbers, where we are at the moment is pretty much bang on our budget. I think if I remember right, it's actually two ahead of our budget. We're not particularly surprised where we are. We're not going to give you guidance for the year. We're always reticent about giving outlet guidance anyway. What we will do in the capital markets day is spend quite a lot of time talking through the structure of our outlet scale and size, because our avenue, which you've heard me touch on before, is where the scale and the nature of the land bank and the sites we acquire have changed so much in terms of scale over the last few years.
A simple outlet number doesn't give you a particularly good sense of what the potential of the business is. We'll try and break that down a little bit more for you so you can see what the sales and the build potential is and how the two match up, nothing really new to say at the moment. I think it would be wrong to read my comments on planning in London as factoring into our sort of short-term view of outlets. I'm not particularly linking the two. I'm honestly just saying to you that we think that the planning environment in London is a bit slower and a bit tougher, not that it causes a particular issue sort of this year or we expect it to in the next few months. It's definitely something that buying new sites in London, we're aware of.
As I say, for sort of the two large sites we bought last year, actually being able to progress, particularly the Mount Pleasant site, which has the detailed planning permission and not have that risk. We always knew the simplicity of that planning position was a key part of the value. Sort of arguably, there's a net positive there.
Yeah, I think could probably go one step further and say that we don't have a site intent in London without planning consent.
Okay.
Obviously, there are sites that are going through the planning process within the wider London region, if that gives you an indication.
Yeah. You shouldn't take it as softening guidance. It's just honest information about how we see the sort of forward position. Then, going back to sort of politics, Help to Buy, Letwin Review. We're not seeing an imminent decision on Help to Buy. Sort of now, there have been odd occasions when a sort of decision like that has suddenly popped out and there hasn't been any kind of consultation or discussion, but it's not been the norm. There hasn't been a large amount of consultation and focus on it in our dialogue with government over recent times. Our sense is the view of Help to Buy, particularly in HM Treasury, which is important, has softened slightly. I mean softened in a positive way in the sense of, I think there was a fairly hard line that had developed through it.
Actually, as the second-hand market has been sort of tougher and some of the other kind of uncertainties of Brexit have materialized, I think the view of it is a little bit more positive than it was maybe six months ago. As I say, it just doesn't feel like the decision is just around the corner. Of course, there'll be an announcement tomorrow now I've said that. Our just underlying sense is there was a point where there was a reasonable chance it would be toned down before 2021. I don't think the chance of that is zero, but I think it's reduced rather than grown over the last couple of months. Our base case is probably still, but with a little bit more confidence, that it will be extended past 2021, but probably with some changes.
As you've heard me say before, we think that would be the right answer anyway. We've never been an advocate of it being carried on at its current level, sort of ad infinitum. In terms of Oliver Letwin's Review, quite a lot of conversation, dialogue going on. It's looking at individual components of the kind of barriers to delivery. There was a meeting on skills, and the availability of trade skills last week or the week before. I know he's had meetings with the CPA and the like. Kind of having reached some broad overall conclusions, he's then testing some of the other barriers. I think what's very unclear at the moment is where the recommendations are. I think we're fairly clear what his gut sense is from the summary letter that he wrote just before Easter.
Actually broadly, I agree with the principle, although I think it oversimplified things that if the land environment is better, the long-term limiting factor is local market absorption. There are lots of other barriers, but sort of over the long term, they can be gradually ground down. I fear slightly that his view about how easy it is to grind down those sorts of barriers to skills, to production limitations and like, it is possible, but it's not quick. I fear a slightly oversimplistic conclusion, but we'll see.
Thank you.
Thank you. We can now take our next question from Will Jones from Redburn. Please go ahead.
Thanks. Morning, guys. A couple from me, please.
Hi, Will.
I guess a two-part question. Morning. Just a two-part question on London. I think back at the results you talked about only needing something like a 0.3 sales rate per site per week to hit your targets for this year. Perhaps an update on that and just the market in general in London. Allied to that, where are you on the kind of rebuild of the London land bank? Obviously, we knew about Mount Pleasant last year, but any other steps on that front? The second one is just generally on the sales rate. When we look at, I guess the first half, second half last year, you had a very strong first half. I think it was 0.87 in the end, and then 0.66 in the second. Seasonally more skewed than normal.
I guess when you look at the second half of this year with what I think you've described in the past as larger, higher quality sites coming through, if the market remains stable, would you think that you stand a good chance of potentially beating that sales rate, I guess, on a year-on-year basis in the second half, just given that it does look an easier comp versus what's been a more challenging base in the first half? Thanks.
No worries. I think Chris is going to take the first one, and I'll take the sales rate one.
Yeah. I think you're asking about the London sales rate with reference to the 0.3 from the prelims.
Yeah.
We've said, I think pretty consistently that our acquisition strategy in London is very localized. We are very careful about the way we select our sites, the locations that they appear in. As a consequence, you see that our sales rate are actually pretty good compared to the market. We have, to give you an example, a site in King's Cross that since the turn of the year, has performed fantastically well. As a consequence, if you look overall, clearly there are some that perform better than others. Certainly we are pretty pleased with where we are since the start of the year and slightly ahead of that rate that you mentioned. Yeah, in terms of sales, I'm pretty happy with that. In terms of the rebuild land bank, we are opportunity led.
We don't feel the need to have a business there that is contributing exactly the same amount to the group every year, because it just makes more sense for that business to buy land when the right opportunities come along. We were very pleased with the opportunity at Mount Pleasant. I think as Pete said, with the central London market, sort of where it is at the moment and the amount of capital coming in from overseas potentially being reduced, certainly some of our competitors having pulled out of that market, the land market in London is more attractive. As a consequence, we are looking to take advantage of that as and when the opportunity arises.
Great. Thank you.
Thanks, Chris. Will, if I pick up the second one on second half sales rates. Yeah, I think we think you're right. If you look at our sales rates over the last two or three years, last year was particularly differentiated between first and second half. There are obviously two factors, the ability to sell and having product available that's close enough to delivery to make sense to sell. There's no doubt over the last two years, the second half sales rate has been limited, in part at least, by the ability to deliver products on quite a lot of sites. At the very least, that gives us a resilience in the second half sales rate if you have a period where you don't have the real, very unusual strength we had in the first quarter of last year.
It certainly gives us confidence that the second half is a lot easier to match on sales rate in the first half, and that by definition then gives the potential for upside. That doesn't then come through to volumes for the year because that's really the limiting factor there, but it still comes through into the order book for the year end. It's that that's always made us just more sanguine about the exact balance and mix and we do see the first quarter of last year as being particularly unusual. By definition, you would expect the sales rate this year to be a bit more balanced between the two halves.
If we look at the sales rate we need to sell this year's completions, it's about 0.64 through to what we would see as the perfect cut-off point where we're not selling for this year again, which is about week 39. That's pretty normal. In fact, it's low by long-term standards, and only slightly higher than last year. Again, you put all those together and it's not something that's giving us a huge amount of concern.
Great. Makes sense. Thank you.
Thanks.
Thank you. We can take our next question from Jonny Bell from Barclays. Please go ahead.
Morning, gents. I think I've got two. Firstly, if you could
Yep
elaborate more on the London planning comments. Is it about length of the process or is it about affordable homes within the mix? Maybe you could kind of prioritize those two. I wonder whether your kind of internal view is whether this might help to unwind some of the surplus of certain types of product that we've probably got in the London market at the moment. Secondly, I wonder whether you could briefly update us on your views on PRS.
I'm afraid I'm going to duck the last part, Jonny, we can talk about that in two and a half weeks time.
Okay. Yep.
Sort of which is more appropriate to the sort of capital market banking context.
Yep.
Apologies for that, but I think it makes more sense. On London, it is both length of time and affordable focus. It's no surprise and it's not anything new. Every time you have a new mayor, there tends to be a sort of set of criteria and principles around, "I'm going to try and do this." Boris had his own affordable housing criteria, and they mellowed over time as he realized that actually delivery wasn't quite as guaranteed as he thought it was. I think you see that same process happening to a degree. I think what's slightly different, and there's good and bad in this, if you look from a business point of view over the long term. Unfortunately, it's not good for London housing supply, but from a business point of view, it's kind of both.
There's a desire from the mayor and the mayor's team to increase affordable housing numbers and make sure that the land value gain to the community is as strong as possible. It's coming at a point when, as Chris touched on and as we've talked about before, the level of new capital and investment in land coming in is lower, and the caution in people investing in land and the amount is also lower. I'm not particularly talking about us here, but people are more likely to dig in and say, "Well, actually, I'm more nervous than I was about the sales prices I'm going to get." People haven't necessarily bought a site unconditionally and so are more likely to dig in. That then affects the timing. It is both. I think you're inevitably right over time that that affects any surplus of supply.
I think we've not felt generally with one or two local exceptions, like the obvious sort of Battersea and the like, that there is a massive oversupply problem. There might be a sort of affordability and pricing problem, but there is demand for the homes that are being built. We're not in the situation we were in Spain or in parts of the U.S. or even in some of the kind of high-rise buildings in Leeds at the turn of the last market yet. The underlying demand in London is very strong. We haven't really seen there being a big issue with surplus stock.
The other problem it creates from an overall market health point of view for London housing, sort of is you end up with it being lumpy, because if you don't have a new flow of supply, you don't end up with a steady stream of work for contractors and the like. It does impact over time. Say from a business point of view, it's kind of balanced. It's not something that we're not looking at specific sites and being concerned. As Chris said, we don't have Central London sites that don't have planning. It definitely is one component that he's not going to deliver the volumes that he wants to deliver and by some way. In fact, they're probably going to go backwards because he's trying to make changes such that are economically challenging at a point when the market is nervous about its investment.
Okay. Thank you.
Does that answer, apart from the PRS, does that answer the other questions?
It does, yes. Thank you.
Jonny.
Thank you. We can now take our next question from Gregor Kukic from UBS. Please go ahead.
Hi. Good morning. Got a couple of questions. The first one is
Morning, Gregor
if you could just, hi. Good morning. On margins, I think you were early in the year speaking about some progress this year. Obviously the build is, I guess, becoming a little bit less even as a result of the weather conditions. I want to understand if there's any cost attached to trying to catch up from having lost, say, three weeks of build, and whether we should be thinking about any margin impact as a result of that. Can you just remind us on the volumes, because obviously, I think early in the year you were talking low single digit growth, whether that's really what you're still talking about when you're trying to hit the target so we can be clear about also your comment about the first half split, which was quite helpful, by the way. That would be helpful. Thank you.
I think our guidance on both of them isn't changing. If I deal with the one after the other, on margins, our guidance was for small but positive movement year-over-year, and it still is. I don't think at the moment we see that build catch up as coming at a measurable cost. It just takes time. I don't think that changes the balance on margin really at all. As I say, there's nothing in terms of incentive on pricing. On volumes, we're not changing our guidance. By definition, having a bigger secondhand waiting and that pressure on volumes does mean there is slightly more risk in the second half. We're not changing our guidance. We still think low single digit growth is the right place for us to be aiming.
I would say it's just slightly more uncomfortable than it was three months ago, and I'd be misleading you not to say that that was the case. We're not changing it. We would be uncomfortable with it being upgraded past that and for people at the high end of that range. That's not what we're targeting, and I repeat again, we're very committed that the houses that we hand over are handed over right. That does mean that that build piece does just mean we've got to get them right in a shorter period of time. No change, just slightly more risk on the volume number. I think that's probably the fairest way of putting it.
Excellent. Maybe a final question in terms of the
Right
capital markets day. I think you've communicated in the past you may talk about next year's dividend. Previously, obviously given margin targets and ROCE targets. Is that basically the plan to refresh those for the next, say, whatever, three years? I guess it was always a three-year period. Will you try to do it different or is it you just want to keep this as a surprise? Don't have to
We want you to come, Gregor, we can't tell you it all
Yeah
on a call in advance.
Yeah, I want to meet you.
That's it. I know most of you have met Chris, but it gives you a chance to meet him. Look, we're not trying to be cloak and dagger, and there's a risk if we are that you read too much into it and then we disappoint you by not telling you enough. I will try and give you a sense. We have been operating to our current strategy for, certainly in our minds, a good seven years plus, and from a sort of market point of view, at least six. We've felt there's been real virtue in not tweaking and changing it all of the time. Even our current three-year targets, we wouldn't have viewed at the time as a new strategy. They were just a way of giving you a structure and a guidance within the existing strategy.
This is the chance for us to stand back and map out a longer term view for you of where the business goes next. We will be giving you a view about what we can achieve financially. It isn't just a rerun of rolling forward three-year targets and giving you a view of what next year's dividend is. We see it as a more fundamental mapping out of what has changed in our environment, how we see that environment developing over the long term. Some things with a 10-year view are things that we really want to focus on, and some things with a more mathematical view of this is what we think we can do over the next three, four, five years. Yeah. It's very much focused on those kind of timelines rather than the next year or two.
It's more that than it is just a mapping out of what the next dividend is and three-year targets. It probably is more interesting in terms of our views of the long-term capacity of the business and where we want to take it, perhaps marginally less interesting in terms of filling in numbers in a spreadsheet, if that makes sense.
All right. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. We can now take our next question from Clyde Lewis from Peel Hunt. Please go ahead.
Morning, Pete. Morning, Chris. Three if I may. I've got one on leasehold. Is there any sort of update on where you are in terms of sort of the settlement of those issues? Secondly, on build costs. We've heard from a couple of others that maybe some of the trends on build cost inflation have been easing a little bit. Is that what you've been seeing, or does that vary a fair bit across the country? In terms of spreads across the country, I mean, you obviously give us an indication of pricing in London. Can you give us an idea of the sort of range of pricing inflation you are seeing around the rest of the U.K. ex-London, I suppose, just to get a better sense of how wide the spread is at the moment?
I think I got all three of those. Do you want to take the build cost trends one? Chris, and I'll take-
Yeah.
If I pick up leaseholds and the range of pricing, that gives you a second to think about it.
Yeah.
On leasehold, not a massive update, although we'll put it in there. We have signed up, I think, two further freeholders since the interim. The number's now at about 94% of the total signed up. With that, all the remaining tail are small, so that's just a process of chipping away at them where I think we are confident we will get there with all of them and still have the view that if we have the odd one that we don't, we've got other routes. Still remain very confident that the provision is enough to cover the costs of doing that. I would say that the noise has died down substantially as well. The process of taking individuals through the processes sort of settled down into a pattern. The level of angst has fallen away.
No major new update, but definitely, yes, progressing as we would have hoped. Just in terms of range of pricing, I'd say it's pretty tight. As Chris said, London is sort of flat, average 1%-2%. I'd say average 1%-2% across the country, including London. The upper end is probably 2.5%, and the lower end outside London is probably 1.5%. We're not seeing big regional variations. It's positive but stable everywhere but London, and flat in London, I think, is probably the reasonable overview. Chris, build cost?
We've already said that in terms of house price inflation, it's 1.5%-2%. The build cost inflation guidance is really unchanged at 3%-4%. The only thing I'd add to that is if you look more specifically at the London product, whether it's a main contract or a concrete frame, I can imagine that you would get a little bit softer in terms of the inflation in those particular markets. The balance, the normal Taylor Wimpey type of traditional timber frame builds, then the 3%-4% is absolutely where it's at the moment.
Agreed.
That's great.
Thanks.
Pete, on the leaseholds, any sort of jungle drums in terms of what might come through in terms of changes there? In terms of, are they going to ban it just on houses, or do you think they'll ban leaseholds completely or impose maximum ground rent limits at all?
I think you'll have seen the sort of consultation that the government running, which definitely lends towards, or leans towards setting almost an absolute minimum level of ground rent that's just about enough to cover the cost of administration, if you see what I mean. I think that's where they're heading. It's had some pushback, and I think as ever with these things, there perhaps is a slight balance. As we've touched on before, as we look forward, we've assumed and assume in our kind of guidance really no economic benefit from the sale of leaseholds anyway. In all honesty, you know we feel sort of deeply uncomfortable with, from the history of the doubling ground rents, we've kind of felt our job is to sort that out and get on with it. We don't see it as a big thing for us going forward.
We stopped selling houses on a leasehold basis going back nearly 18 months now. Yeah, in all honesty, it's not something we are pushing on. I think obviously if you're in the retirement business, it's a much more major issue for them at the moment. For us, we've sort of taken a view that we won't be getting economic value from it and that's fine. It's into what we've said.
Great. Thanks very much.
Thank you. We can now take our next question from Kevin Cammack from Cenkos. Please go ahead.
Morning to you, champs.
Kevin.
Just one for me. Just looking to square the circle that Greg has started off with. If I look at the simple arithmetic of the order book, your average selling price has actually gone up from where it was middle of February, prelim stage. Actually year-on-year, you're slightly down on average selling price on the order book. Are you, in any sense, tweaking guidance on ASP this year, or is that where we are perfectly understandable, the movements that we've seen in the last couple of months?
No. We're not changing guidance on average selling price. You'll have heard loud and clear my comment on volume that we're not changing guidance on the volume, but the risk is slightly different. On selling price, you shouldn't read anything into it. I suspect, without checking the work through the spreadsheet, I can't be absolutely sure, but I suspect the dynamic you're talking about is more to do with the mix in Central London, which changed during the course of last year. As we go through the year, the comparative gets slightly easier as the Central London kind of volumes come out rather than any underlying change in selling prices.
We tend to focus most closely on selling price movements compared to the-- We literally track it against the selling price expectation we had for that house as we set our various level of targets. That's our best short-term measure of market movements. Because it screens out mix, and that's where we tend to get the 1.5 to 2 from, and that's not softening, nor are we sending any signals or seeing any signals from our business units about any kind of additional incentives or anything. No, we are overall pretty comfortable with where the market sits, and we wouldn't be doing that at this point. There's plenty to do, but that's normally the case. It really is the maths of how the order book kind of works, not anything changing under the surface.
I think Pete's absolutely right. From memory, this is memory and it won't be an accurate number, but it'll be order of magnitude. I think the Central London order book is down by about 50 to 60 units compared to that comparable. When they've got an average selling price of say GBP 1.2 million, it has a small impact.
All right. Thank you.
There are no further questions on the phones at this time. I'll turn the call back to Pete Redfern for additional or closing remarks.
Thank you, thanks everybody for joining us. No real major remarks to make except the obvious of look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks' time and sort of taking you through our longer term plans. Thanks very much. Bye-bye.
Thank you, thanks 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.