Trading Update

Apr 26, 2018

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 And A. This time, I'd like to turn the conference over to Pete Redfern, Chief Executive. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and thanks for joining us Obviously, this is a AGM training update call. So it's a relatively short statement and sort of with particularly with our Capital Markets Day in two and a half weeks' time, where we'll be with you face to face. So we see it as very much a flash update. So happy, obviously, to take any questions, but there's not an enormous amount of new news. Chris is obviously with me for the first time and sort of I'm sure if there are questions for him, he can pick those up as well. But if I give you just the usual overview to begin with, Underlying trading has been very solid. I'm not going to sort of labor the strong comparative for last year, but if you look at sales rate at 0.85, is probably our 2nd highest for this sort of 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 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. In the second half of the year. In terms of the 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 kind of my time in the business, we've ever made a comment on weather. But it was particularly unusual and just does slightly distort some of the statistics, particularly on barewood, which I'll come back to. But on sales, we effectively had 2 very poor weeks in March. And you can see from that sort of sales rates net of that effect, it didn't have a massive overall effect and does pretty quickly catch up. So weather effects on sales, not particularly significant weather effects on build, a little bit more meaningful, which I'll come back to is the main reason that we've 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. And just to give you a sense of that, if you look at the range of completion the splits first half, second half over the years. So sort of worst case has been forty-sixty. The best case has been about 46 54. I'm slightly nervous as I go through this, but some of these numbers don't add up to 100, but I know they do. And I think my best then at the moment, Israel, we're about in the middle of that range, so about 43% in the first half give or take. I don't there could be spurious accuracy in that, but it gives you a sense of what we mean when we say half weighted. So 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. But on construction, sort of losing 20 days, which is more or less on average across the country, what we've sort of lost this year compared to a more normal sort of 6 ish makes a difference. It's perfectly catchable up over the course of the year, but I think, yes, we can map out detail of how an individual site is 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. So I don't see that as being a big concern for 2018 as a whole, but it does just push that 1st half set of weighting. And 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 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 sort of 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 sort of build costs. The land market is similar. You can see we continue to through the year. Our land bank is slightly higher than it was at the end of the year, and that's sort of consistent with the signaling that we gave you at the prelim stage. Sort of financial metrics very, very similar. I think the one sort of new comment I would make is that we're seeing the planning regime in London being tougher than it's been historically. And I think as you sort of see a new mayor kind of flexing his own sort of commitments and that, that doesn't make it easier. It makes sites that already have a planning consent actually more valuable and more important. And I think as we look ahead at the 2 to 3 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 sort of our sort of position in London going forward. It's definitely a sort of dynamic that we're looking at at the moment on new sites coming through that planning is beginning 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, not a lot to add on costs, but I think we've literally repeated verbatim our guidance and still have the view that with sort of small selling price increases of the kind of order of 1.5% to 2%, and sort of cost inflation of 3% to 3% to 4%, they more or less watch their face. So, sort of net net, the market impact on margin is pretty neutral. So, no, I don't think there's anything, anything new in that, sort of important to restate it for your confidence. I'm not sure if there's anything else I want to sort of highlight. So if we open up questions, as I say, sort of if you want to pick us Chris question, that's great. Or sort of, kind of I can pick up the general questions and feed them to Chris if it makes sense. Thank And we can take our first question from Ainsley Lemen from Canaccord. Please go ahead. And just two from me, please. Firstly, just wondered if you could comment on pricing. I didn't see any comment in the date. 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 your operating margins similar to those achieved in recent years. Just wondering is that a slightly more caution just tone there in terms of what you're finding land in the market or we should 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 to 2 then price inflation. Yes, and as always, that comment is net of any sales incentives. So no increase in sales incentives at all. We're don't think yes, the sales rate that you see sort of, as I say, which we feel pretty comfortable isn't, 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 no, I think 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 mean, I don't know, Chris, you've been sort of close to that latter piece. Yes. So I was just going to add that second bit to Chris, he'd just say if he had a view in sort of the promised time in the southeast. Yes, well, just going back to price the only thing I'd add to that is Central London is probably a bit flatter than the balance. So definitely agree with Pete. And 1.5% to 2% on the balance. But yes, the guidance on the operating margins in land acquisitions just hasn't changed. It exactly the same wording that we've used in previous years and it reflects, a comparison to the 2017 data that I think we produce at the prelims. So very much at that level. No worries. Thank you. We can now take our next question from Gavin Jago from Peel Hunt. Please go ahead. Good morning, Pete. Good morning, Chris. I'm a couple from me if I could please. And the first one was just the outlook 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? And second was just around kind of what your kind of central assumptions are at the moment with the future of Help to Buy and what might come out for let room review, just kind of what you're working on assumption wise at the moment? So 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 2 ahead of our budget. So we're not particularly surprised where we are. I think we will spend we're not going to give you new guidance for the year. We're always reticent that giving kind of outlook guidance anyway. But what we will do in the Capital Markets Day. We spent quite a lot of time talking through the structure of our outlet, scale and size, because that avenue, which you've heard me touch on before, is that sort of 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 potential of the businesses. So 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 but nothing really new to say at the moment. I think it would be wrong to read my comments on planning in London as a stack into our sort of short term view of outlets. It's not I'm not particularly linking the 2. I'm honestly just saying to you that we think that planning environment in London is a bit slower and a bit tougher, not that it's causes a particular issue sort of this year or we expect it to in the next few months. But it's definitely something that buying new sites, in London, we're aware of. And as I say, for sort of the 2 large sites we bought last year, actually being able to progress, particularly the amount of pleasant site, which has a detailed plan information and not have that risk. We always knew the simplicity of that plan position was key part of the value. So sort of arguably, yes, there's a net positive there. Yes, I think could probably go one step and say that we don't have a site in Dental London without planning consent. And obviously there are sites that are going through the planning process within the wider London region, but, that gives you an indication. Yes, you shouldn't take it in softening guidance. It's just honest information how we see the sort of forward position. And then going back to sort of politics, helped by a 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. And there hasn't been a consultation and focus on it in our dialogue with government over recent times. Our sense is the view of Help to Buy particularly in treasury, which is important, has softened slightly. And I mean softened in a positive way in the sense of, I think there was a fairly hard line that developed of it. And actually as the second hand market is sort of has been sort of tougher on some of the other kind of uncertainties of materialized. I think the view of it is a little bit more positive than it was maybe 6 months ago. But as I say, it just doesn't feel like the decision just around the corner. Now of course, there'll be an announcement aren't how I've said that, but it's a bit our just underlying census, there was a point where, there was a reasonable chance that it would be sort of toned down before 2021. I don't think the chance of that is 0, but I think it's reduced rather than grown over the last couple of months. And that 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 advertised. In terms of, let in terms of all of the letwin's review, sort of quite a lot of conversation dialogue going on, it's looking at individual components of the kind of barriers to delivery, so there was meeting on skills, sort of in the availability of trade skills, last week or the week before, I know he's had meetings with the CPA and sort of the like. So, yeah, kind of having reached some broad overall conclusions he's then kind of testing some of the other sort of barriers. I think what was very unclear at the moment is where the recommendations had. I think we're fairly clear what his got senses from the sort of a summary letter that he wrote just before Easter. And actually, broadly, I agree with the principle, although I think it oversimplified things that, yes, if the land environment is better, the long term limiting factor is local market absorption. And there are lots of other barriers, but sort of over the long term, they can be, sort of gradually ground down. I fear slightly that his view about how easy it is to grind down those, those sorts of barriers to skills, to production limitations, and like it is possible, but it's not quick. So I fear a slightly over simplistic conclusion, but we'll see. We can now take our next question from Will Jones from Redburn. Please go ahead. Thanks. Good morning guys. A couple from me please. First, just a 2 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 kind of targets for this year. So perhaps an update on that and just the market in general, in London? And then 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? And then 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. So seasonally more skewed than normal. I guess when you look at the second half of this year with what you've, I think you described in the past as larger, higher quality sites coming through if the market is, it remains stable. Would you think that you couldn't 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 is that does look an easier comp versus what's been a more base in the first half? Thanks. I think Chris is going to take the first one and I'll take the sales rate 1. Yes. So I think you're asking about the London sales rate with reference to the 0.3 from the prelims. 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 that they're, that they're appearing. And as a consequence, you see that, our sales rate are actually pretty good compared to, to the market. So we have to give you an example, a site King's Cross that since the turn of the year has performed fantastically well. And as a consequence, if you look overall, clearly, there are some that perform better than others, but certainly we are pretty pleased with where we are since the start of the year and slightly ahead of that rate that you mentioned. So yes, in terms of sales, I'm pretty happy with that. And 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. And I think as Pete said, with the Central London Market So where it is at the moment and the amount of capital coming in from overseas potentially being reduced And certainly, some of our competitors having pulled out of that market, the land market in London is more, attractive And, and as a consequence, we are looking to take advantage of that as and when the opportunity arises. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Chris. And if I will, if I pick up the second one on second half sales rates, yeah, I think we think you're right. Sort of if you look at our sales rates over the last 2 or 3 years, and last year was particularly sort of differentiated between 1st and second half. Sort of there are obviously 2 factors to sort of the ability to sell and having product available that's close enough to delivery to make sense to sell. And there's no doubt over the last 2 years, the second half sales rate has been sort of limited in part, at least, by the ability to deliver products on quite a lot of sites. So at the very least, that gives us a resilience the second half sales rate. If sort of you have a period where you don't have the real sort of very unusual strength we had in the first quarter of last year, So it certainly gives us confidence that the second half is a lot easier to match our sales rate in the first half. And that by definition then gives us the potential for upside that doesn't then come through to volumes for the year because it's really the limiting factor there, but it will come through into the order book for the year end. So Yes, it's that that's always made us just more sort of sanguine about the exact sort of balance and mix and sort of we do see the first quarter of last year as being particularly unusual. So sort of by definition, you would expect the sales rate this year to be a bit more balanced between the two halves. And if we look at the sales rate, we need to sort of sell this year's completions, it's about 0.64 through to what we would see as the perfect cut up 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 sort of slightly higher than last year. And so again, you put all those together and sort of it's not something that's giving us a huge amount of concern. Thank you. We can take our next question from John Bill from Barclays. Please go ahead. Yes, morning gents. I think I've got 2. Just firstly, if you could elaborate morning on the London planning comments, is it about lengths of the process or is it about affordable homes within the mix maybe you could just kind of prioritize those 2. And then I wonder whether you 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. And then secondly, just wonder whether you could briefly update us on your views on PRS? Yes. I'm afraid I'm going to Doc the last part, John, and we can talk about that in two and a half weeks' time, sort of because I think it's more appropriate to the sort of capital market thing context. So sort of apologies for that, but I think it makes more sense. Sort of on London, it is both length of time and sort of affordable focus. So it's no surprise, and it's not anything new. Every time you have a new mayor that tends to be a sort of a set of criteria and principles. I'm going to try and do this. And sort of, 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. And I think you see that same process happening to a degree. I think what's slightly different, and there's good imbalance there. So if you look from a business over the long term. Unfortunately, it's not good for London Housing supply, but yes, so our 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 sort of land value gain to the community as strong as possible, but 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 is a year coming in is lower and the caution in people land and the amount is also lower. So you know, sorts of people and I'm not particularly talking about us here, but people are more likely to dig in say, well, actually I'm kind of I'm more nervous that I was about the sales prices I'm going to get. People haven't necessarily bought a site unconditionally. And so I'm more likely to dig in, and that then affects the timing. So it is both. But I think you're inevitably right over time that, sort of that affects any surplus of supply. I think we've not felt generally with 1 or 2 local exceptions like the obvious sort of battersees 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. So we're even in some of the kind of high rise buildings in Leeds at the turn of our Manchester's return on the last market. Underlying demand in London is very strong. So we haven't really seen that being a big issue with surplus stock. And 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 sort of contractors and the like. So it does impact over time. So 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 as I don't have planning, but it definitely is one component that he's not going to deliver the volumes that he wants to and buy, buy some way. In fact, they're probably going to go backwards because they're 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 part from the PRS, does that answer the other questions? It does. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We can now take our next question from Gregor Klickich from UBS. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. I've got a couple of questions. The first one is Justin. Good morning, Greg. Hi, good morning. On margins. So I think you were sort of early in the year speaking about some progress this year. Now obviously the build is, I guess, becoming a little bit less even as a result of the weather condition. So I want to understand if there's any costs attached to kind of trying to catch up from kind of having lost, say, 3 weeks of build, and whether we should be thinking about any any margin impact as a result of that? And then can you just remind us on the volumes? Because obviously, I think early in the year, you were kind of 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 second half, her first half split, which was quite helpful, by the way. That would be helpful. Thank you. I think on I think our guidance on both of them isn't isn't changing. And I think, so if I dare with one or the other, our margins, our guidance was for small sort of movement but small but positive movement year on year and it still is. And I don't think at the moment, we see sort of that bill catch up as coming a measurable cost. It just takes time, sort of so. I don't think that changes the ballast on margin really at all. As I say, there's nothing sort of intensive incentive on pricing. I think on volumes, yes, we're not changing our guidance, but by definition having a bigger second handway and that pressure on volumes, does mean there is slightly more risk in the second half. So we're not changing our guidance. We still think low single digit growth it's the right place for us to be aiming, but I would say it's a slightly more profitable than it was 3 months ago. And I'd be misleading you not to say that that was the case. So we're not changing it, but we would be uncomfortable with sort of it being upgraded past that and for people at the high end of that range, sort of that's not what we're targeting. And I repeat again, we're very committed to that sort of the hazards that we hand over are handed over right. So that does mean that sort of that build piece does just sort of mean we've got to get them right in a shorter period of time. So no change, but just slightly more risk on the volume number. I think the various various way of putting it. Excellent. And then maybe a final question in terms of the Capital Markets Day. So I think you've communicated in the past you may talk about next year's dividend. Previously, you've obviously given margin targets rocky targets? I mean, is that basically the plan to refresh those for the next day, whatever, 3 years? I guess it was over a 3 year period? Or will you try to do it different? Or is it going to you just want to keep this as a surprise? You don't have to We want you to come, Greg, also, you know, we can't tell you to call in on the call in advance. I want to meet you. That's it. It's all set up. I know most of you are met Chris, we're giving you a chance to meet you. Look, we're not trying to be Clope 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. So I will try and give you a sense we have been operating to our, current strategy for, yeah, certainly in our minds a good 7 years plus from a sort of market point of view, at least 6. We've felt there's been real virtue in not sort of tweaking and changing all of the time. So but even our current 3 year targets, we wouldn't have viewed at the time as a new strategy. They were just sort of all may have given 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. So we will be giving you a view about what we can achieve financially. Sort of, but it isn't just a rerun of rolling forward 3 year targets and giving you a view of what next year dividend is. The year we see as a more fundamental map, 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 of 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 3, 4, 5 years. Yes, but it's very much focused on those kind of timelines rather than the next year or 2. But it's more that than it is just a mapping out of, what the next dividend is and 3 year targets. So 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, but 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. Good morning, Pete. Good morning, Chris. 3 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 bill 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? And in terms of sort 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 UK excellent then I suppose just to get a better sense of how wide the spread is at the moment? I think I've got all three of those. And I mean, do you want to take the build cost transfer on, Chris, and I'll take it. I'll, if I pick up leaseholds and arrange your pricing, that gives you a second to think about it. On leasehold, not a massive update order order, we put it in there. We have signed up, I think, 2, further free holders since the, interim. So the number is now at about 94% of the total signed up with that all the remaining tail are small. So that's just that process of chipping away at them. I think we are confident we will get there with all of them and still have the view that if we have the open that we don't, we've got sort of other routes and still remain very confident that the provision is enough to cover the costs of doing that. I would say the noise has died down substantially as well, the process of taking individuals through the the processes sort of settled down into a pattern. And the sort of level of angst has fallen away. So no major new update, but definitely progressing as we would have hoped. And just in terms of range of pricing, I'd say it's pretty tight, as Chris said, London is sort of flat average 1 to 2. I'd say average 1 to 2 across sort of the country, including London. But the upper end is probably 2.5 and the lower end outside London is probably 1.5. So it's we're not seeing big regional variations. It's positive but stable. Everywhere at London and flat in London. I think it's probably the reasonable overview. And Chris, Phil? Yes. I mean, we've already said that in terms of house price inflation, it's run at 1.5% to 2%. And then the build cost inflation guidance is really unchanged at 3 4%. The only thing I'd sort of add to that is if you look sort of more specifically at the London product, whether it's a main contractor or a concrete frame, I can imagine that you would get a little bit softer, in terms of the inflation in those particular markets. But the balance that the normal Taylor Wimpey type of traditional timber frame builds, then the 3% to 4% is absolutely where it's at the moment. Great. Okay, that's great. On the leaseholds, any sort of jungle drums in terms of what might come through in terms of changes there? I mean, in terms of are they going to ban it just on houses or do you think they'll ban leaseholds completely or imposed sort of maximum ground rent limits at all? Well, I think you'll have seen the sort of consultation of government running, which definitely lens towards or leans towards setting a almost an absolute minimum level of ground rent that's just about enough to sort of cover the costs of administration, if you see what I mean. So I think that's where they're heading. It had some pushback. And I think as ever with these things, perhaps as a slight balance. But as we've touched on before, yes, as we look forward, we've assumed and assuming our kind of guidance, really no economic benefit from the sale of leaseholds anyway. So 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. So we're sort of we don't see it as a big thing for us going forward. And we stopped selling houses on a leasehold basis, sort of going back kind of nearly 18 months now. So in all, obviously, it's not something we are sort of pushing on. I think obviously, if you're in the retirement business, it's a much more major issue for them at the moment, but But for us, we've sort of taken a kind of a view that we won't be getting economic value from it, and that's fine to what we said. Okay, great. Thanks so much. Thank you. We can now take our next question from Kevin Kammack from Tincoss. Please go ahead. 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, but actually year on year, you're slightly down on average selling price in the order book. Is there I mean, are you in any sense tweaking guidance on ASP this year, or or is that, you know, where we are perfectly? Understandable the movements that we've we've seen in the last couple of months. Yes. No, we're not changing, changing guidance on sort of average selling price. Yes, I know you'll have have heard loud and clear my comment on volume that we're not changing guidance on the volume, but the risk is slightly different. But on selling price, you shouldn't read any anything into it. I suspect without what's kind of 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. So as we go through the year, the comparative get slightly easier as a central London kind of volumes come out rather than any underlying change in selling prices. And so we tend to focus most closely on, sort of selling price movements compared to the and we will literally track it against the selling price expectation we had for that house as we set our various level of targets. And that's our best short term measure 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 sort of sending any signals or seeing any signals from our business units about sort of any kind of additional incentives or anything. So no, yes, we really we are overall pretty comfortable with where the market sits. And so, yeah, we wouldn't be, be doing that at this point, you know, sort of there's plenty to do, but that's normally the case. No, it really is the maths of how the order book kind of works, not anything changing into the surface. Yes. And from I think it's absolutely right, from memory and this is memory and it won't be an accurate number, but it'll be order of magnitude, right. I think the Central London order book is down by about 50 to 60 units compared to that comparable. So, when they've got an average selling price, the $1,200,000 if it has a small impact. 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, and 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 yes, sort of taking you through our longer term plans. Thanks very much. Bye bye. Thank you, and 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.