Bovis profits surge 150%

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

2007 was a massive boom.

The UK construction's industry contribution to GDP measured YoY (not from peak)...

2008 -6.2%
2009 -7.9%
2010 -1.5%
2011 +1.1%
2012 -6.0%

You get the idea?

There were 2.3m people working in construction in 2007 and 2.1 in 2013.

That's 200,000 one man bands rather than 1,000.

wotsthat

Bantex wrote: »

Because the big boys have most of the decent stuff tied up in their land banks.

Bovis (a big boy?) despite having most of the 'decent' stuff purchased 4,500 plots this year.

ukcarper

Not sure how accurate this is but it was the first thing I found on Google.
http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/news/view/land-banking-anti-development-lobby-myth/

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The smaller builders are at a disadvantage straight away in todays climate. HTB and such policies only apply to the major builders.

Thats without getting into land banking.

As I said, a parlimentary committee is looking into these issues. Ideas have been bought forward to reclaim land, revoke planning permission, or impose a land tax on these big builders.

You can deny it as much as you like, but I'd consider it a problem simply because such ideas are being put forward. I don't expect those ideas to turn into much as I'm not that naive, parlimentary committees don't hold the same power as the big builders do sat round the table with the PM designing HTB. But it's a problem nevertheless.

You are asking for evidence when you know no evidence can be given. The evidence you are asking for could only be given by the builders themselves.

What do you consider a reasonable return on capital is taken over a period of years?


Your proposition is that the big boys make excess profits by limiting supply
so that leave lots of opportunity for the small boys even if they have no access to HTB because the margins will be so high.


Sadly many of the parliamentary enquiries are simply to be seen to be doing something and do not address real issues but prejudiced newspaper ranting and not considered thought.
To believe that parliamentary enquire is grounds for saying there is a problem is beyond parody.




Evidence of abuse would be builders owning a large building site, with a limited number of houses being built and with a queue of people waiting to buy.


I don't know of such sites and I would have assumed that the parliamentary enquiries would soon bring examples to light or of course local knowledge of such situations.


The major problems is the lack of land with landing permission and the planning processes and levies and cost loaded on new builds.


I do agree that a land value tax would be useful but with the government keeps a vice control on building land then prices will be un-necessarially high and building rates low.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Have a look at some building sites around you though, and ask youself why the first residents are sitting on a building site for several months, if not years. Sites used to be built and THEN sold. Now we just have to witness building sites for months with a constant "all reserved ...... but our sales office is this way if you are quick" signs plastered all over the owners fencing.

Funny old thing isn't it, that all the plots are sold, but you can still walk into the sales office and be greeted with pamphlets galore, a tour etc by the person sitting in the supposedly redundant sales office giving you material and tours for houses they "don't have". Theres always that "one off plan" that "may just (read, will)" fall through if you act quick, but there are several others ready to move on it...ready.... but not actually having moved on it....they are just sat "poised".

The whole thing is a game from start to finish. One which is pretty damn obvious if you visit many of the half finished building sites.

If there aren't any houses for sale there will be no sales office on site - companies don't employ sales staff if there's nothing to sell.

They always try and pretend houses are going like hot cakes and they're doing you a favour. It's to make you think there's little point in making a cheeky offer.

Don't confuse sales tactics with running a monopoly / cartel.

Seriously, if builders make huge profits per house and are turning people away there's quite a large opportunity for another big builder to reduce prices, still make massive profits, and increase market share.

Big builders have an advantage because they've the deep pockets to pay the required inducements to councils and can fund the overhead for departments required to get planning.

Flashmanchop

Graham_Devon wrote: »

There is a parliamentary group looking into how to unlock building on the vast plots of land owned by housing companies.

No doubt it will involve more taxpayer cash. However, as a parliamentary group is looking into it, it seems there is certainly an issue.

They wont need to look far - the planning system is a joke, if they really wanted to unlock supply they would streamline the planning process.

Thrugelmir

Bantex wrote: »

Because the big boys have most of the decent stuff tied up in their land banks.

You appear to know nothing about building nor about running a business. Having capital tied up funded by borrowed money earning no income is a sure fire way of hitting the rocks.

antrobus

ukcarper wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is but it was the first thing I found on Google.
http://www.hbf.co.uk/media-centre/news/view/land-banking-anti-development-lobby-myth/

Well it's certainly interesting.

You can actually read the report itself. Which refers to another half dozen or so reports over the past decade or so, all of which concluded that builders were not hoarding land.

http://www.hbf.co.uk/fileadmin/documents/research/HBF_Report_-_Landbanking_May.pdf

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thanks to "pricing improvements".

Can you imagine Brtiish Gas, train companies, Tescos or water companies getting away with such an article in the BBC?

If British Gas had suggested their profits had surged thanks to "pricing improvements" the BBC would have lynched them!


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28833339

If British Gas sold different types of gas (for example that burnt at different temperatures or with different cleanliness-es) and they had moved to selling more of the the more expensive, hotter, cleaner burning gas over the cheaper, colder burning, more smelly gas (i.e. altering the product mix) I would still expect you would manage to be outraged if that lead to more profits.

shortchanged_2

antrobus wrote: »

Well it's certainly interesting.

You can actually read the report itself. Which refers to another half dozen or so reports over the past decade or so, all of which concluded that builders were not hoarding land.

http://www.hbf.co.uk/fileadmin/documents/research/HBF_Report_-_Landbanking_May.pdf

Hoarding land is not the only issue. It's the drip feeding of the building process itself.
So looking at the pie chart which states that 60% odd of sites are under construction, what it doesn't say is what stage these developments are at.

It could be for example that there is a 100 plot development but 1 year down the line they have only built 10% of the properties.