Inland Homes Share Discussion Threads

[shaker44] 16/11/2016 14:30

IC described INL yesterday as 'absurdly cheap'. Who would disagree. Its almost back to the post brexit panic low. Sell off looks seriously overdone to me. A bigger fish could pay a 50% premium and still have space in the NAV. Crazy times

[alphapig] 16/11/2016 14:16

Keep feeding it guys, overhang's gotta clear sooner or later, hasn't it?

[bhafc5] 16/11/2016 09:22

Another manipulation day then !

[david77] 14/11/2016 19:10

I made two sells early today raising £12,500. I have pay a fat tax bill by the end of Jan. I wouldn't have sold if I didn't have to. The shares should be higher by early Jan, but not if the stock market falls out of bed for any reason.

[alphapig] 14/11/2016 16:08

Total manipulation, 57.15 to buy, 57.20 to sell, looking after big players trying to get back in as cheaply as poss.

[bhafc5] 11/11/2016 10:37

Considerable purchasing today and yesterday! Little price increase !

[bhafc5] 11/11/2016 10:26

Is the price being manipulated?

[brummy_git] 11/11/2016 07:57

Given the recent price action (ie vs other property developers), then I suspect there is one of two larg'ish sellers (who I've no idea) which is dragging down the stock. Hopefully only a temporary phenomenon though

[shanklin] 11/11/2016 07:28

Interesting report on the situation at the Bournemouth Winter Gardens. It is difficult to see any downside for INL here. It appears the local council are yet to get their brains round the reality of the situation they face, in which presumably they need INL's co-operation to make any sensible progress on re-developing the site?

[zulfikar] 10/11/2016 22:38

'Dire' housing shortage pushing up prices, says Rics - "The government has already launched a newfund to help build 225,000 extra houses, and is expected to announce further measures in a White Paper...The paper is expected to include plans to encourage small developers, and to speed uphousebuilding on land where planning permission has been granted."

[solarno lopez] 10/11/2016 14:58

I met Stephen Wicks some years ago and he is one smart cookie

[grahamburn] 10/11/2016 14:54

This seems, on the surface, to be a rather strange public spat between Inland and Bournemouth Council. IMO this is strange because Inland are supposed to have a second-to-none reputation for handling planning applications for brownfield sites.

So, one could speculate on the behind-the-scenes machinations. Did Inland acquire their small, yet important, piece of land in the hope that they would then be able:

- to acquire the rest of the site for their own development plans

or

- to give it the whip hand in working in partnership with the council to handle the development, as they have done with Southampton Council?

When neither of these came to fruition, did Inland decide to cut and run, simply disposing of their interest (at a profit?) to the council? The council may hope that by submitting their own proposals for the whole site, they will force Inland to cave in and let them have the land for much less - though that seems a little simplistic of the council.

Now Inland have apparently decided to submit plans for their small part of the site which will presumably put a a hold on the council's plans for the whole site.

Inland must see value somewhere in this deal, but it looks like it will be a protracted process with various repercussions for the company if it plays its hand poorly.

[zulfikar] 10/11/2016 14:07

Hang on, that's our land: developers at war over Winter Gardens development

hxxp://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14878980.Hang_on__that__39_s_our_land__developers_at_war_over_Winter_Gardens_development/#

[source] 09/11/2016 20:55

Maybe the eps forecasts, despite a good NAV. Not sure if the candy connection is hurting them also or not, certainly out of favour for a while now. Regards,Source.

[orinocor] 09/11/2016 18:57

I've a watchlist of 8 housebuilders and they are all UP 3%-3.5% except for Telford which is flat, and Inland which is DOWN 3.5%. On a hunch I checked the ex-dividend date for the 0.9p divi but its not till end of december. So why the hefty drop?

[brummy_git] 09/11/2016 14:00

Agreed p1966 - Inland is not an income stock, and is far more exposed to land (pre-planning permission) than most of the other listed housebuilders. As such it is definitely higher risk, but likewise offers far better returns.

IMO, assuming Sajid Javid gets his act in gear and forces local councils to grant approval for brownfield land redevelopment, then the stock should do well over the next 3 to 5 years

[p1966] 09/11/2016 13:03

I believe management's approach has been to grow the company and there remains ample opportunity for them to do so - hence it is not necessary for them to pay out profits due to lack of opportunity.From a personal taxation perspective, some investors may find capital gains more tax efficient than dividends.What attracts me to INL is the size of the land bank and the transformational impact upon net asset value as they gain planning consent.All IMHO.

[orinocor] 09/11/2016 12:10

How does this compare valuation-wise to the other house-builders?

I've just had a cursory peek at the last results and my immediate thoughts are the yield of about 2.5% is a lot less than its peers but its discount to NAV is much larger.

[grahamburn] 07/11/2016 17:54

Should be noted it's a very extended prospective timescale - by 2040!

[brummy_git] 07/11/2016 17:49

Thanks Davidosh - By the way, doesn't this all depend on how competitive the auction is and what subsequent price Inland might pay for any MoD land? As such couldn't this be both a +ve (hopefully) but also a -ve (ie if forced to overpay)?