|With interim earnings of 446.9p per share the P/E ratio is still under 12. Not too challenging. Plus, MTVW shareholders are notoriously long term holders.
So what if the profits are down over a six month period - property is a long term game.|
|Yes I was thinking they would trade lower and I would pick a few up, seems like no interest though ...|
|Am amazed that these haven't fallen further this morning. I think some of this was priced in, but I don't believe that much. Perhaps it's below the radar of most....|
|H1 results. From what I can see turnover and profit fall are down to the sd rules introduced by GO, causing deals to be made before March 2016 rather than after.
Will the autumn statement benefit MTVW at all? Possibly, as more BtL investors throw in the towel.
|catsick - I see that they've finally sold that property as it didn't sell on the day. Presumably they took a reduced price but should still have banked a substantial profit.|
|Been watching for a while and just loaded up with a few more today at 10,900p. Normal dealing spread is 400p to 500p but just occasionally it narrows down to around 100p. Interims due out next month.|
|Interesting to see mountview selling a townhouse in chelsea in the allsops auction with a 2.75m guide there is going to be a huge dollop of profit on that !|
|And confirmation about the Concert Party today. Ain't no party like a Concert Party (with no respect whatsoever to S Club 7).|
|Announcement out about the Concert Party.
Agreement in principle to extend until 30 September 2019.|
|Thanks - his key point is that the sales made in the year were priced at a 44% premium to the 2014 one-off Allsop valuation. (And of course the trading properties are on the books at cost.)|
|ST in yesterday's IC says it is a '
Interesting comment looking at today's price action.
Think it unlikely but anyone seen/heard anything?|
|I wonder if Sinclair might take the group private?|
|greatgig - I do agree buybacks isn't their style - too much 'City-inspired financial engineering'.
I've just looked back at their results to March 2009: interesting that they saw an urgent need to reduce borrowings (wrong reason - they expected interest rates to rise, and that's where they were persuaded to take out the swap).
During the year 2009-10 they saw the opportunity to make purchases at low prices and even made record profits. the 2011-12 year was when the increased borrowings.
I think they are positioning themselves to make more purchases when the Brexit air gets clearer - they say as much in the current AR. That's where they have scope to increase debt again.
For myself, this is one of my largest holdings, so I'm not too keen to buy more at the moment. And not sell!|
|Mmmm, I think a share buyback unlikely as that would increase the percentage holding of the Concert Party and further reduce liquidity for the rest of us. Debt reduction is either because there are insufficient satisfactory properties available to buy or because management is being ultra-conservative (whenever was it not so?).
Interesting comment in the Chief Exec's report about the dividend having multiplied 26 times over the last 26 years. This seems to be the best indicator of the future.
I am contemplating adding to my holding at current levels (£100 per share).|
|Results look sound, I think the shares are wobbling on brexit and general property weakness, debt is now super low, I think the best use of funds now will be shares buybacks if we see the shares below 100 , the ltv now is probably only 5pct of true nav, with debt so cheap now a still conservative 25pct would seem to make sense now|
|In this era, it is nice to see a company run along such conservative priniciples
The prelims give CRS, which has compared MTVW with GRI in previous analysis (http://www.londonstockexchange.com/exchange/news/market-news/market-news-detail/CRS/12736943.html), more ammunition for its attack on GRI's cost base
In the prelims MTVW reports
gross profit £53.014m
Administrative Expenses £5.148m
Profit before tax £48.388m
In the last half year results, GRI reported Profit before tax of £36.6m after administrative costs of £16.2m
Sure, it isn't comparing apples with apples, but it isn't so far off|
|FY results look very sound:
Dividend balance HY:FY was signalled at H1 stage.
Decent revaluation of investment property and a disposal.
Further fall in borrowings from £60.2m to £39.7m.
Full annual report will have lots more detail.|
|Whilst the buyer writes the cheque for SDLT, it's the seller that pays it.|
|Yes I,d agree with all that.|
|I think the shares here have been soft as the sentiment seems to be turning against residential property and developers, I think mtvw are positioned well though, it is the high end market that is taking a big hit but apart from the properties in Belsize park which are all around the million pound mark and represent about 5 percent of the portfolio most of the book is much much lower value and so not so hurt by the stamp duty grab, the average property was bought for 100k and is now worth 200k with a sitting tenant and then 300k when the tenant dies/moves out I think this sector is probably pretty safe and with rates staying super low still represent a good long term real return|
|Jon -- all this has prompted me to revisit the annual report and the accounting treatment for MTVW's trading properties. Here is the relevant text:
"(k) Inventories – trading properties
These comprise residential properties all of which are held for resale, and are shown in the financial statements at the lower of cost and estimated net realisable value. Cost includes legal fees and commission charges incurred during acquisition together with improvement costs. Net realisable value is the net sale proceeds which the Group expects on sale of a property in its current condition with vacant possession. Where residential properties are sold tenanted, net realised value is the current market value net of associated selling costs. There were no such sales during the financial year. The analysis of the Group revenue as at 31 March 2015 is on page 36."
It is not 100% clear, but "cost includes legal fees and commission charges" suggests that the books carry the trading properties with SDLT included in their book-value cost (i.e SDLT is not charged to the P&L during the year of purchase).
Net realisable value of the trading properties is based on vacant possession, which should always be higher than cost.
So as I see it, the existing NAV will not be affected by the higher SDLT and the future NAV will simply have future purchased properties valued at cost with the higher SDLT included.
As such, the effect of paying higher SDLT will be felt -- in cash terms -- from when the higher bands are introduced...
...but in terms of MTVW's accounting profits, will only have an effect in the P&L when the property is sold in the years ahead (the effect will be a lower gross margin to reflect the higher original SDLT cost).
Agreed, I don't see the higher SDLT as having a more long-term effect. A lot of other events will happen between the time MTVW starts paying the higher SDLT and when it starts selling those same properties.|
|Mayn - the stated NAV will be dragged by new properties being valued at about 3% below cost, which will be part of the PL account. A very small part, of course, in the scheme of things.
I think you're right that MTVW will have more muscle to buy at depressed prices, if some BtL individuals decide it's not worth being in the market.|
|I think MTVW will have to pay the extra SDLT.
From that document's Q&A at the end:
"Q24: Will a company be subject to the higher rates of SDLT?
A24: A company purchasing a residential property will be subject to the higher rate of SDLT, even if the property will be its only residential property. There are no special exemptions from the higher rates of SDLT for companies. However, the higher rate of SDLT will not apply in circumstances where the company is subject to the 15% rate of SDLT."
The financial effect of the extra SDLT won't be felt in MTVW's profits until the properties are sold in the years ahead. In the meantime, perhaps there will be less competition buying regulated tenancies and so prices may become more favourable for buyers.
And I see at least our MTVW shareholding won't count in deciding whether we are buying a second home:
"Q26: I have a share in a limited company which owns a property for rental to tenants. I am purchasing another property which I will own direct. I do not own any other residential property. Will I have to pay the higher rates apply?
A26: No, shareholdings in a company that owns residential property will not be counted when determining if an individual is purchasing an additional residential property, although the company may be liable to the higher rates if it purchases residential property. As this is your first purchase of a residential property the higher rates will not apply."|
|dan -interesting question.
It might ... the relevant document is here; maybe someone can interpret it more precisely:
If it did, gross profit could be reduced, but the cost could be partially offset against corporation tax, and CT will reduce to 17% in 2020 I understand.|