Taylor Wimpey Share Discussion Threads

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 13:05

Welcome to January's edition of Your Place - your monthly New Home update from Taylor Wimpey. This month we'll be telling you how you can start the new year with a new home...

Wish you could move into a new home right now?

With Taylor Wimpey you can!

Once you've found your ideal Taylor Wimpey home, we want to make sure there's nothing standing in the way of your move. We've got a whole range of schemes to help you secure your brand-new home.

I've got a home to sell so how can I even think about buying?

We could be your cash buyer with Part Exchange.

We could take your current home in Part Exchange* so you can enjoy a hassle-free move. No buyer to find, no delays, no chains, no estate agent's fees – just a fast and easy move to your perfect Taylor Wimpey home.

I can't afford a big mortgage but I'm desperate to buy. What can I do?

With easystart moving has never been easier, faster or more affordable.

You only need a 5% deposit and you own 100% of your new home but pay only 85% now.* You have up to 10 years to repay the outstanding amount at market value.

I just can't seem to save enough deposit and I've been saving for ages?

We've got several ways we could help.

We have the solution for most moving difficulties and a team of experts on hand to make sure you get the right deal to suit you. For example, we can help you move if you don't have enough deposit, as whatever deposit you've got saved we could double it, up to 10% of the purchase price, which means you'll be able to get a smaller mortgage.*

[markthecarp] 06/1/2011 12:39

Better hope we have smoke detectors installed spenny !

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 12:25

If they cross while they are both rising that is a true Golden Cross. Sparks usually fly.

[wolterix] 06/1/2011 12:11

lovely stuff

relate?

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 12:01

The 50 and the 200 EMA's are getting closer.

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 11:38

I guess the £663.5m would not be recognised all in one go - more like 2 or 3 tranches ie 2-3 years' worth of annual results.

That's what I would do, anyway.

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 11:29

I'm sorry I asked! lol

[imastu pidgitaswell] 06/1/2011 11:23

It's anyone's guess really.

I would base it on a percentage of Net Assets Value - but you can argue about what net asset value is for TW (to include any or all of the deferred tax assets?) and also about what percentage is appropriate in the current market for the level of debt it will have. Tangible NAV excluding all deferred tax assets and including the pension liability (i.e. worst case) is 47p.

At a punt, somewhere between 40p and 60p. Which is why I was buying in the low 40s, and did not expect to see down to 20p - so take anything I say with the proverbial pinch of salt...

[shaws37] 06/1/2011 11:14

imastu.

Good post, thanks.

With the sale of the US business, depending on the price paid, where will that potentially take the share price to ?

[imastu pidgitaswell] 06/1/2011 11:09

£663m in deferred tax assets - with 3.1m shares, that's 21p. Presumably not all of it is expected to be recoverable, hence the 16p they quoted (somewhere...)

Without going too accounting-speak, the disposal of the US business would also assist with the UK element of those DT assets, as the higher net profits in the UK (same operating profits, lower interest bill - assuming the interest payments are tax-deductible in the UK) would make their utilisation more forseeable.

And presumably any US disposal would take US element of the tax losses into account in the price payable - essentially realising the currently unrecognised deferred tax assets as hard cash.

Basically another reason why the US disposal would be positive for the share price?

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 10:39

...and nearly another 2 weeks in which up to build lol

Trading Update
Jan 18 2011

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 10:36

Well it is all "building" up nicely and going in the right direction.

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 10:34

And here's what TW. said at the results LY:

During 2009, we have recognised £112.9 million of deferred tax asset on the
balance sheet, which relates to the UK pension deficit. As a result of the revised financing arrangements and the successful equity raise concluded during 2009, we now consider it appropriate to recognise this asset. The remaining deferred tax assets of £663.5 million, which relate predominantly to trading losses incurred by the Group during the economic downturn, will be recognised on the balance sheet once there is a greater certainty regarding the timing of the Group's return to normal levels of profitability.

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 10:30

This time LY (after results):

Analysts at Numis said: 'Taylor Wimpey looks broadly fair value and the shares are likely to remain range bound until clarity emerges over the potential US housing disposal, or recognising deferred tax assets which would boost the net asset value per share significantly.'

Read more:

[barf2] 06/1/2011 10:16

Good work ima Cheers

[kfp] 06/1/2011 10:09

shaws37
Perhaps they have nothing to say, yet.

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 10:02

Plenty riding on that TM sale, though - if the price disappoints or the approach is rejected/ fails to complete, we're in for another period of 'consolidation' lol

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 09:50

goo2, lol, me too!

[sir rational] 06/1/2011 09:46

Ima - last few posts - agreed, closely mirrors my own analysis

[goo2] 06/1/2011 09:45

spennysimmo, That was the sort of question that was on my mind, Thankyou for asking it. I read it thinking what a well articulated and presented question and could'nt wait to read the following advise...then pmsl at moneysage's response.

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 09:43

Thanks Stu

[imastu pidgitaswell] 06/1/2011 09:40

Maybe think of it another way - why are BKG and BWY valued at or around Net Asset Value (correction - they are both around a 50% premium), whereas TW. (and BDEV) are not? It's the risk premium attaching to the debt - the 'market' wants to pay less for the equity because of the risk of dilution or loss.

If you lower the risk (lower debt, or even just hold out the realistic probability of lower debt) then the market's perception of the risk premium required (read hedgie funds get scared...) reduces and the shares move close to NAV.

Selling the US business at or around Net Asset Value would have nil effect on the Group's Net Asset Value (lower physical assets, equally lower debt). Probably a simpler way of looking at it than at earnings.

[spennysimmo] 06/1/2011 09:38

Well I am sure we will all find out soon enough. Thanks for the input.