Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us on our FY26 trading update call. Mike Roberts and John Messenger are with me this morning.

As ever, I'd like to start off by thanking all of our employees, our subcontractors, and our suppliers for their continued commitment and sheer hard work, which has driven this performance. Last month, we achieved 122 NHBC Pride in the Job Awards, more than any other housebuilder for the 22nd consecutive year, and it is our best result ever.

It is this commitment, operational excellence, and focus on our build quality and our customers that has underpinned this solid performance. Clearly, the operating environment is challenging, but we've responded proactively to these challenges.

We've used incentives carefully to maintain sales momentum. As a result, we delivered total home completions 5% ahead of last year at 17,667 and adjusted PBT in line with market expectations.

We have applied rigorous cost control to our cost base, partially offsetting some of the gross margin pressure, and we have reduced our investment in land. This decision around land investment and our actions across the business have delivered a very strong balance sheet position, with year-end net cash of £772 million.

As many on the call will be aware, we have consistently evolved our capital allocation policy and returned almost £3.5 billion to shareholders over the last 10 years. Our capital allocation policy is based around maintaining that strong balance sheet while keeping the financial flexibility needed to both invest in growth and meet significant cash commitments over the next few years.

The £400 million return announced today is entirely consistent with that flexible, but disciplined approach. Like others in the sector, and particularly since the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, our shares are trading at a significant discount to tangible net asset value.

As a result, our FY27 capital return of £400 million will be delivered predominantly through share buybacks with a nominal dividend. Looking ahead, we remain committed to returning to shareholders 50% of earnings, complemented by a minimum £100 million annual share buyback.

On that note, I will now hand over to Mike to discuss the operational performance of the business.

Thanks, David, and good morning, everyone. I want to start with reservations.

Our overall private reservation rate was 0.64, which compares to 0.63 on an aggregated basis last year. This includes a 0.08 contribution from PRS and multi-unit sales, in line with last year.

Although following budget uncertainty, we saw significant PRS reservations shift towards the end of the year. Sales incentives to support reservation activity remained at the elevated levels we saw in the second quarter, given the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East.

We would expect incentives to stay at this level until consumer sentiment and affordability improves. As David outlined, we delivered 17,667 total home completions in the year, 5% ahead of the aggregated figure in FY26.

Performance was weighted towards the second half, consistent with our usual trading patterns, and in line with our build scheduling and reservations generated in the second and third quarters. The average selling price for the year was £352,000, an increase of 2.3%.

This was driven by increased home size and a higher contribution from our regions with higher average selling prices. We estimate the underlying sales pricing was around 1% lower across the year, and our order book at the year-end is carrying an underlying ASP decline of 1.4%.

This reflects a market where our customers face affordability challenges, political and macroeconomic uncertainty, and they are, as a result, cautious and price-conscious. In this context, we're pleased that the forward order book is solid, with forward sales of £2.8 billion, only slightly down on last year.

Our average sales outlet numbers at 405 were flat versus the first half, and in line with our guidance at the start of the year. We have launched a total of 136 new sales outlets in the year, including our first 12 synergy sales outlets, where performance has been really encouraging, reinforcing our confidence in the benefits of our multi-brand approach.

18 further synergy sites are scheduled to open this year, and we are targeting a further 15 in FY28. In April, we guided to average sales outlets for FY27 of between 425 and 435.

However, the frustratingly slow pace of planning approvals, but coupled with good progress on outlet closures, means we are now expecting average sales outlets of around 415 in FY27. Turning now to build cost inflation.

In April, we guided to build cost inflation for the year of 2% and 3% in the second half. That has played out as expected, and we are likely to experience further build cost pressure in this financial year, particularly on the materials side.

The scale of our business, enhanced by the Redrow acquisition, is helping to mitigate some of the impact. Through our ongoing negotiations with our supply chain partners, we are mitigating increases or building in flexibility for prices to reduce as and when supplier input costs reverse.

Against this backdrop, our current assumption is that we could see total build cost inflation of 3% to 4% in FY27, slightly higher on materials, which could be 4% to 5%, but more muted on labor, which we expect to be between 2% and 3%. We'll hopefully have a clearer picture and be able to provide further information in September.

With that, I'll pass back to David.

Thanks very much, Mike. Now to touch briefly on the Redrow integration.

We're pleased that operationally all elements of the Redrow integration have completed. All of the £100 million cost synergies have been confirmed, and at £73 million, the benefit to the P&L in FY26 was slightly ahead of that expected at the interims.

There is a further £27 million benefit to come before the end of December 2027 to complete the £100 million per annum synergy. In FY26, both synergy delivery and the rigorous management of our cost base, something that we highlighted at the interim stage, delivered a very positive reduction in our administrative expenses.

Turning to adjusted items, we have given details in the statement, but charges are expected to total around £160 million, and the most significant element relates to legacy property provision charges of around £95 million, mainly reflecting additional remediation costs on two developments that were already under review, as well as recognizing the impact of build cost inflation. Turning to land, we approved just over 3,000 plots for purchase in FY26.

That's well below the 7,000 to 9,000 plots guided to in April. This reflects a very deliberate decision to be even more selective in our land acquisition, and also to cancel some prior approvals given the uncertain environment.

Land cash spend in the year was also more modest at £625 million, compared to guidance of between £700 million and £800 million. This has driven an increase in our year-end cash balances, which at £772 million was some £170 million better than our April guidance.

Finally, turning to the outlook. We have navigated difficult markets before, and we see that we are well-positioned.

Our business model is resilient and flexible. Our balance sheet is strong.

We have three high-quality and complementary brands which are performing well, and we expect to deliver total home completions of between 17,700 and 18,200 in FY27. As we've demonstrated this year and with today's announcement, we have a clear focus on optimizing our capital to enhance returns for shareholders.

Thank you, and with that, we'll be very happy to take questions.

Morning, thank you. Three, please, if I could.

The first just around trading in your fiscal Q4, whether you could just talk us through how it evolved through the period, just given all the various headlines we've had internationally and at home, and whether you'd call out anything interesting around buyer types or the regions. Second was just around build costs, good clarity given there for the year ahead, but just hoping to explore the degree of visibility you've got on that, particularly with regard to materials and the extent to which you've been able to agree any increases as energy surcharges as opposed to fixed price increases.

Then the last one was just tying up on cash outflows for the year ahead. Obviously, lots of detail given, but just wondered if you had a view on what the land approval number you've guided to plot-wise might mean for the cash land spend, and therefore if there's any high-level thinking on the net cash or net debt position a year from now.

Thanks.

Will, thank you very much. If I start off and I'll talk about trading in Q4, and then I'll pass to Mike and Mike will pick up in terms of just build costs and some of the things that we're seeing on build costs.

John will pick up in terms of cash outflows in relation to land and other areas. Look, Will, on Q4, I'd say there's nothing unusual to report in terms of regions or particular brands or product types.

I think it's an ongoing trend where affordability is most challenged in London and the South East. Therefore, if we compare London to Scotland or the North of England, unquestionably London and the South East is seeing it more difficult.

That was the same position that we saw up to Q3. The only other point which Mike touched on in the overview is that we did secure multi-unit sales in Q4 primarily because I think most people backed away from the market, given all the uncertainty in the run-up to the budget towards the end of '25.

We kind of recovered that position, and ended up with pretty much the same overall position for multi-unit sales and private rental, albeit it was a late delivery in Q4. Mike?

On materials, as I said, we've guided to 3% to 4%. We think the material content will be slightly higher than that and less on the labor.

In terms of visibility, you'll be aware we have sort of ongoing all year round negotiations and conversations with our supply chain and supply chain partners. The deals that we strike are not all at one point, those sort of revised prices and fixed-term periods revolve through the year.

We do feel that there's some headroom in the supply chain, we're not seeing price increases because of scarcity. Actually quite the reverse, that people are talking to us particularly with our sort of key differentiator being the size of the combined business in terms of securing their future supply.

We've been able to mitigate some price increases as a result. Where we've seen sort of higher levels of inflation due to Middle East conflict and price of oil being fluctuating, we've generally agreed surcharges, and we've agreed mechanisms where those will reduce as and when the price of oil drops.

We've done that both with our material supply partners, but also our subcontract supply chain as well, where they're heavy users of the likes of diesel and the like. We review the prices by sector, we're seeing higher pressure on plastics and bitumen-related products, as you'd expect, bulk materials less so.

In many instances, the suppliers have hedged their fuel prices. I guess that might change if the conflict escalates again.

At the moment, we're relatively confident with the forecast that we've got, and we keep on going with the conversations we're having with the supply chain.

Thanks, Mike. Then just, yes, coming back, Will, on the question around land and commitments around the approvals, two things to flag.

One, obviously, you've seen already, but £330 million is our estimate in terms of land creditor outflows for the year ahead that is effectively baked in and locked in. On top of that, when we look at what is in the approvals hopper, effectively, there is broadly between £220 million and £250 million is the kind of broad feel in terms of that number.

Obviously, as the year evolves, that may change, but certainly as we sit here today in terms of committed spend, we're in that kind of scale, that order £220 million to £250 million.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Will.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question.

Can you just talk a little bit about the land market? I appreciate the sort of need or desire to invest is lower, but [unclear]-- Harry, sorry,

Harry. Sorry, you're not coming through clearly.

Harry, Harry.

Can you hear this any better?

That's a little bit better. Just go slow.

Thanks, Harry.

Okay. Just on the land market, please.

Notwithstanding the sort of need or desire to invest less, can you talk about what you're seeing in terms of opportunities and particularly pricing, and are there interesting deals out there if you did want to do it? Thank you.

Certainly, Harry. Look, thank you very much.

I think if we go back to February, one of the things that we were saying in February is that we have an enormous amount of our own applications in for planning. I think the whole industry anticipates that the changes coming from the legislation that was passed in December and the revised National Planning Policy Framework, which has not yet been published, but has been scheduled to be published this week, would result in a big change in the planning backdrop.

I think we've said previously that the legislation was delayed, the first half of the year was definitely impacted at a local level where there was local elections, and the planning policy framework has not yet been published, but nonetheless, applications have gone in. We would expect that the availability of land will alter substantially as we move through the second half of 2026 and into 2027.

We don't see any shortage of opportunity in terms of land with planning. I think it's more about the uncertainty of rates of sale, and also as Mike just talked about, the uncertainty of build costs in terms of us building up the viability position.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Harry.

Morning, thanks for taking my questions. I'll go with three.

The first is just on incentives. I think you mentioned that it's sort of moved higher due to the budget-related uncertainty, but feels like we could be in that scenario again with some stamp duty and Help to Buy rumors.

Are you worried about incentives potentially going higher again? Second one is just a bit of help reconciling land approvals going from around 22.5 thousand to 3,000, but land spend just moving down from £860 million to around £600 million.

Then finally, on build cost inflation, 3% to 4%, sorry to come back on this, but any view on how that split between calendar year '26 and '27? Are you expecting a big step up in H2 versus that 3% to 4% average?

Thank you.

Okay. Yeah.

Thanks very much for those questions. I think if I just pick up in terms of the incentive position, and John will then talk about the cash land spend v the land approvals, and also John can pick up in terms of the phasing of the headline on build cost inflation.

I think it's important on build cost inflation just to talk about the split in terms of labor and materials, which John will do. Look, I think it was well-documented last year that the way information about the budget leaked into the market from probably July, August time was enormously unhelpful, particularly regarding stamp duty, potential changes to stamp duty, as you touched on, the possibility of demand-side support, and also discussions about taxation around property.

We would just reinforce the fact that kind of leakage and speculation is enormously unhelpful for the market. We'll just need to see how that plays out.

There is already discussion in the media about the potential of there being demand-side support introduced, which clearly, net-net, we would see as being the right thing to do and a big positive for the market. The speculation around it is not going to encourage people to be transacting.

We've got to recognize there is potentially a delay effect in relation to those discussions. John?

Yeah. Zain, good morning.

Just on the first one in terms of the land spend and the profile. The key thing to flag here is that we have obviously, in the process, we approve land, that then sits there effectively in a holding hopper.

Then we will go through to subject to planning, clear the planning consents, and that would typically then trigger the purchase of the land. We'll obviously break out in September how many plots were actually purchased in the year, but the approval process is in advance of that.

Effectively, as our approval slow down, that will ultimately then slow through into land spend that you actually see going through the cash flow statement and hitting our balance sheet. It's purely around the timing of that.

Obviously, we had the 3,029 plots, they're sitting there as approvals, they will create that slower land spend. As I mentioned earlier to the question, we're talking about £220 million to £250 million of committed land spend on top of the land creditors.

There will likely to be a sharp slowdown as we move through into FY27 from FY26. In terms of build cost inflation, to David's point, a couple of things to flag really.

Clearly, we're flagging within build costs, which are about 60% of sales, you have broadly 60% of that is materials, 40% is labor. When we look at the labor content, we're flagging 2% to 3% inflation.

Given the backdrop of capacity in the industry and a likely slowing particularly among the smaller developers, then we think actually that labor cost inflation has probably got an ability to move lower. If we look at the material side between 4% and 5%, again, a lot of the supply chain is running at less capacity utilization than they would like, and that's why we've had success in terms of building in deflators as well as escalators based around energy and input costs, because I think the supply chain is keen to drive volume at some point and is particularly conscious of how much cost inflation the industry has borne over the last 5 years.

Those are the ingredients in there. I think from the point of view of how that build cost will evolve through into our numbers in FY27, a lot of this will depend on when we actually agree terms through September, October, but we were probably likely to see more of that inflation feeding through in the second half.

Pretty much in the way we value our land and looking at our landbank embedded margins, once we know about a cost increase, we reflect that in our valuations and that starts to come through in the margins as we report them, Zayn. Overall, probably slightly more build cost inflation in the second half, but it won't be that significant because we recognize it as we move forward and as we agree terms with suppliers.

Great, thanks both.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Morning, everyone.

A few again. I might as well keep the theme going.

First one then is about the sustainability of shareholder returns really, guys. The £400 million is probably going to be more than 100% of net income next year.

I appreciate lower land spend helps, but if you do have to move back into the land market at a more replacement rate, do you think you can continue paying that? Number two's really just about the outlets impact of this lower land spend as we move beyond '27.

Is it likely to be a little bit more severe than the reduction you've put through today for FY27? The final one, it relates to something you just talked about there, David, about Help to Buy.

I just wanted to know whether or not you've had any discussions with the government and kind of what you feel the probability of a return of the scheme would be.

Chris, thank you. If I pick up on shareholder returns and on Help to Buy.

I think on shareholder returns, I said in the overview that over the last 10 years we've returned around £3.5 billion in terms of shareholder returns. I understand that there's been clearly variable levels of profitability during that period of time.

Clearly, that's a significant average annual run rate in terms of shareholder returns. The £400 million that we've announced this morning, we're very clearly saying that that £400 million is in excess of how we're guiding on a go-forward basis.

We're guiding on a go-forward basis on returning on a two times cover basis for earnings, plus £100 million, which is where we were previously. We see that there is an additional return of £100 million to £120 million within that £400 million, and I think that's kind of clearly set out within the statement.

We're very conscious, as John's touched on already, about the other cash flow outflows that we have. Land creditors, clearly, is a trading liability, but is unquestionably a liability.

Then we also have the building safety liability, we're very conscious that these are significant outflows, and we're managing that in terms of the way that we're looking at shareholder returns. In terms of Help to Buy, I think, Chris, that the short answer is, of course we've talked to government.

We've talked to the previous government, we've talked to this government, we'll talk to the new government that forms shortly. We've been very clear that it is unusual in the market for there to be no demand-side support.

If you go back over the last 30 years, the vast majority of years there has been demand-side support, particularly focused on first-time buyers and recognizing that property prices are high and there are particular challenges around affordability for first-time buyers. We will obviously again make that point to the new government as we have done previously.

I think the other point that's key is that the industry has always said that we would pay for a scheme. We have previously paid in relation to government demand-side support schemes, we've never had a problem with paying, but we believe that the existence of a scheme is fundamentally important if we are going to collectively deliver the homes that the country needs.

In terms of outlets, Chris, obviously for the current year, the guidance there to 405. If we look at '27 moving into '28, we would still expect to make progress on sales outlets.

If you think about the timeframe from land approvals through to opening a sales outlet, you're talking typically 24 months. Any slowdown partly we'll be looking at clearly what we can do to drive additional sales outlets out of the existing portfolio.

Then the impact will be more about FY29 if there is a more extended period where we're not purchasing sites for additional sales outlets. As things stand, '27 and '28, we'd still expect to be making progress.

Got you. Thank you, gentlemen.

Rebecca, hi. Good morning.

Hi, thank you. Hi, morning.

I have two questions. The first one is an easy one.

Do you guys see any impact from the heat wave that we see some of the contractors are flagging this, and the demand and also the construction progress? The second question is on the landbank.

Can you tell us what do you expect the landbank years to be at the end of 2027? Should we still be expecting around 4.5 years target?

After that, should we presume your land plots acquired will be roughly equivalent to completions? Thank you.

Allison, thank you, yeah. Just pick on that.

In terms of heat wave, clearly, it presents challenges for our build teams, but I think we have very clear protocols in place. I think also, to some extent, our build scheduling, because of our financial year-end in June, I think that it's not been any challenge for us.

I think it's more a challenge around customers and customers' appetites to come out to sites, firstly. We're also balancing in terms of people watching football as well, there's plenty of challenges, but I think we're navigating our way through it okay.

Then in terms of the landbank, the reality is, no, we're not going to be at a 4.5-year landbank at the end of FY27, but we have been very clear that we are managing the landbank down to a 4.5-year position. I think that's a key point when we look at cash flows.

John touched on the creation of synergy sites, and we believe that that will help to free up both land and work in progress as those synergy sites really start to move and deliver completions, as they will do through '27, '28, and '29. It will take a bit more time to manage the landbank down to 4.5 years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, sorry about before. I was just wondering, given the step down in those plot approvals, just wondering how you're viewing that selective land buying strategy versus your medium-term volume growth aspirations.

I'll pause there, and then I'll ask my other questions later.

Okay. Rebecca, if I pick that up.

I think when you look at the growth plans that we set out in February '25, there was really three parts to that. One was new land that we had coming into the business that we had already approved.

The second part of it was the synergy sites, and we were creating outlets from existing land, therefore no need to go out into the market, and that was delivering 45 sites over a period as we've outlined this morning. Then the third part of it would be new land approvals.

The reality is the first two parts are secure. The land is under our control, and we can deliver the sites from that land.

The third part of it clearly is more variable. At an extreme, if we weren't to approve any more land, then clearly we would see outlet numbers come in lower than expected.

That isn't the backdrop that we expect. We've had multiple instances over the last 10 years, COVID for example, the war in Ukraine, where we have initially stepped away from the land market, taken time to assess as to how the market has settled, and then we've gone back into the market.

We wouldn't expect that to be any different this time.

Thanks. The adjusted admin expense came in significantly below your previous guidance.

Just wondering if you could unpack the key drivers behind that 70-odd million outperformance.

Yes.

Hi, Rebecca. Yes, coming back, obviously we guided to 400, we're delivering circa 330.

Two things really. One is synergies were obviously expected, although we did rather better.

Circa £3 million better there, which is a small movement, clearly. We did back in February really highlight that a big focus internally within the group in terms of looking to optimize and really control our cost base.

I think we're really pleased with the fact that across the business, both in the center and in the divisions, there's been a real focus on controlling costs and ensuring that we're matching that level of spend with where activity was moving. That's the bigger win.

There are a couple of minor credits in there, there are some small numbers, because you will see in the back we're guiding to admin expenses of around £360 million for the current year. That's quite a step up, but effectively within FY26, there were some one-offs of the order of £18 million to £20 million.

We're really starting with a cost base of call it £348 million to £350 million, which we expect to move to £360 million in the year ahead. It was really down to good housekeeping and the kind of disciplines that you'd expect from Barratt Redrow in terms of controlling our costs, looking at discretionary spending, and making sure we kept a tight lid on everything we were doing.

Thanks. Last question, just given that you've had additional legacy property provision charges here, just wondering what the risk is of additional remediation costs going forward, and what you're currently assuming on build cost inflation within that provision.

Yes,

Rebecca. In terms of build cost inflation within the provisioning, we're looking at sort of 4% to 5% in relation to build cost inflation.

Clearly, that is negotiated and set on a project-by-project basis, but as you would imagine, there is a lot of demand in terms of building remediation skills. We're putting in that sort of level in relation to inflation.

I think the second point, clearly, it's disappointing that there are further costs to take, but I think looking at the nature of those costs, they are primarily arising from buildings that we were already aware of, where we had made estimates in relation to the costs, and either when we've started the process of remediation or we've started the investigation in relation to the buildings in terms of looking at the structure, we have identified additional issues. I think the positive is that it's not about an expansion of the number of buildings within the portfolio.

Thank you.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Morning. Yes, thanks for taking the questions.

Just a couple from me. Just on the fire safety provision, clearly, the timing of the cash outflows is moving around quite a bit, just wonder kind of why it was a bit lower in FY26 and therefore the confidence of that quite high number in FY27?

Then also a question on mortgage availability, just wondering how that's shaping up, obviously, last few months since kind of energy prices went up would be really helpful. Thank you.

Certainly, thanks, Charlie. In terms of cash outflows, we've updated guidance in terms of our expected outflows across building safety and land creditors for FY27 and FY28.

The reality is in FY26, there's two main drivers of that, which we broadly refer to as kind of regulatory. All projects for remediation on buildings at 18 m and above has to go through the Building Safety Regulator.

It's been well-documented that whilst the Building Safety Regulator speed and performance has improved dramatically, there was a long period of time where it could be taking 9 to 12 months to put buildings, not just remediation, also new build, through the regulator. That's been well-documented.

The Building Safety Regulator has accelerated time scales very substantially in respect of new build, they're not necessarily meeting all of their targets, but they're much closer to meeting the targets on new build, but there is still a significant lag in terms of projects for remediation. That is delay number one.

Then delay number two is a significant part of the spend for the group is about the repayment to the Building Safety Fund, and we had made assumptions regarding the timing of those repayments, and we've simply moved those assumptions back from FY26 into FY27 and beyond. We're sort of capturing both of those under the subject of regulatory.

In relation to mortgage availability, I think if you look at mortgage availability in the round, it is much improved. Changes that have been made to the regulatory backdrop regarding mortgages, more competition in terms of the banks wanting to lend to new build, etc.

I think there isn't an issue per se on mortgage availability. I think it is more about pricing and the way that that feeds into the affordability calculations.

Thanks, very helpful. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Charlie.

Morning, guys. Just two for me.

Just coming back to the order book, it points to around a 1.4% reduction in the ASP. Can you just help us unpack how much of that is underlying versus mix and you're assuming some recovery given flat guidance HPI for FY27?

Then secondly, you highlighted the difference between average net cash and the period-end position. That's just to clarify whether you intention to remain net cash applies to both metrics and if that's a primary focus operationally for the business.

Thanks.

Hi, Lewis. John here.

Just coming back on the first one, the 1.4 is effectively when we do our matching pairs. When we look across our sites that were operating in the order book a year ago, operating this year, look at house types, and then look at the blended impact of pricing, that 1.4 is effectively what we'd call the like-for-like, the purified figure is the 1.4.

Obviously, then there is product mix and there is geography that plays around with the average that you see then from the average selling price of the order book spot this year versus last year. Hopefully that clears that one up.

Obviously, that 1.4, clearly, we're going to work hard to try and shift certainly the nominal price before we think about incentives. Trying to move that forward, but it's clearly a tough market to do that in right now where customers are as price-conscious as they are.

We'll be working hard to do that where we can. On the incentive level, as we kind of flagged, look, we expect that to stay broadly where it is.

One thing we are certainly doing internally and across all of our divisions is trying to focus our sales teams particularly on where is that customer on their journey. What type of customer, what time frame are they working to, because we need to look at our sites and think, well, where is the build stage?

Are we allowing a reservation with a high incentive pretty much at the point of foundation, or are we looking at a finished unit? Because it's obviously much more important to target incentives where we've tied up the capital, where we've got a completed unit, and it would be better to move that through the system and secure a purchaser.

Timeframe of development, the actual performance of each sales outlet is important in there as well. Then ultimately, what kind of customer are we dealing with?

What is their timeframe and what are they looking for? Those all play in that, but certainly trying to target and become ever more efficient in terms of using incentives where they matter most.

In terms of the average net cash, as you flag, we were £122 million average net cash in the year just finished. Certainly, we flagged in the statement that we want to operate over the medium term at year-end, we're without a large deficit in terms of the total net position of debt or cash less land creditors, we want to be broadly neutral in the medium term.

If we look at the position on average across the year, if you think about the impact of the buyback that David mentioned in terms of the incremental £120 million, £130 million, that would imply we'll operate with lower average net cash and potentially a bit of debt on average across FY27. Certainly at the end of the year, we'd expect to be back pretty close to that position in terms of a limited net indebtedness when we take account of land creditors.

Does that cover it all?

That's helpful, John. Thanks.

That's great. Thanks.

Thanks very much, Lewis.

We

will

Morning, everyone. I've just got one, really, and it's more of a bit of an industry-wide question, I think, is you've been pretty clear in your statement that you think the sector needs some sort of buyer support, especially for first-time buyers.

If we think, rightly or wrongly, that that remains kind of politically impossible and we have the current trading conditions continue for the next couple of years, my question is really where does the business and the sector go from here, and how sustainable is it to operate with the current returns profile before we need to see more fundamental changes to either the operating model or operating structure going forward?

Sam, thank you. I would say that if you consider a period of time, six-month period of time, looking historically, the industry has operated in the last 10 years with rates of sale that have ranged between 0.8, 0.85, and 0.3, 0.35.

I think the industry has operated effectively through some very, very different rates of sale. I think the first thing is that we've got to adapt to the market that exists in front of us, and that's adapting both in terms of the offers that we're putting in front of the customers, and it's also adapting in terms of our cost base.

Whilst we strongly believe that a demand-side support for first-time buyers is an important ingredient for the market given that the country needs to deliver more homes, but we're not planning our business on the basis that that is what is going to happen. Therefore, you've seen over the last 12 months that we've increased the level of incentives, from the combination with Redrow in part, and from our own self-help measures, we've driven a huge amount of cost out of the business.

The reality of it is that the industry will contract. The industry will not continue to grow.

We're probably one of the few housebuilders that is setting out a growth strategy. The reality is, if people start to take costs out and close divisions, inevitably, the industry will contract, and you're seeing that from a number of our peers within the industry.

We recognize that we have to adapt to the market as it exists.

Thank you.

Thanks very much, Sam. I think that's it in terms of all the questions.

Thank you for dialing in. Thank you for the questions, and we will be back with our full-year results on the 16th of September, we'll talk to you then.

Thank you very much.