Welcome to the Vistry Group results Q&A. Today, we're joined by Greg Fitzgerald, Graham Prothero, and Earl Sibley. As most of you are aware, we'll be inviting people to ask question over video today. To ask a question, please use the Raise Your Hand button, which can be found in the Zoom control panel. We'll be taking questions in turn. When you're asked to ask your question to the management team, you'll be promoted to a panelist. This may take a few moments. Once you're in the main section of the webinar, please ensure you unmute and start your video. One moment while we just. We've got our first question from Chris Millington. Chris, please go ahead. Thank you. Morning, everyone. Morning. Well done on the results. Thank you. A few, if I may, please. First one, can you just talk us through the impact bulk sales and maybe that Heylo deal has had on both the order book and the sales rate numbers at the start of the year? Yeah. That's the first one. Well, I'll do them as you go through, Chris. No problem. That's, only 81, next to nothing of the 1,000. We'll take the reservations as they come through. Got you. Other bulk sales through the start of this year, have they been more or less important than maybe last year? Far less than ever. 75 in the first eight weeks. If I'm honest with you, we probably wouldn't take a bulk deal at the present moment in time. I'd rather sell on the market, because obviously a bulk deal, you will give some level of discount. The market is such at the moment that I'd be prepared to take the risk and not do a bulk deal. Got you. Clear. Second one's just on build cost inflation. A few of the majors seem to be saying it's starting to emerge a bit. I understand your commentary that you're not seeing a great deal of pressure in that regard. Perhaps you can just kind of talk us through the differential and whether or not you see any kind of cost inflation emerging across the business. I think our peer group is probably saying somewhere between 2%-4%. We're seeing 1%-2%, and a huge part of that is down to the size of Vistry now, compared to where we were as Bovis. A number of the deals we've put together were over two years. This is going back to the first half of 2020. We put together deals for two years as opposed to one year, which is basically giving us some protection on the increases that are out there, particularly the likes of timber, which in some places or cases have gone up by 20%. Overall, Chris, 1%-2% it's for us at the present moment in time, it's okay, very manageable. Labor is pretty good. I'd also say that where we do have European labor, which is predominantly in London, over 95% of the particularly Eastern European labor we had on our sites leading up to Christmas has already returned. No real effects from COVID or Brexit as far as we're concerned. Great. Thanks. The final one is probably quite a difficult one to answer, but it's about the blend between sales rates and pricing. You said in your presentation Linden Homes have never seen this 0.78 sales rate, and given you're so far forward sold with that 64% number, at what point do you look to move pricing just to moderate that sales rate and capture a bit more margin? Okay. The market is strong in all of our areas of operation. Our West division have, two weeks ago, put prices up across the board by 1%, and our other businesses are not across the board, but the vast majority of sites, we are reducing the level of discount that is available, that our business units and sales advisors can do. One area where we put prices up by 1%, the West division. In other areas, the headline price stays the same, but we're reducing the amount of discount that we actually allow our sales advisors particularly to give out without getting authorization. It's happening as we speak, Chris, and it will continue to happen, I suspect, over the next four to six weeks. Those discount levels, Greg, are they lower than they were at the front end of 2020 when the market was clearly on the up at that point? I would say the West division, they're lower. I would say the South and East probably in line. Against 2020, January and February was incredibly strong. Bovis just got into power. Brexit, there seemed a bit of euphoria around. COVID, even at the end of February, was still something that was in kind of China. Prices and the market only started to come back as we got into March. The comparison that we're giving for the first eight weeks is against a very strong period the year before. Got you. Thanks so much. Thanks, Chris. You're in a toilet, Chris, are you? Yes, I am. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. We've got our next question from Will Jones from Redburn. Will, we'll be promoting you to a panelist now. If you could please unmute and start your video. Will, could you unmute and start your video? Thank you. Sorry. Got there in the end. Hi, Will. Hi there. Morning. Can I ask three, please? Apologies, I haven't had time as yet to listen to the presentation. The first was just on the tricky subject of fire safety. I appreciate it is a complex area. We are seeing different companies view things differently in terms of how they approach it. Can you just give us a feel for how you've tackled it as best you can at this particular juncture? I'll take that one now. You have to look at us as two organizations. Bovis, as you probably know, Will, used to get vertigo if they built anything over three stories. Bovis are a traditional two and three story house builder. The issues on cladding are zero to very minor. Linden, I'm pleased to say, were not far off, but they did build the odd apartment block around about the place. As of now, you'd have thought if it wasn't now, with all the publicity around it, we would have heard about it by now. We're only dealing with 10 blocks of apartments from queries from freeholders, leaseholders. We have sympathy with those people. We've only got 10 blocks, not even developments, that we're looking at. We don't know what our liability is. We're not sure we have any liability on those. We have sympathy with the people in the flats. We agree or support the government levy. For Vistry, this is an issue, but nowhere near top of my agenda. The provision that we've introduced on top of the balance sheet, which gives us now in excess of GBP 20 million to deal with any issues, was, if I'm brutally honest, only introduced in the last couple of weeks. Yeah. Right. Thank you. That's helpful. Second is just around the land bank, just eyeballing the house building position at December versus June. Looks like a few changes in the shape of it, and we've got bigger sites that December versus June, a lower average selling price and a lower cost of land. I mean, is that just the way the mix fell over the last six months, or can we read something into that around your strategy on land building? Will pick up that. The lower ASP, obviously by strategy, and a continuation of what we've been doing, so looking to buy on average smaller plots, as we've been doing both in Bovis and Linden. The percentage cost of land is very slight difference, and that's just the mix of what's gone out and come in truth. Obviously we've given you, as always, the margin in the land bank at 24.2, but we have, for the first time, in December, put in our estimate of the cost for the next part of the Future Homes Standard, so the Part L regulations that come in during 2022. Got it. Again, maybe I'm splitting hairs slightly, but the average plot size has gone from 112 to 130 in six months, which again feels like quite a big change, but maybe that's just a couple of things. It's a bit of mix. If anything, the competitive advantage now of the larger group, we're in much better shape to take on the larger sites. Dual branding is working very successfully. We're looking at opportunities for partnerships and house building to work alongside each other, they'd all be the larger sites. I would just emphasize on that, we are looking at two very large opportunities at the moment, which you've got the enlarged house building business and partnerships working together, which we think gives us a USP. We have solicitors instructed on both, and hopefully both will exchange, and that would equate to in excess of 2,000 units. Without any shadow of a doubt, the strategic rationale of bringing Galliford Try's housing businesses and Bovis together is absolutely working purely on the house building side. The average size of the sites that we are able to look at now, dual branding, because we used to get to the margin, but didn't get their own return on capital, just selling as Bovis or just selling as Linden, is working. What really excites me is partnerships full stop. The potential in partnerships is huge, and it's going great guns, as you would have seen from the statement. The fact that our partnerships business are now working very closely with our house building business, we are looking at sites that frankly, Bovis or Linden wouldn't have been able to look at, or frankly, Bovis and Linden together wouldn't have been able to look at and be competitive. We're really feeling confident. Going forward, we will buy larger sites than we did, which means you've got less developments to actually do, which de-risks the business because I'd rather be running a house build with 100 sites than 200. It's easier to do, more predictable. All right. Thank you. The last one for me, if I could please, is just exploring guidance. When I look at some of the individual comments around house building units, house building gross margin, what you want to do in partnerships versus GBP 310 million of PBT, and I appreciate the comment is at least GBP 310 million of PBT, but it would be quite hard, I think, for you to hit the moving parts and not do somewhat better than GBP 310. Obviously things like the house building ASP, we don't yet know, but perhaps there's something in that. Is that observation? I'll let Earl answer that. The at least is the new word there. It's at least 310. We're feeling pretty confident. We introduced the GBP 310 million last September. You've got to say, the way we ended the year, the carry forward position and the strength of the market in the last two months, I feel more confident with GBP 310 million than I did then, and I felt confident then back in September. Do you want to add anything to that? Well, the guidance is largely consistent with what we've given before in terms of coming through. Agree with Greg's comments, obviously, in terms of how we've come into the year and started the year. You don't have to agree. No, but I do. Okay. You mentioned ASP. Obviously last year, I don't know what you're guiding off, but 21% affordable. Whilst it looks like what we got in the land bank was low, there will be a greater proportion of affordable to come through in 2021. I would've thought it was more like mid-20s. If you're running off an ASP, that could be part of it. Risk on the upside. I think the other thing to just finish on there, Will, is that the GBP 310 million gives a greater EPS than we had in 2019. I know a lot of analysts are saying that the sector will get back to 2019 levels in 2022. The GBP 310 million, let alone anything more than that, is already ahead of EPS from 2019. Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Will. Great. Will, thank you for your questions there. We've got our next questions from Dean Grant from Bank of America. I will promote Dean to a panelist. Please turn on your video and also unmute. Just as a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. Hi, all. I just want to check that you can hear me okay. Very well. Hi, Dean. Good. Great, thanks. Hi there. Congratulations on the results. Thank you. I just have two questions from my side. One relates to the house building business. You obviously provided the volume target of 63,000 units for 2021. I'm just wondering on sort of a medium to- 6,300, Dean. Sorry. Not 63,000, because that would've been- Sorry. that would've been incredible growth. No, no, I'll take one notice of that. I was just wondering, in terms of your medium term outlook towards your 8,000 unit target, what is the sort of timeline we should be looking at towards this target? The second one is just on your land bank strategy. I understand you obviously have controlled land bank around 40,000 plots and strategic at 34. Within the house building business, you've outlined your 3.5 to 4 year land bank length looking to grow partnerships. I'm just trying to understand, should we expect land purchasing then to remain primarily at a replacement level going forward? Is partnerships, I think you mentioned it previously, able to draw on land within the house building land bank? If you could maybe just differentiate slightly, I know this is obviously a long question, just between your strategies on your controlled and strategic land banks. Okay, on the strategic land bank, whereas the strategic land bank as Bovis and probably Linden as well, was just for housebuilding, the strategic land bank now should be looked at as a supply to both our partnerships business and the housebuilding business. That's the first thing I would say. Strategic land goes to both aspects of the business. The timeline you said to go from 6,300 units to our medium term target of 8,000, I think we should look at that within five years. Would you agree with that, Graham? Yeah. Yeah. Within five years, and I would just go back to we are looking at controlled growth in housebuilding going forward. 2%-3%, I would say, for the next two to three years. Far more aggressive growth on the partnership side, particularly with that growth not coming from the partner delivery side, but coming from the mixed tenure development. That is why you're going to see going forward, as I said to a previous question, far more joint bidding between partnerships and housebuilding, taking us into areas where we've not been before. There's two fantastic opportunities where solicitors are instructed at the moment, one 600 units, one 1,500 units, that should exchange in the next month, which see the two businesses come together. We wouldn't have got anywhere near being able to, one, compete and two, meeting our hurdle rates of in house building, 26% or 25% gross profit and 25% return on capital. We might have got to the gross profit, but with one brand you would have never have got to, on a big site, that 25% hurdle on the return on capital. Bringing partnerships in and the two brands is taking us into areas where I'm sure we're now competing more with the Taylor Wimpey, Barratt and Persimmon of this world than we ever were going to do before. With regards to the actual land bank itself, I would've thought we will end up with a higher land bank at the end of this year. We currently have 6,100 plots today with terms agreed and solicitors instructed, which will go through in the next couple of months against housebuilding looking to do 6,300 completions. mixed tenure on partnerships would be how many this year? 2,000. 2,000. 2,002. We're not a million miles off two months in replacing the land bank in Partnerships and house building that we already have. I would strongly suggest that we'll end the year with a slightly higher land bank, which again, will facilitate the modest growth in house building that we're expecting going forward. With 25 outlets expected to be opened in the second half of this year on the Partnership side, it's the Partnership side that are going to see the growth in that mixed tenure development going forward. I'm sure it's not been missed, the 10% plus margin target that we set for 2022 with Partnerships in the second half of last year through the pandemic, they achieved 8.7%. Hopefully people are seeing that 10% is eminently doable. In fact, we have budgets and forecasts now bottom up saying that as opposed to me or the group dictating that we're looking for 10%. It's 10% plus, not 10% end of story. Sure. Very helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Dean. Thank you for the question, Sarah. I would like to promote Anastasia from UBS to the panelists. Please unmute and start your video. Anastasia, if I could ask you to unmute and start your video, please. Yes. Hello. Good morning, everyone. Hi, Anastasia. Thank you for taking my questions. Two, if I may, please. If you try to bridge from gross margin guidance this year in housing of 22% operating margins, where do you see your overhead cost savings this year and also beyond this year? Any more potential savings you expect and what are the sources for them? The second question on overall lower ASP housing due to the change of mix. What input do you expect purely due to mix change this year and next year, and when would you expect your mix in housing to stabilize? Also if you could give us some guidance in terms of the selling price profile for partnerships business and looking forward. Yeah. These are my two questions. Thank you. Thank you. Although that did sound like three, Anastasia. Anyway, Earl. Anastasia, I'll try and pick up the overhead. In reality, the overhead base we completely restructured with the enlarged group last year. We didn't get all the benefit of that in terms of efficiency, obviously, with what happened through last year and completion. We've got plenty of capacity in the business for growth so that overhead is already there, and you'll see that as a percentage, therefore, revenue come down significantly as we go forward. That'll come group as a whole, getting that under 5% in terms of the overhead. We've got the capacity to grow, as we talked about, house building onto as far as 8,000 units without putting in new offices, and we've got capacity to grow partnerships to the 6,000 target as well. In terms of pricing, I think our land bank is fairly stable, but there is still a mix to come through. I think if you're looking at total ASP, the biggest factor will be, as I mentioned to Will earlier, the impact of the affordable coming through compared to 2020. Looking at that mix, we've clearly given you the overall average that is in the land bank. I think we've been buying the sites with the mix of units that we want for at least a couple of years. You can see that mix on one of the slides in terms of the level now of smaller, lower price units. Very few apartments in the house building land bank in particular. That land bank is largely positioned where we want it to be. We're looking to at least replenish and grow that mixed tenure land bank. Have I answered all of your two or three questions? Yeah, that's clear. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Anastasia. Thanks, Anastasia. Our next question will be from Glynis Johnson from Jefferies. Hi, Glynis. Morning. Try and get so I'm not blinding you by the light there. Two questions, if I may, both on the slightly longer term. One, I wonder if you can just talk us through what you're doing in terms of trying to adapt to the Future Homes Standard. Not necessarily the Part L, Part F that's coming in the next 12 months, but the 2025. What are the estimates of how that might impact your costs? Then, while I'm on the longer term, Greg, you committed to the business till the end of 2022. When will we hear about the future post 2022 in that regard? Okay. Graham, do you want to take the question on Part L? Yeah. Cost appeals. Obviously, Glynis, as you're aware, we're having to make estimates ourselves because we're still trying to second-guess where the regulation will end. As I think we probably made clear yesterday, Part L, we've been allowing for that in our, i.e., the heating. We've been allowing for that in our appraisals now for over six months. What we're now doing, as I said earlier, is that we're reviewing both of the ranges, all of the house types, to accommodate not only Part L, but also the space standards and everything that we anticipate out of future homes. To some extent, we're having to second-guess where that regulation goes. To give you a number, we're sort of looking at the future homes piece, so electric vehicles and so on and so forth as kind of maybe GBP 1,500-GBP 1,800 a plot. We think that in the redesign, we will save some of that back and therefore, i.e., in terms of our Part L costs may be less than we're currently assuming because the redesign, the heat, we will make savings on heat loss, as it were, and therefore, our total current estimate of cost is likely to be slightly lower than we're currently factoring into the land bank, if that makes sense. Is that okay, Glynis? That's lovely. Thank you. And then- Greg With regards to me, Glynis, you're right. That's what we said. We weren't expecting a pandemic at the time, so I, unusually I think, invested in excess of a GBP 500 million of my own money into the company from March the 1st last year as the pandemic came in. If you watch your screens today, maybe there might be some more news of a further investment today from myself, which kind of puts where I am. I honestly would say now, I think the opportunities, the potential of this group is far greater than I thought, and I think we're going to come out of the pandemic stronger than we went into it by a country mile. I'm actually quite enjoying it at the moment. That's a lot of waffle there, Glynis, to say I'm not sure. At the moment, I'm thoroughly enjoying it. I think the company needs me at the present moment in time to keep going through the pandemic. We'll see how things pan out during the course of 2021 and maybe think about things again as we get into the start of 2022. I don't think I said anything there, really, but there you go. Thank you. Thanks, Glynis. Glynis, thanks very much for that question. The next person to be promoted to panelist will be Clyde Lewis. Clyde is from Peel Hunt. If you could just unmute yourself and also put on your video, please. I'm muted. Unmute and put your video on. Thank you, Clyde. Morning, all. Hi, Clyde. Morning. Clyde. I think I've got four, if I can. First, I suppose a couple around partnerships and land and I suppose the demand side on partnership from the major structural buyers. On competition for land in partnerships, what are you seeing on that side? I suppose linked to that is what are you seeing from the local authorities in terms of their appetite for partnerships related land at the moment? Graham, do you want to take that? Sorry, Clyde, are you asking their local authority's desire to work with us or competing with us in the land market? Well, it could be both, couldn't it? I think ultimately demand for the product- Yeah from the different aspects, local authorities in particular, because that's very much an evolving part of the demand profile there. Yeah. Thank you. Well, as you know, that demand continues to be very strong from the registered provider sector. The local authorities have just been increasingly coming into that marketplace over the past probably year, 18 months. I would say we're seeing it's much more the case that they're looking to work with us rather than competing against us. We're working with a large number of local authorities across the country and in general, it's that developer acumen that they're looking. That's the missing piece. In many cases, they've got land, they've got access to land or they've got a requirement and they have the funding for the development. What they want from us is the ability to develop. That's really, that's the match made in heaven. That's what partnerships are looking for. That's at the moment a very fruitful opportunity for us and a growing one. Mentioned that one of the two opportunities we were looking at. Well, yeah. I wasn't sure whether we were publishing that. One of the opportunities that Greg is referring to, one of the large sites, it's actually over 600 units, the funding will be 100% from a local authority. The competition for partnership schemes, are you seeing that change in any way at the moment? There's less competition for partnership schemes than housing schemes. We don't see any change in that. That's against where they're more in the marketplace because of the balance sheet of Vistry than they were within Galliford Try for obvious reasons. I'm not saying they're going to win every site that they look at, but their win ratio is strong. The second one I had was on ESG. I haven't had a chance to go through all of the comments about it. Have you changed the sort of management incentivation around some of the sort of ESG targets and strategies that you've evolved? Lee, do you want to take that? Mention that the ESG will include that next year. Yeah. Clearly, Clyde, in terms of the broad umbrella of ESG, we always have a health and safety underpin anyway. We have had that for a long time, and we'll continue with that. In terms of adding further specifics for the ESG agenda, we're looking at that. We haven't got it in right now, but certainly that is very much on the RemCo's agenda and our agenda. We share that, we will be looking at that for schemes going forward and for the LTIP going forward. From 2021, it will definitely be a key part of our incentive schemes. Great. Thank you. The last one I had was around, I suppose, product type. Obviously a lot of people are considering whether they want to be living in cities, in flats, apartments, and looking to move out, obviously less commuting, all those sorts of trends, and obviously the requirement for home offices. Are you noticing a sort of a different demand profile in terms of your smaller units as opposed to your bigger units? Is that the pattern you're seeing at the moment? It's fascinating. Bovis and Linden some years ago decided to focus more on two and three bedroom houses than five bedroom houses. Bovis particularly built, for the size of them, an awful lot of five bedroom houses, which was partly to do with why their sales rate was always so much lower than the other volume house builders. We've gone down the road successfully, I would say, both organizations over the last three or four years of land buying more for two and three bedroom than four or five bedroom, and you can see that with the average plot size within our land bank is now just over 1,000 sq ft. Being successful. That said, in 2019, we had some stock going into 2020 and the large percentage of that stock was larger four and five bedroom houses. Since the pandemic, they've all gone. We do not have any large houses left, and if you were just basing your strategy on what's happened in the last nine months, as we've gone into lockdowns and the pandemic, we wouldn't be looking to go into two and three bedroom houses. We'd be quite happy building the four beds and the five beds because the demand has been a lot stronger than it was pre the pandemic for obvious reasons. People are spending more time in their houses, they want an office, et cetera. I don't think those conditions will prevail, and they'll be around. It's definitely, no doubt about it, the pandemic has definitely helped go through our larger four and five bedroom houses quicker than we would've expected to without it. Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks, Clyde. Thank you very much for your questions so far. Just a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question, please raise your hand. Our next question is from John Fraser-Andrews from HSBC. John, we're just promoting to you as a panelist. Please unmute and please also turn on your video. John, could you just unmute and turn on your video, please? Yeah. Hi, John. Morning, John. Just need to unmute please, John. John, if I could just ask you to unmute. Right. Is that good? That's good. Hi, John. Morning, chaps. Yeah, three from me, please. First one is on partnerships and you've alluded to it, Greg, already with these two big sites that are close to completion. Are you generally going to much larger sites in partnerships to fuel that sort of strong volume growth that's in your business plan? That's the first one. You take that? Go on, Graham, take it. Yeah, clearly for any number of reasons, John, as you're aware, larger sites are more an economic way for us to approach it. It's very natural with partnerships and their placemaking and regeneration approach that they are very happy to take on the larger sites. Of course, whilst for partnerships, the key is not to use our own capital, but it sure as hell helps and makes us more flexible in putting the deals together if we've got the stronger balance sheet. Partnerships absolutely is able, under the Vistry umbrella, to work with those larger sites and more of them. I think that's definitely a yes. Okay. We were just discussing, I think it was a comment Greg was mostly around the housebuilding business, how you're positioned and you're in the sort of out of the city centers, gone to the smaller product. On the partnership side, can you clarify that that is a business that also focused out of town in the suburbs as opposed to a city center operation? Again, do you want to take that? Yeah. Go. I think partnerships will very definitely take on both, John, because if you think about where the large regen schemes are happening, that's typically local authorities looking to renovate or not renovate, to refresh. In other words, demolish and replace aging stock that's not really fit for the future. Very much partnerships will take on city center projects. Having said that, we'll then look at it as a group so that we risk assess and manage our exposure to the demand in city centers because we want to make sure that's right for us as a group. We're happy to take on some, if you like, sales risk in city centers, but we will moderate that. We wouldn't want to end up with a disproportionate sales risk in city centers. Of course, that doesn't mean that partnerships won't work very effectively in city centers. Predominantly in city centers, it would also be in a JV probably with. Yeah. Almost always. authority or partner. Almost always. City centers is a great source of work for the business. We will just balance the risk that we take in sales. Did you want to put some sort of number on that, Graham? In terms of city center exposure of that partnerships business? What sort of- what sort of percentage? John, it would vary. for instance, we would be probably more cautious about the central London or the center of Manchester. in terms of across the piece, I would say we would probably be 15%, 20% in city centers and the balance out in the regions. it will vary according to the palette of schemes at any time. Sure. Last one on partnerships, the partner delivery operation, is it fair to say now that land-led solutions are becoming the lion's share of that activity and you're leaving behind the low margin design and build work? Correct. We absolutely are happy to continue with partner delivery as it was contracting. Yeah, we would much rather the majority of it be where it's a negotiated contract, which predominantly comes from it being land-led or land introduced at the very least. Thanks. Final one for me. On the land market, with everybody now getting back in the swing of getting their volumes, most targeting to 2019 levels, quite a lot of activity, I am sure in the land market. Are you able still to be securing those gross margin hurdle rates you mentioned earlier, Greg? Yeah. As I said, yes, and we have 6,100 plots with terms agreed and solicitors instructed and it's quite surreal the amount of land approvals we have to go through at the present moment in time compared to where it was with just Bovis. No, we're not noticing anymore. Everyone is looking at land, I agree with that. That is, we are winning enough land at those hurdle rates to keep us very, very happy. If anything, on some of the larger ones, I would actually say at the margin the payment terms have actually got better over the last 12 months, i.e., the market hasn't moved, but we're able to extend the payment of it for an additional 12, 24 months. Great. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thanks, John. John, thank you for your question. We've got our next question from Charlie Campbell from Liberum. Charlie, just promoting you to panelist. If you could turn on your video and unmute yourself. Please go ahead. If that's working, yeah. Morning, all. Just one from me, really. We've talked a bit about the sales rates so far this year, and obviously the acceleration in the last month. Just wondering if you could maybe talk a bit about the lead indicators of reservations. Whether that's kind of web traffic or appointments for visits or anything of that sort of order, just to give us an idea of whether this momentum can continue much further and what sort of visibility you've got on that. Things strengthening in the last month is maybe a bit of a surprise to some of us. Before Earl answers that, I would say that the current week, which would be the last five weeks, will be more in line with 0.78 as well. The current week is strong. On the prospects, sir? Charlie, the best indicator at the minute is our prospects coming through our websites. That's where virtually everything is originating for obvious reasons. Those are at levels that we've never seen before. Obviously a step change with COVID, at levels we've never seen before. They're continuing at that level. The highest we've ever recorded was two weeks ago, there doesn't seem to be too much stopping it as we go forwards, that's what's coming through. Clearly that translates into appointments, calls, et cetera. It's really prospects is the lead indicator, which kind of looks at what's going to happen over the next three or four weeks. I would actually say, I think that is one of the reasons why Bovis used to lag the volume housebuilders by a fair distance with regards to our rate of sale. I think over the last 12 months, what we do on the websites is better because Bovis have learned from Linden have learned from Bovis, and you come up with a better solution, which was another strategic rationale for the deal. We are undoubtedly, I would say, better today as an organization than we were 15, 16 months ago. I think there is an increase in the number of people, but I also think, if I'm making any sense at all, Charlie, we're better at it as well as an enlarged group. Yep. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you. That would be nothing to do with me, of course, because I'm useless with IT. As we know. Thanks, everybody, for your questions so far. Just a reminder, if you'd like to ask a question to the management team, please raise your hand. We've got a further question from Dean Grant from Bank of America. Dean, promoting you to panelist again. Just as a reminder, please unmute and your video. Please go ahead, Dean. Great. Thanks, gents. I've just got one follow-up. It's actually just on partnerships and obviously your targets for 2022 of operating margin of 10% or above. I just want to understand, of the 3,000 units in contracting or partner delivery, as you call it, in FY 2022, what percentage would be land-led? Am I correct in my understanding that land-led would be at the sort of upper range of the 3%-11%? Would we be looking at sort of 8%-11% or what does that sort of range primarily for land-led? You'd be looking at 8%-10% from the land-led. For the percentage of 2022? I would say about 40%-50%. 40%-50%. That percentage will get higher as per one of the previous questions as we go on from 2022. Sure. Very, very helpful. Thank you very much. Okay, we have no further questions at the moment. If I could pass back to yourself, Greg, for closing remarks. Thank you. Thank you for all the questions. Hopefully you all found the video useful and even entertaining. I would just finish off by saying I am genuinely excited about the prospects for Vistry Group going forward. We've done exceptionally well over the last 12 months, and I think we're in great shape.