Hello and welcome to the Vistry Trading Update conference call hosted by CEO Greg Fitzgerald and CFO Tim Lawlor. My name is Alex and I'll be your operator on the call today. If you'd like to ask a question once the presentation has finished, please press star followed by one on the telephone keypad. If you'd like to remove your question, you may press star followed by two. I'll now hand it over to Greg Fitzgerald to begin. Please go ahead. Thanks, Alex. Hi everyone. As Alex said, it's Greg Fitzgerald. I'm delighted. I'm joined by Tim Lawlor, Susie Bell and Stephen Teagle. Thank you all for joining the call today and I'd like to start by going straight into the detail of the cost issues we previously reported in our South Division. Here I'll focus on three key areas. First, what the issues were and the steps we have taken to review our entire business. Two, the reasons for the incremental negative impact on our forecast versus October 8th, and third, most importantly, why, despite these challenges, we are confident in the company's future and our ability to deliver substantial shareholder value going forward, so first, the issues we found in our ex-housebuilding businesses that make up our South Division. Poor commercial forecasting largely focused on large older former housebuilding sites where build costs were wrong to the tune of 10% to 12%. A divisional leadership which consisted of former housebuilding businesses carrying previous mistakes. Management capability in certain areas has been an issue, noncompliance with our processes, and a poor divisional culture that all relates to the South Division, and what did we do in response to this? On top of the independent review which is set out in the statement, I initiated the most thorough internal review that I have seen in my 40-year-old career. All sites, all regions have been thoroughly reviewed with CVRs. That's those of you who don't know that's full life of site cost reviews. The scope of the reviews covered six divisions of 26 business units and this has been conducted at a senior level with the ELT. That's the executive leadership team leading the process. In fact I sat in the CVR review myself of our largest site earlier this week. We have looked at compliance with processes, the quality of reporting and most importantly the quality of people within the business. That's demonstrated that the issues in the South Division principally relate to sites from the former housebuilding business. And critically we found no systemic issues outside of the South Division. And that's the big takeaway. So let's address head on the negatives that came out of this exhaustive review. There were three primary reasons for our reduced profit guidance. First, the review showed that the financial impact of the issues in the South Division were greater and we previously estimated. But I can tell you now, following the exceptionally deep review, we are extremely confident that we have now uncovered in the last five weeks the full extent of the issues and there will be no more adjustments. The second reason, we have gone through the rest of the business side by side with a fine tooth comb and found a number of individually small items business as usual, I would say in aggregate that reduce our profits for the year and by GBP 8 million. And third, as you've heard from other housebuilders, market conditions have generally been weaker than we had hoped. We have reflected these weakened conditions in our forecast and again this may prove conservative. We'll wait and see. That's the negatives. Now let's look at just a few of the positives that give us confidence we can rebuild over the next 12 months and put the company back on a path to deliver our previous medium term targets. Most importantly, the issues relate entirely to the South Division and predominantly one of the four business units. We have reviewed our entire business and can say with confidence that the other divisions are healthy and operating well. In fact, our partnership sites have some of the best cost management in our business and they are typically lower risk as the projects are completed faster. As I mentioned, the impacted sites were nearly all legacy house building sites. That's important as it's not reflective of our partnerships model and that remains the right model for value growth. The second reason to be confident the issues in the South Division are very fixable. We will be stronger and a better organization after this. We know what best in class operational standards look like as they already exist in other divisions. We have a number of our partnerships businesses already producing 12% margins and return on capital employed in excess of 40%. And those best in class standards will become our norm across the entire business. Also, we can and will make necessary management managerial tweaks such that an issue like this never happens again. Vistry has been through two major acquisitions and a major strategy shift in the past several years. And in some ways the issues are a function of too many organizational layers. Developing these changes I am making will eliminate these layers and see me operating much closer to the coal face. Third, we will move past these issues. The issues on the specific sites in the South Division will largely work their way through the system by the end of next year when these projects conclude and are replaced with new healthy projects that are underwritten at higher standards. At that point I believe we will largely be back on track for our medium-term trajectory and there may be a step function improvement in our profitability in 2026 and beyond. Fourth, our performance. We are performing well on our critical operational metrics such as on-time delivery, build quality, safety, customer satisfaction and employee retention. In fact, we have just concluded our biannual independent staff survey, the results of which put us in the upper quartile of the manufacturing sector. This is our foundation and gives us confidence that we can quickly get back on track. And finally, the overwhelming support we've had from our partners, customers and subcontractors. They absolutely see Vistry delivering high quality homes on time and are committed to grow with us going forward. So, in summary, very disappointing to find further issues in the south, but we are addressing them and they are not symptomatic of the wider business. And I'll just finish with, on the positive side, they are one off as we clear the house building Legacy Land Bank. The business has had a robust, if you like, MOT through the independent review and the phenomenal amount of work that we've done in the last month and we are absolutely now confident that we have the controls in place going forward. We remain financially strong and anticipate finishing the year with a small amount of debt and indeed lower than the debt we had at the end of 2023. Our partnerships model remains the right one for driving value, right for the political environment and right for capturing further momentum. We remain in a leading position for working with our partners and are completely aligned with the Government's ambition. and that's important. Before we move on to questions, can I just ask Tim to put a little bit more color around the movement of the numbers, please, Tim? Thanks, Greg. Morning everybody. Yes, a few moving parts within the numbers. So just to try and provide a little bit more clarification beyond what is in the trading statements, let's start with the direct impact of the south numbers. So we came up with an initial estimate back at the start of October as the issues broke, that the total impact of the cost issues would be 115 million over the life. We've now concluded that number is 165 million. So an increase of GBP 50 million over the life, that GBP 50 million, we will see 25 million of that hitting the FY24 profits, GBP 20 million impacting the FY 2025 profit and the balance of 5 in later years. So that means the total impact of the South Division issues in this year in FY 2024 is GBP 105 million and the total impact in FY 2025 is GBP 50 million, which then leads us into our revised profit expectations. In the statement today, we are now saying we're expecting profit before tax to be circa GBP 300 million in FY 2024. So that reduction of GBP 50 million from the previous guidance 25 is from the South Division. As I just mentioned, the GBP 8 million that Greg mentioned from our detailed review across the rest of the business and the balance is due to a lower expectations on volumes for the year, which is partly due to market and partly due to a slowdown in taking stock in the South Division. So our guidance for volumes for the year is now circa 17,500. In terms of cash. The South Division issues had already been reflected in the cash forecasts for the year, but previously we talked about hitting a net cash balance for the end of the year. We now believe it will be a net debt position that we're in at the end of the year due to that reduction in volumes that I just mentioned. However, we still think that we're going to end up in a strong net debt position against last year despite these challenges, and we expect that our net debt for the year end will be a lower value than the GBP 89 million reported at the end of 2023. For FY 2025, it's too early to provide any formal guidance. What we would say though is that we would expect analyst forecasts to come down as a result of what we're announcing today and we've named or identified the specific GBP 20 million reduction in relation to the South Division. On top of that, we'd expect volumes to be lower in 25 than current consensus for two reasons. One is that we've got a lower starting point, the 17,500 for this year. And the second is that we're taking a more conservative view on growth given the market conditions and the need to stabilize the South Division in terms of the medium term targets. As Greg said, we remain committed to those medium term targets and to be a capital light business that distributes to shareholders. What we need to do though is we need to review the time frames in light of what we've discovered. We need to take account of the fact that we're starting from a lower point and over the next couple of months we're going to be reviewing the direct impact of the south, the impact of the changes that we're putting in place as a result of the south issues and also complete the budget process that it's going through so we'll provide greater updates on the time frame of the medium term targets in the new year, and with that I'll pass back to you Greg Great. Very good, Tim. Thank you. So we'll now take questions. Alex, please. Thank you. As a reminder, if you like to ask a question, you may press star followed by one on the telephone keypad. Our first question for today comes from Aynsley Lammin of Investec. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. Morning. I've got three questions actually just on the medium term kind of outlook, the targets. You haven't explicitly mentioned the GBP 800 million operating profit but I guess that still is in place. And when we think about that, is it just a question of pushing out the timing of that? I mean 5 of the. I think 60% of the cost relate to five big sites once they work through. Is it correct to kind of be of the view that actually your GBP 800 million is still in place and you see no negative impact from whether it's reputational impact on partners, their willingness to do business with a group and once you work through those sites you're back on track, as you say. And if you give any kind of indication of the issues that might push the kind of timing of delivering the GBP 800 million that would be helpful. Secondly, just on average net debt, be interested an update on what your average net debt is expected to be for this year. And then the last question. I think there's a line in there saying you're also reviewing your building safety provisions. Just a bit more color around that in terms of the scale of the actual provision increase you might expect before any recoveries or the tax impact to be helpful. Thanks. Okay, I'll hand over to Tim for all three of those. But just on that before I give to Tim with the numbers with regards to our partners, as I said in my opening remarks, Aynsley, and we've spoken to them all during the course of last night and this morning, and Stephen Teagle particularly has. They remain incredibly supportive and see this as a South Division issue, particularly the transfer of house building sites into partnerships. So in a strong place with our partners. Tim on that. Okay, so the first. One, in terms of the medium-term targets, yes, the GBP 800 million AOP remains part of our targets, but clearly that's a question of timing. The demand is there for the business. We can achieve the volumes that we previously talked about. We're starting from the lower point, so that AOP target will be pushed out to the right, but exactly to when we need to work through in terms of average net debt. We're expecting average net debt to be in the region of GBP 500 million for the full year. In terms of building safety provisions, we're midway through the review process. There's lots to consider in this area, and we've got to work with our auditors and other advisers to conclude. It's too early to talk about the total quantum of the provision increase in terms of the cash impact next year. There were two things at play here. One is the timing, and we'll provide a clear update in terms of the timing because the profile of the spend is moving around and we'll provide clearer guidance on exactly where 2024 finishes up, which 2025 on the timing. And the overall building safety provision increase will have some impact on cash. But as we said in the statement, we don't expect that to be material because while the total costs going out in the provision are likely to go up, we will expect our recoveries to go up as more sites are introduced. And also there was a tax benefit or a tax deduction on that provision as well, which means that the cash impact in the year from the additional provision won't be material. Thanks, Tim. Thanks, and just one. Yeah, could I just have one last one? Will you name the accounting firm, the big accounting firm that did the independent review? We can't do that, Aynsley. And this is a stipulation from them, and the reason is pretty simple, is that it just requires them to go through more steps and hoops in their process and we wanted them to get on with it as quickly as we could. So we didn't want to have to wait two weeks to go through their internal risk programs. So that's the reason why we didn't negotiate to get them named. But you can take it as read. That is one of the larger accounting firms. Great. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Our next question comes from Charlie Campbell of Stifel. Your line's now open. Please go ahead. Just sort of one question, but it's probably quite broad, actually, just to understand the change in the volume guidance a bit more and just sort of try and understand kind of that 500 unit change, you know, what's market and what's kind of a deliberate policy to slow down a bit and just if you could just explain in that context and also kind of looking further out, just a bit more color around kind of some slower demand around partnerships, around rates going up. Is that a temporary thing or should we be thinking about just, you know, there's a bit less appetite from that sector than we might have otherwise thought before. Just if you could help us out on those, that'd be really, really appreciated. Thank you. Okay, so on the numbers, the 500 reduction, I mean, all I can say it's a view sat here with less than two months of the year to go and it's a review on. We found the market leading up to the budget, the private market, a little bit of uncertainty caused reservations to be slightly lower than we would have expected. And we're also, whilst we've been focusing so much on going through everything in the South Division and it's been extensive and then the rest of the group, we've just taken a view that there will be, particularly in the South, a couple to 300 units less coming out of that as we've been focusing on the management structure of that business going forward. With regards to the market, I mean, before I go into the market, that affordable market, if you like, with regards to the budget, the PRS market, we found that it's been the best market for us in the last 12 months. I don't think the budget entirely helped that going forward. So I'm sure the interest rate dropped yesterday would have helped. But the PRS market needs to think about what the government has said and there potentially is a little bit more inflation with regards to the affordable market. And this is the major part of our strategy, what I would say, and you can all take this however you like. So 12 months ago we introduced the partnership strategy. And the partnership strategy was on the back of a government coming in during the course of 2024 that would absolutely be focusing on house building and particularly partnerships in affordable housing to drive unit numbers up. So at the time of the strategy announcement, we had a Conservative government who had made planning by removal of local plan numbers incredibly difficult. No money really going into the affordable housing program, etc., e tc. One year on, we have a Labour government that have come in that talk nothing but and nothing but since we want 1.5 million homes delivered and we want a far greater number of affordable homes going forward. So in the budget a few days ago they announced a GBP 500 million stimulus because we are at the end of the 2021-26 affordable housing program, which we knew. At the time of announcing the strategy, most of the cash available in that program finishing 2026 was either spent or allocated. The GBP 500 million that they announced in the budget is helpful. We know the government and housing associations are currently talking about rent reviews at CPI plus 1% and maybe five years, maybe 10. We'll see how consultation goes, which is very, very helpful. The noise and the mood music from the government is as we expect. The replacement to the 2021-26 affordable housing program, taking us to around 2031, will be announced in the spring budget. The government absolutely know that the only way they are going to get anywhere near 1.5 million homes is to absolutely put more money into that program. But that program will be the first time whatever goes into it would be the first time in the last two years where there is new money available for affordable housing. So on the affordable housing side, the strategy. We're in a better place today than we were, and as I explained to our board yesterday, if we hadn't had these issues in the south of the country, in the South Division, and Labour didn't get into power and we continued to make this year's forecast, our strategy would have been more in doubt, in my opinion, than having issues in the South Division. With a Conservative Party still in power carrying on with their issues with regards to planning and where they are with affordable housing, our strategy is in a much better place with this new Labour government as long as they convert their ambitions into absolute targets. Long-winded answer there, Charlie. But what I'm basically saying is, I think on the PRS market a few schemes may be delayed a month or two as they look at the potential of inflation going forward. But on the affordable market, very happy that we've got GBP 500 million worth of additional stimulus going into the sector which is much needed and incredibly buoyed by the talk from the government with regards to rent agreements with housing associations and local authorities. In particular, the ones and the affordable segment are put into the replacement for the 2021-26 affordable housing program. Thank you. Thank you. Cheers. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Will Jones of Redburn Atlantic. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you. And morning. I'll try three if I can please. The first, just back on the South Division and the cost hits which are heavily condensed into 2024 and 2025. I appreciate, given the house building element of it, some of that will be looking back as well, probably before 2024 to catch up. But could you just reassure us that when you think about the land that has been bought by that division recently, that the cost errors have not spilled into those land buying assumptions that may impact, I guess, further out. The second one was just, I think that the release mentions the pressure being felt by the business as a contributing factor. I just wondered, do you think it was more the pace of change in the business or the pace of growth being sought? And how do you think about the appropriate either rate of sale, level of volume, degree of growth that is appropriate without maybe similar issues recurring in the future? And I think the last one was just you mentioned about organizational layers, Greg, in your opening remarks, and how that may have contributed perhaps some more color on that and what might change on those layers. Thank you. Okay, I'll take the second and third, but Tim will take the first part. Yep. Okay. So, yeah, actually, in some ways it's comforting that after all this review, we found that the issues are centered on 2024 and 2025, because what that says is that they are largely relating to sites that are nearing their completion. So there's a minimum amount in 2026. What we've continued to do through the year is ensure that any new land acquisition comes through hitting the hurdle rates of the new partnerships model. So everything that we sign off is at 40% plus. And we haven't been making adjustments to any of those contracts during this process. On your second point, which is pace pressure, yes, the pace and pressure has clearly impacted to an extent the South Division. But what I can say is that the build costs were wrong by 10% to 12%. So they weren't wrong last week or six weeks ago, they've been wrong for a period of time. The nine sites that we talked about on October 8th, the build cost of those nine sites was not a million miles away from GBP 1 billion. So 10% to12%, I've seen that kind of number before, lots of times, but not on nine sites altogether. And not on nine sites, one particularly being very, very large. But the pace and pressure, I think, is not to do with. It is to do with the capability around about of certain individuals within the division. Because the pace and pressure, I can say with an absolute straight face, is at least the same in the other five divisions. And the other five divisions are dealing with that pace and pressure exceptionally well and are a little bit dumbfounded as to what's happened in the South division. So the pace and pressure of the change is no different in the West, East, North, Midlands divisions and London. So there's no real issues there. But you obviously need people to be able to deal with that pace and pressure. Then on the organizational layers, because of the acquisitions of Galliford and then Countryside, up until Christmas last year, we had an organizational structure of a COO and then beneath that we had a CEO of partnerships and the CEO of housebuilding, then divisional chairs beneath that which was a function of the acquisitions and in hindsight looking at it now, too many layers. One of those layers was removed as we came into this financial year January 2024 with CEOs of partnerships and housebuilding no longer there with the divisional chairs reporting through to the COO. So, some of that divisional-led already been taken away and we are currently reviewing what else we can do to primarily, I have to say, get me closer to the cost base but we'll probably be able to make a further announcement on that as we get into January with the next trading update. Did you want to add? Yeah, just as one thing. So Will was asking that pace of change versus pace of growth. I think if we think about the feedback that we've got from the review, talking to people internally as well, the sense is that the sort of things that refer to in terms of pace have been very much those internal looking things around the change program. So what we have been going through as a result of the integration, so that's org structure, system changes, standardization of processes. We haven't heard people say we've got too many, we're trying to build too many houses, we're trying to buy too much land. It's not been a volume or growth related pace issue, it's been a more internal stability point. Well I can add this from a Bovis perspective. Back in 2017 Bovis were at the time going down a growth program from 2014 and if you look at what happened to Bovis back then in 2014 they were a five star house builder and their RIs, which is basically a gauge against their build quality that independently gets inspected, verified by the NHBC, were very, very strong. As you got to 2016 all of those RIs were getting progressively worse and by the time we got to 2017 they were zero star and their RIs were off the range of every other house builder. What I can say in the South Division, let alone everywhere else in the organization are high rise. The NHBC would look at our build quality in the upper quartile of the larger house builders. We've won more awards for build quality than we've won before. If you then move to health and safety, our statistics are higher by some distance than the benchmark. If you move to customer satisfaction, we are a five-star house builder. We continue to be and our scores have actually gone up including on the nine-month survey. And then if you actually then take staff churn. Staff churn is as low as it's been for 10 years. And if you also look at the statistics from the Peakon survey that I mentioned in my opening remarks, we currently have an engagement score of 8.2, which is up on a year ago. Again, so all of the cadence, whether it's build quality, whether it's customer satisfaction, whether it's people, whether it's health and safety, are all as good, if not better than they were a year ago, which shows that the business is coping with the phenomenal amount. There's no getting away from it: amount of change that has come from three acquisitions, change in processes and a change in strategy. Thanks, Will. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Our next question comes from Emily Biddulph of Barclays. The line's now open. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my question. I've got three, please. I think they're probably all for Tim. Firstly, I think the interest costs on debt this year are likely to be in the mid-50 millions, based on the rates you disclosed in the annual report. I think that implies a daily average net debt position of something north of GBP 8 million. Can I confirm I'm right on that? And then secondly, can you update us on what the peak capital requirements are for the business? And then finally, so thirdly, and linked to this, does growth in here necessitate further investment? Is the risk that you need to temper your growth ambitions because of the funding requirements or are the levers that you can pull on cash or anything else to give yourself sort of some extra headroom? Thanks very much. Thank you, Emily. [crosstalk] Hi, Emily. Yes. So in terms of the interest costs, I mean, your calculation is not far off because we do have a highly sort of seasonal profile. And the daily debt is greater. The average daily debt is greater than the average month end net debt. We normally say that the average daily debt is something like GBP 200 million higher than the average month end net debt system. Slightly lower than the numbers you just calculated there. In terms of the peak capital requirements, I think we take the second and third ones together and peak capital requirements and tempering growth. So we monitor our cash flow closely. We're aware of the seasonality. I'd love to flatten the profile, but that's the sort of nature of the business and something that will probably take years to change. But we are not constrained by our capital. So as we are looking at land acquisitions, we're not having to say, you know, we haven't got enough, we haven't got enough cash to buy the land that we need and we've got the financing that we need in place. We're going to, you know, as part of our review of medium term targets, we'll be looking at all of our balance sheet metrics as well. But at the moment we're not feeling that that is a restraint on growth. We are tempering growth into 2025 as we've said before, partly as we take stock of these issues in parts of market conditions, but it's not a capital constraint based reduction. Thanks Emily. Great. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Chris Millington of Deutsche Bank. The line's now open. Please go ahead. Morning guys. Please. Morning, Greg. I'd just like to explore the cost inflation point you refer to in the statement a little bit more, perhaps the details about what's driving that and perhaps your best estimate of what that cost inflation is likely to be in 2025 and perhaps just a little to that. Can you confirm how that maybe works against some of the fixed price deals you've done in the PRS market? The second one is just about your point on time delivery. Greg, perhaps could you just give us a feel as to how much more there is to do in 2024 with regard to completions and perhaps just talk around the phasing of completions around the quarters because it does look like you're getting a little bit back-end loaded with that profile of leverage. Okay, so thanks Chris. So on the cost inflation, we're broadly neutral this year. Has there generally been inflationary pressures during 2024? Absolutely. But when you're building the number of houses that we are, which is more than anybody else, we are finding that with subcontractors and suppliers we are doing and continue to do some great deals. So I believe we are in an inflationary environment in 2024. But because of the change in strategy, which gives subcontractors visibility, which they absolutely treasure, we are managing to hold on to costs through this year as we go into 2025 and getting initial reactions from discussions we're having with suppliers and subcontractors. I do believe there will be some which are now going to be based on our lower number. I do believe we have a lower cost base because of our size, not because we're any better than the other householders. I do believe we will see some inflation and I believe we'll see inflation at around 3%. That would be what I see. And part of that 3% will be in relation to those subcontractors and suppliers passing on the national insurance costs that the government introduced in the budget that we will also see during 2025 onwards, but also a little bit more to it than that. You also then mentioned, Chris, what does that mean for PRS where we have fixed price contracts, as you probably heard me say before, where we have a fixed price contract, we have very healthy contingency and more importantly, very healthy fixed price allowances. So those fixed price allowances would be more than the 3% that I just raised, where I think I and our procurement team think we will get to it. So we are covered on increased costs on those fixed price contracts. Is that all right, Chris? Oh, phasing, sorry. You also mentioned [crosstalk] it was the first thing of completions and what's left this year? Yeah, yeah. What I can say, I mean, that's a detailed question. But what I can say to you is sat here now with our revised expectations, we have less to do and less risk than we did at the end of October last year. So at the end of October 2023 and we got to GBP 419 million kind of profit. We're in a stronger position today with the difference between that and where we're now expecting to get to, which is circa GBP 300 million. I hear you. All right, thanks very much, Greg. Thanks, Chris. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Gregor Kuglitsch of UBS. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Hi, I hope you can hear me. So maybe. Good morning. I have a few questions. Maybe can I just sort of come back to the leverage point? So you're basically saying this year in the end, GBP 500 million of average debt, which is sort of stable sequentially. I guess my first question is, do you think that can go down next year or given where things are, do you think that'll be challenging? And I guess related to that, you've, I think reiterated your share buyback program that's ongoing, but I think at the same time have kind of put the sort of GBP 1 billion, I think that you previously disclosed or announced sort of under review. I guess, I wonder, given the situation on debt and profit, why you've chosen not to suspend the buyback. Perhaps once things stabilize, you can then recommence. I just want to wonder what the thinking is around capital distribution, I guess at this point, given the performance of the business. Thank you. I'll pass on to Tim. On the share buyback, we will certainly be looking at the share buyback with regards to our current share price. I'd rather be buying the shares back at today's price than where they were. That will be the direction of travel on that. Tim, do you want to take the two questions? Yes. It's probably a bit early to be talking about specific average net debt targets for 2025 given we've not got profit guidance out there. Just as a general principle though, we would be looking to reduce it slightly given that the 500 number that I mentioned just before is higher than we have been targeting for this year. And we're expecting some good cash generation from some of our projects next year. So we would hoping it would come down, but I'm not going to quantify that at this stage. In terms of the buyback program, as you'll be aware, we're operating at a fairly modest rate at the moment, but staying in the market and continuing to buy over the course the next couple of months. As part of our review of the time frames, we'll be looking at the time frames of the future, of the future buybacks and the GBP 1 billion, all as part of the speed of achieving the medium term targets. Obviously there is going to be a lower ordinary distribution arising from the fact that there are lower earnings from FY 2024 and 2025 than previously expected, which will be factored into the GBP 100 million, and we need to look at what the weight of capital release that we have over the course of the next 12 months to determine the level of special buybacks that will be on top of those ordinary distributions. Okay, could I also maybe follow up on so that I'm now clear on the debt? Roughly where are you looking? Land creditors will land. You were GBP 600 million before and can I push you a little bit more on the provision point? Appreciate you get some tax relief and stuff like that, but give us an idea. We're talking GBP 50 to GBP 100 million extra fire safety provision just to sort of give us a little bit of a range of what's possible. Thank you. You can try and push me, but I really don't want to give a number on that at this stage. You know, we haven't presented anything to the board yet in terms of what that number is and there are lots of internal challenges still to come so, and I'm not going to give a number on that at this stage. That's right. We did say in the statement that we think it would be is the word we used. Modest. We said not material. Not material cash, which is the main thing from that. Go on, Tim. So what was the second part of the question, Gregor? Was that land creditor balance? Yeah, land creditors. No reason to change what you've already assumed in terms of land creditors stable, you know, we're buying a good level of land. We talk about the land acquisitions in the second half of the year. So in a good place in terms of land secured for next year. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Alastair Stewart of Progressive Equity Research. Your line is now open. Please go ahead. Hello, can you hear me? Yeah. Morning, Alastair. It's just following on from your reference to PRS being so ahead of the budget. I know that the open market sales aren't such an issue for you these days, but most of the other house builders have reported a slowdown ahead of the budget. Just asking why, man, today because you're the latest one. Have you seen since the budget? And I know it's only been, you know, a week and a bit. Has there been any change in site visitors, clicks to your website and so on on the basis that maybe it was traveling and arising that things were quite as bad as expected before the budget? So we couldn't hardly hear that, Alastair, but I think you're saying, has there been anything on the private market in the eight or nine days since the budget with regards to visiting numbers and inquiries on the website? Stephen, do you want to take that. We've seen this morning, Alastair, we've seen sustained demand in terms of the demand for open market sales. We haven't seen an uptick following the budget announcements. We've certainly got levels of interest coming. Into our business and volumes of inquiries. Have been sustained at a good level. Affordability remains an issue in certain parts of the country, particularly in London. I think that's where it's most acute. But I think what we're expecting is a continuation of an increase in the p ositive sentiment as interest rates move downwards. Sure. Just to be clearer. [crosstalk] Yes. Sorry, just to be clear, it sounds a bit bad. I was just trying to get a sense of was it really fear of the worst before the budget? And things haven't been quite as bad, at least in terms of consumer sentiment. After the budget, have you seen any change at all? Yeah, that would be our take on the situation, Alastair, but I think it's just too early to actually make anything on it. But that would be, you know, people, you know, at the end of the day, the budget was the first budget done by a new government, a Labour government in 14 years and rumor was rife, etc., etc. And that undoubtedly impacted people purchasing properties in the five or six weeks leading up to the budget. And I'd also say it actually impacted people taking a reservation into an exchange that is actually contracting. So our gut feel is the budget didn't affect too much people buying our properties, you know, with an ASP in the region, GBP 350,000. So our feeling is on top of the interest rate cut yesterday, the market will gradually improve as we go through 2025. That's our feeling. Too early to say if that'll be right or wrong. Great. Thanks very much, Alastair. Thank you. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Ami Galla of Citigroup. The line is now open. Please go ahead. Thank you, guys. Just two questions for me. One was in the order book. Can you give us some color as to how that unwinds in the future years? And the second one was just on your PRS investors. Do you anticipate the discount to them would widen on the back of what we've heard from on the budget duty side? Sorry, Ami, can you repeat the second question? It's really to understand the discount that you offer to PRS investors. Do you anticipate that widening further? No, we don't. In actual fact, we would hope that that would get less than what we've negotiated over the last 12 to 15 months. So that's the answer to that. And I think your first question was with regards to the order book, how much of that order book is in relation to 2025 and how much is it into ongoing years? I'm waffling there because I'm looking at Tim, who can now answer that question. Thank you. So, of the GBP 4.8 billion in the forward order book, about 20% is actually related to FY 2024. So we'll unwind before the year end. And about 40% relates to 2025, something in that sort of range. But we do find ourselves in a positive place for 2025, Ami, on that order book, against previous years, as you would expect with our new strategy, which gives us far more visibility of future years than a pure house building business. Thanks, Ami. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Harry Goad of Berenberg. Your lines are open. Please go ahead. Yeah, hi, good morning. Just with regard to your comment around. I think you said, you know, weaker. Or uneven demand from RPs. Can you just remind me on your business model, do you need to have all of your partners contractually signed before you progress with every land purchase? I'm just wondering whether any delays on HA/RP demand holds up this land purchase or start on site process as we're thinking about volumes over the next couple of years. Thanks. So we're a partnerships business now. So in an ideal world, when we buy land, we tie up with a housing association. But not every time, far from it do we tie up. But what we do have is an in principle deal with the housing association. And because we're in partnership and they are trusted partners, we would always expect by the time we actually start paying out the money for, on deferred terms for the land, the housing association or local authority will be in contract with us and we'll follow those land payments to ensure that we remain a capital light business. But you know, we understand their business plans, we know what they want, etc., e tc. Sometimes we have to jump in and secure the land, but we would only do it if you like, on the back of a handshake, for want of a better word, with the housing association that we are working with. And that handshake will be with the housing association that we have worked with time and time again over a number of years. And we have a fantastic relationship with them. So it's absolutely. And we've never been let down yet, by the way. Okay, thank you. Next question. Thank you. Our next question comes from Clyde Lewis of Peel Hunt. Your lines are open. Please go ahead. Morning all. I think I've still got three as well, if I can. Given where you're now at, does it change your thought processes around what you might want to do with the Vistry Works and how quickly you might look to expand the activity there? That's the first one. When we're looking at the sort of split between open market and partner funded volumes going forward, again, are you thinking you're going to see a slightly different mix in the next couple of years than you were before? And then the third one was around, I suppose, the land buying criteria. Again, have you sort of tweaked your thoughts around tenure mix, big, small, regional differences, etc., again, in light of what we've been told. I'll take that in reverse then. So, on the land buying, one year on from the announcement of the strategy, so we have no cash constraints to buy land. The strategy is in a better place than it was when we first announced it because of the government's ambitions. So we are actively out there buying land and as Tim's just said to an earlier question, land creditors will be broadly similar to where they were. But that said, we're also one year on and we're learning all of the time. There are certain parts of the country where housing associations, local authorities, Homes England have a greater appetite to move forward than others. So for instance in the Midlands and the north, you know, we are absolutely flying where we have mayors wanting to really get going on affordable housing, local authorities really pushing to get it going and housing associations that are better funded than say those in London for instance. So there will be, it'll be lumpy. We will definitely have going forward business units in certain parts of the country doing more than in others. But there's absolutely no doubt. London, I think, is where housing associations are struggling the most. We're still doing deals, I'm pleased to say, but they are struggling the most. But that is where the acutest shortage absolutely is and it's that price point. So I've got every confidence over the next 10 to 12 months that will be fixed by the Labour government with regards to Vistry Works and I'll let Tim answer the open market versus partnerships one. I would. With what's just happened in the South Division, I would suspect where we were looking for around 7,000 plots from Vistry Works next year. The growth plans remain in place. I would say that will now be closer to six to six and a half thousand units. So not much of a change. And we're going down the timber frame route partly because of speed. We think it's the right thing and also because of building regulation and the building regulation changes, Future Homes Standard coming through. So no change to our growth expectations but albeit I suspect will be 500 to 700 less in Vistry Works next year than the 7,000 we previously said with regards to open market. Should I say that? Yeah, yeah. None of what we've discovered changes our view on the optimal business model and the split between open market and partner-funded that works. That's broadly two-thirds partner-funded, one-third open market volumes by year in the optimal position. As you know, we're 75 to 25 this year. Partner-funded market is more attractive at the moment than the open market. We think next year is going to be similar sort of level. It's going to be partner-funded will be in the 70s next year. The profile of when we get from that low 70s down to the 66 to 33 split we need to work through over the next month or so and whether we, you know. But we will get there for the medium term. Thanks, Clyde. Thank you. Thank you. I'll now hand back to Greg Fitzgerald for any further remarks. Okay, thanks everyone. Thanks for listening. Good questions. I'll just finish by saying you know the vast majority of the reduction in profit comes from our South Division which is made up of four housebuilding businesses converting into partnerships. The change has got nothing to do with them really converting into partnerships. It's to do with a few more now but predominantly nine large housebuilding sites which had their build costs wrong by 10% to 12%. And when we made the announcement on October 8th all I'll say is those build costs weren't wrong on October 7th. They were wrong before that. So this hit, which is very unfortunate, very upsetting, I totally accept that, is basically coming from predominantly nine sites, few more now, where the build cost has just been wrong and it's been wrong for a little bit of time. And on that I'll just say thank you very much for listening. All the best. Have a good day. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you all for joining today's call. You may now disconnect your lines.