The full statement from TW is available here. Keep hitting refresh for the latest below.
It’s 8:55BST and TW is down 47% - having come back a bit from earlier lows. Down nearly 56% shortly after open.

A quick glance around the sector:
BDEV: - 20.7%
PSN: - 19%
BVS: -9.2%
_____
9:00 Thank you for you patience… please stay on the line for the next available operator… probably should have dialled into this a little earlier…
Soothing world-not-ending don’t-panic music
9:05 We’re off. Peter Redfern, CEO says we’ll be looking at for main areas.
Financing
Trading
Business profile
View of land value
For the latest figures, says Redfern, take a look at slides on the TW website.
“On Monday we were going through a process of raising equity capital - based on view of market over the next eighteen months.”
“Under some scenarios there is a possibility of us breaching our interest cover covenants - at the earliest in 2009.”
On the back of changes in the market, capital raising isnt going to be going ahead anytime soon says Redfern.
Investors are all very happy says Redfern. They just dont want to give us any money.
9:10 After a brief sojourn in the US market, we’re now onto the UK….
“Market is pretty subdued, but in line with what we’ve expected. There’s no doubt that the market has declined since about week two of April.” Specific.
“Price are under pressure.”
Redfern estimates a 5-6% decline in house prices going forward. The market is not going to improve. “Our whole approach to the business is predicated on that assumption.” TW is looking at “pretty bearish scenarios” and the outlook is likely to deteriorate. “The rate of decline… could likely get worse.”
9:15 Onto the business itself.
‘We’re slimming down’ is the message. 900 jobs to be lost. £45m saved on an annualised basis. But it will cost £45m to affect the whole process.
9:16 WRITEDOWNS! On the landbank…
US: £70m
Spain: £40m
UK…. £550m - for now.
Redfern stresses that the UK writedown is based on current conditions, and will likely get worse. He refers us to the “slide pack”. Current writedowns are at about 10% of value. But in the worse case, could go to 30%… so triple that UK number. Or in paint.bitmap form… (about “a third” of the way along the x axis)

9:20 We’re on to questions…
Robert Gardiner at Davy… “Can you give us more colour on the writedowns?” Regions, products, houses, apartments, fixtures, fittings, et cetera…
A: Please see slide 11 (one of the most boring in the pack - definitely not “colour”)
The portfolio… about 62% houses, 38% apartments, weighted towards apartments, says Redfern.
Gardiner also wants to know about the covenant breaches, and the “optimism” of barely a week ago on efforts to raise money through equity.
“Obviously that’s a key question!”Says Redfern, clearly thinking of a key answer.
“We were very encouraged by the support from existing shareholders. We had a very… busy two days.”
“There are other avenues we’ve had soft approaches from” (down?) … “we’re not facing a brick wall”.
In terms of the banks… “we had a very sensible conversation based on what we thought was the optimal solution”… Sunshine, lollipops and, rainbows, everywhere.
9:30 An analyst from ABN whose name I missed (will find later) asks about the situation with TWs existing bond issues and pension funds…
No problems with bonds, says TW. As for pension scheme… the impact is small “in the scale of things.”
Did something change in the last few days which changed the fundraising situ - scared investors - ABN asks?
It was “a bridge too far” is the cryptic and none too informative answer from TW. Redfern repeats that existing investors were happy - but market volatility, and a range of bearish info about housebuilders scared off potential new investors without a prior, developed, knowledge of the business.
9:40 Mark Hake at Merrill Lynch asks about detail on UK writedowns and, as per slide 11, how does a 105% writedown, “mathematically speaking”, work?
This refers to mothballed sites… of which there are 9 or 10. “We looked at it site-by-site” very conservatively. Most of them are commercial sites. None the wiser, to be honest. Here’s the slide:

Hake presses on the fundraising… if not soon, then when? There’s a “ticking clock.”
“Presumably something needs to be struck in the next few months” says Hake.
Redfern: “That’s absolutely right. It’s months not weeks. But its not necessarily that ground needs to be given on either side. There are people that we;ve talked at so far who may want to go ahead with more time. But it’s actually about opening it up to more parties rather than giving concessions to those involved already.”
9:48: Kevin Cammack at Kaupthing asks for more info about the situation with the banks, and whether the equity raising was a condition?
“The contractual agreement with the banks is based on us raising equity” says Redfern. “That is not to say that an agreement could not have been raised that was not conditional on equity.”
In other words, it was TW’s idea to make it conditional on equity… which turned out to be… a bad idea.
9:55 Alistair Stewart at DK asks… “You said you weren’t buying land, but are you considering selling it? Or do you think you will come under any pressure to sell if equity raising becomes more difficult?”
Redfern “Land sales… er.. um… will we sell land?”
Yes man! That’s what Stewart asked…
“Yes.”
“…maybe at cost level. It’s difficult to see how it will pan out. There’s no pricing level at the moment. If we wanted to go out there today, I don’t think it would be possible. There’s only really people out there at the moment who want to buy at distressed prices.”
(Bad news Kirstie, bad news Phil.)
AS: “And what if equity cant be raised? Will you sell land no matter what?” (Sic. even if at distressed prices)
PR: “I don’t think we can really answer that question Alistair. It depends on many things. It’s not one I could speculate on.”
AS: “I’ve been hearing rumours that very big housebuilders have been failing to sell a single house in recent weeks.”
PR: “We haven’t had a single week at those levels. We haven’t had a single week when we haven’t been ahead of the industy. Overall we’re not into that sort of territory. Our net sales in the last two weeks have been better than in the preceding three or four. ”
10:09 Mark Stockdale, UBS
Writedowns… would you have preferred a £750 or a £1bn writedown if you could? (Rather than the £550 announced) Take the hit now rather than later? Were you constrained by accounting?
“Yes, in an ideal world we would have gone further were it not for accounting.”
10:13 A question now about the recent placement in the US of £380m in debt. Are the covenants on that similar to the covenants on the existing debt?
“Yes. The covenants are more or less identical”
Breaches all round then.
And with that, fin. The live-blogging, that is.
____
Oh no - actually, maybe TW is fin too. A note from Dresdner just sent to clients:
We believe there is a very real danger that Britain’s biggest housebuilder by volume faces collapse when covenants are tested in February.
Tune in to Markets Live at 11 for all the latest.
___
hold on, if TW goes bankrupt who is going to finish the DLR extension?
Fitz - Fixed assets will be valued at historic cost less depreciation. But you dont depreciate land - you can however impair to fair value if there is sufficient evidence for an impairment. Costs incurred developing the site for building if they are believed to add value or will result in adding value/additional revenue can be capitalised - however once the project is mothballed they would have to be fully written off. Unpaid rental income would, I believe, be treated as a debtor in the balance sheet and therefore bad debt write-off would not affect fixed asset value - it would just reduce debtors.
Basically I dont know how they have got to 105% but an asset cannot be held at less than 0 as the minum valuation is lower of historic cost less depreciation and fair value. Unless TW are paying people to take land off them and even then this would be a liability and not a negative fixed asset.
PS - re: ML talk-back I knew you were a girl as HT told me last night
@Monkey. Right so you have the liablility for costs incurred and the loss of value. I am just tryig to get head around accounting treatment vs present value. Cheers.
Yeah Monkey its from Speedball 2 .. That game seriously rocked!!
I was goin to choose “Super Nashwan” also a great name from SB2
taxloss - I know - I worry about myself sometimes. I really really do
Fitz - I don’t think you would capitise rental income as a fixed asset like that - it would have to be development costs/building costs although I am not an expert in commercial property fixed asset valuations. It may be yield based.
@ Monkey. Interesting stuff on writedowns of mothballed sites. Impairment could be costs already associated with predevelopment. But if they are commerical sites, could also be loss of income as tenants cant/pay wont pay.?
Finally I am out geeked. Thanks Monkey.
Brutal - been meaning to ask you - did you get your handle from one of the teams in the old Atari Speedball video game? I believe there was a Brutal Deluxe in there
A missed opportunity for ML.
Might be useful to alert ML subscribers to irregular ML sessions by email?
Web 2.0 and all that ….
[…] Full statement from Taylor Wimpey - Live! […]
Still seems a silly way to express it. If they aren’t associating the cost of development with the asset, why do they associate the write down with it? Bloody accounting.
Just to clarify what I think the 105% write down means: you buy land worth 20m - you spend 15m preparing it to be built on but after a period of time you realise the land is non-viable - mean while the land has fallen to 14m. So you hold the land at 14m but write off 21m being the 15m you spent investigating its potential and 6m land devaluation. 21m write down on land value initially bought for 20m - 105% write down
G Cox - there are many rules to prevent this - the idea is to prevent ‘big bath’ provisioning abuse that was used to reduce the volatility in a companies underlying earnings when a company had very good years and then very bad ones
Thanks Limey - fair point.
“Yes, in an ideal world we would have gone further were it not for accounting.”
Since they can only sell at “distressed prices” what crazy accounting rule stops them valuing at distressed prices and taking the large write-down number.??
> There’s only really people out there at the moment who want to buy at distressed prices.
Well that’s a bit inconvienient isn’t it? Perhaps the market has moved?
It’s as a percentage of land value, not as a percentage of book value.
As they carry the land value as stock not PPE they’ll be including certain allowable aspects of admin time, etc. You’re thinking IAS16 not IAS2.
monkey’s right. if the mothballed sites had negligable value (or were liabilities) it would call into question the value of the sites in the other catagories. these are sites where work has comenced only to be pulled. which calls into question management foresight…
contd: “less than” 0 - that’s a liability. So they have written down their mothballed sites to 0 and taken an additional charge to equity.
Land as a liability. I like that.
Hmm. You can’t carry an asset with a book value of
The document is called “final_market_update”. Presumably that’s “final” as final draft, not as in “our last ever presentation to you guys”
Re: slide 11 looks like they started to work on the site and then wrote the entire project off. That wuld explain 105% write-downs. They are described as mothballed after all
Why aren’t you chaps running a Markets Live session for this? Seems like the sort of thing ML is designed for, no?
I like that in their pack they say they’re being proactive. Where have they been for the last 6 months?