This conference call transcript was computer generated and almost certianly contains errors. This transcript is provided for information purposes only.EarningsCall, LLC makes no representation about the accuracy of the aforementioned transcript, and you are cautioned not to place undue reliance on the information provided by the transcript.
spk00: Good afternoon and welcome to the Beezer Homes Earnings Conference call for the third quarter ended June 30th, 2024. Today's call is being recorded and a replay will be available on the company's website later today. In addition, PowerPoint slides intended to accompany this call are available in the investor relations section of the company's website at www.beezer.com. At this point, I will turn the call over to David Goldberg, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer.
spk06: Thank you. Good afternoon and welcome to the Beezer Homes Conference Call discussing our results for the third quarter of fiscal 2024. Before we begin, you should be aware that during this call, we will be making forward-looking statements. Such statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors described in our SEC filings, which may cause actual results to differ materially from our projections. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as to the date the statement is made. We do not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. New factors emerge from time to time and it is simply not possible to predict all such factors. Joining me today is Alan Merrill, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. On our call today, Alan will discuss highlights from our third quarter, the current environment for new home sales, our longer-term outlook on the market, and conclude with an overview of our progress towards our multi-year goals. I'll then provide details on our third quarter results, expectations for our fourth quarter and full year results, the basis for our confidence in profitability growth next year, a review of our land activity, followed by a quick discussion of our balance sheet and book value growth. We will conclude with a wrap-up by Allen. After our prepared remarks, we will take questions in the time remaining. I will now turn the call over to Allen.
spk05: Thank you, Dave, and thank you for joining us on our call this afternoon. Despite the continuing challenges presented by an affordability constrained market, Our third quarter reflected profitability in line with our expectations and significant progress toward our multi-year goals. While our new home orders were softer than we had anticipated, reflecting both macro and market-specific factors that I'll address in a moment, our long-term confidence in the broader new home market and Beezer's positioning in particular remains very strong. In terms of third quarter profitability, Closings in revenue matched our expectations, and adjusted gross margin came in slightly higher than anticipated. This led to adjusted EBITDA of $53.5 million and diluted earnings per share of 88 cents. In turn, book value grew to more than $38 per share. I'd also like to call out two operational highlights. First, we substantially grew our total lot pipeline. We now have more than 28,000 lots, up 25% from last year. providing excellent visibility into our growing community count. And second, we reached a major energy efficiency milestone this quarter, as we have now closed more homes to the DOE's single family, zero energy ready requirements than any other home builder in the country. Although we generated strong financial results in the quarter, the sales environment proved quite challenging. our pace of 2.4 sales per community per month was below our expectations. From a macro perspective, we had many prospective buyers struggle to qualify for a mortgage and others who chose to defer their purchase based on expectations of lower mortgage rates later this year. And weather events in Texas were quite disruptive. These dynamics impacted all builders to some extent, but for us, there were a couple of specific markets where additional factors played an even bigger role. In particular, week sales in Houston and San Antonio weighed on our results. Excluding these markets, which represent about a quarter of our community count, our sales pace would have been around 2.8 sales per community per month, closer to both normal seasonal patterns and our expectations. Houston and San Antonio are among the most affordable housing markets we serve, which is why we remain confident in their near and long-term prospects. But during the quarter, both markets saw particularly strong demand at price points well below our offerings. While we might have achieved higher sales with more aggressive incentives, this quarter we chose not to chase volume in either market. That's because we believe it is important to demonstrate the value of our highly differentiated and newly introduced Ready Series Humps. Given a short period to adapt, We believe these homes and our team can more than hold their own competitively, and we expect Houston and San Antonio to be among our most productive markets. Looking out to 2025 and beyond, we continue to be quite optimistic on new home sales. A decade of underbuilding has left the country undersupplied for housing, and continuing employment and wage growth should underpin demand. While stretched affordability and growth in for-sale inventories likely means that sales patterns will remain volatile in individual markets, we have not seen anything that changes our longer-term bullish thesis. And eventually, we expect lower rates to improve affordability for home buyers. With this positive longer-term outlook, we remain fully committed to our three multi-year goals, which include expanding our community count, deleveraging our balance sheet, and delivering a demonstrably superior home. We ended the quarter with 146 active communities, up about 17% year over year, and up slightly on a sequential basis. By the end of fiscal 24, we expect our active community count to exceed 155, representing annual growth of about 15%. With similar growth expected in FY25, we have a clear path toward achieving our goal of having more than 200 communities by the end of fiscal year 2026. As it relates to deleveraging our balance sheet, we expect to end FY24 with a net debt to net cap ratio in the mid-30s, even as we invest in the growth of our business. And importantly, we're on track to achieve our target of having net debt to net cap below 30% by the end of FY26. Finally, as it relates to our goal that 100% of our starts will be zero energy ready by the end of calendar 2025, we continue to make significant progress. During the third quarter, just over 90% of our starts were ready series homes. This rapid progress has simplified our construction process so we can now focus on reducing our zero energy ready costs. On the sales side, I remain enthusiastic about our potential to drive value from a product position that is truly unique within our industry. We remain confident in the long-term demand for new homes and believe the achievement of our multi-year goals will position us to create significant shareholder value. With that, I'll turn the call over to Dave.
spk06: Thanks, Alan. For the third quarter of fiscal year 2024, we generated 1,070 new orders reflecting a pace of 2.4 sales per community per month as mentioned previously. We closed 1,167 homes, generating home building revenue of $589.6 million, with an average sales price of about $505,000. Adjusted gross margin, excluding amortized interest, impairments, and abandonments, was 20.3%. SG&A was 11.9% of total revenue as we prepare for near-term growth and community count. Adjusted EBITDA was $53.5 million. Interest amortized as a percentage of home building revenue was 2.9%. Our gap tax expense was $2.5 million for an effective tax rate of 8.3%. Net income was $27.2 million or 88 cents per share. Finally, during the quarter, we repurchased more than 450,000 shares representing about 1.5% of the company at an average price just above $28. Our guidance for the fourth quarter contemplates no improvement in the macro or company-specific environment. With this backdrop, we expect a sales pace similar to our third quarter and ending community count above 155. This would lead to about 1,100 orders for the quarter up versus the prior year. We expect to close about 1,500 homes up more than 20% compared to the prior year period. ASP should be about $520,000. We expect adjusted gross margin roughly in line with the third quarter at approximately 20%, reflecting no change in sales incentives. SG&A as a percentage of total revenue should be about 10%, down both sequentially and year over year. We expect this to result in adjusted EBITDA above $80 million. Interest amortized as a percentage of home building revenue should be about 3%. And our effective tax rate should be about 12% as we continue to benefit from energy efficiency tax credits. This should all lead to diluted earnings per share of about $1.35. Our Q4 guidance implies that we now expect full year adjusted EBITDA of about $230 million. We note that this is down from our guidance last quarter reflecting the impact of weaker sales. Finding the right balance between volume and margin is always tricky, but in light of our differentiated product, our substantial growth in community count, and our positive longer-term view of the market, we believe not chasing volume is appropriate for now. And context is important. Even at this sales pace, we expect to generate $4.20 of diluted earnings per share representing a double-digit return on equity and healthy book value accretion. While conditions in fiscal 2024 have been even choppier than anticipated, we remain optimistic about our ability to grow profitability in fiscal 2025. Let's start with the top line, revenue. We expect to generate full-year revenue growth of about 20% next fiscal year. Now, many of you will note that our fourth quarter guidance implies backlog entering fiscal year 25 will be down year over year. And it's true that in most years, backlog entering the fiscal year is a pretty good signal for full year closings. This year, however, there are some other dynamics to consider. First, as Alan laid out in his update to our multi-year goals, we expect to end 2024 with at least 15% community count growth, followed by another 15% growth in 2025. To support this growth, our units under production are increasing faster than sales as we start homes in our newer communities. So regardless of our year-end backlog, we expect homes under production going into fiscal year 2025 will be up at least 10% over the 2,400 units under production we had to begin fiscal 2024. Second, we've seen continuing cycle time improvement, which translates into additional weeks in the spring where we'll be able to start homes that can close within the fiscal year. Third, we expect to generate a modest improvement in sales base. Our fourth quarter guidance would result in the lowest full year sales base in fiscal year 24 that we've experienced in the last 10 years. We don't think this is the new normal. Any improvement will have a meaningful impact given our expanding community count. Finally, we expect our average sales price to be about $520,000 consistent with our guidance for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2024 and up year over year. Taken together, these factors should allow us to generate revenue growth of about 20%. And even without improvement in our operating margin, this growth should translate into robust profitability expansion. Now let's talk about margins. Our operating margin has been compressing over the last couple of years for two distinct reasons. First, we've been investing in our product and supply chain to develop and establish a differentiated home. It hasn't been easy and it hasn't been inexpensive, but with 93% of our starts zero energy ready, those costs are now built in. Now, we have the near-term opportunity to reduce them. Second, we've increased overheads to support our rapidly growing community count. With these communities coming online, We expect to grow revenue faster than overheads next year. Taken together, in fiscal year 2025, we're optimistic we can generate operating leverage from our revenue growth. Ultimately, any improvement in our operating margin would only enhance our profitability. We realize that these comments don't amount to precise guidance, but we hope they help you understand our optimism for profitability growth next year. Pivoting to our investment in land, During the quarter, we spent approximately $200 million as we grew our land position to greater than 28,000 lots, our highest total lot position in a decade. Importantly, the majority of our incremental lot growth came through options. As such, our option percentage was nearly 55%, up sequentially, and we expect to drive this percentage higher over time. For the full year, we are expecting land spend of at least $750 million. Now turning to the balance sheet. At June 30th, 2024, we had total liquidity of $328 million. We expect to end the year with a net debt to net cap in the mid thirties, relatively flat versus the prior year with nothing drawn on the revolver. This will support our growth aspirations and give us flexibility to adjust to future market conditions. And as a reminder, we have no maturities until fiscal 2027. On the equity side, based on the earnings guidance we gave, We expect book value per share to be around $40 by the end of the fiscal year with further growth expected in fiscal year 25. We've made enormous progress in growing our shareholders' equity, having more than doubled our book value since fiscal year 2020, but note that we still traded a discount to book. We remain confident that our focus on delivering both earnings growth and deleveraging will close this gap. With that, I'll turn the call back over to Alan.
spk05: Thank you, Dave, and I apologize for my cold. Despite the challenges posed by affordability and consumer sentiment, we delivered solid third quarter financial results. Just as importantly, we continued to make progress toward our multi-year goals. As we prepare for fiscal 25, I'm encouraged by our position. We have the strategy, the land, the financial resources, and most importantly, the team to create significant value in the year ahead. With that, I'll turn the call over to the operator to take us into Q&A.
spk00: Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, please press star followed by one. Please ensure that your phone is unmuted and record your name clearly when prompted. To withdraw your request, you may press star two. Again, to ask a question, that is star followed by one. One moment, please, while we wait for questions to come in. And our first question is from Alan Ratner with Zellman and Associates. You may go ahead.
spk04: Hey, guys. Good afternoon. Thanks for the comments and details so far. Appreciate it. I'd love to first drill in a little bit to the pace and price kind of decision that's, I'm sure, ongoing here. So last quarter, you did kind of signal some temporary pressure on margins because you made a decision to kind of burn through some of the legacy product and some spec inventory and We saw that in 3Q in the margin. I think at the time you expected it to be temporary. The fourth quarter guidance seems to imply pretty steady margins at these levels. I'm curious if you did have to increase incentives even to generate these types of sales in the quarter and because your comments seem to imply that you're not going too hard on the incentives right now, but I guess more broadly, at what point does it make sense to get more aggressive? Is there a certain absorption target that you're thinking about, or is it more just a timing thing that it doesn't make sense to do that into a seasonally softer period, and you would wait more for the spring to do that?
spk05: Hey, Alan, and I apologize again for hacking a little bit on fighting through a summer cold here. A couple of responses. I mean, there's a lot to that question. As I think about what's really different from 90 days ago, we were intentional about moving through non-ready series specs. What decision we made in the June quarter was in some of the communities, specifically in Houston, where we have introduced zero energy ready And we saw a fairly significant shift in demand to that $300,000-ish price band. It just didn't feel like the time to say, okay, we want to get back to our 2.5, 3, or 3-ish absorption rates and try and play in that sandbox. And it really wasn't, in Houston for us, a mix issue between Zero Energy Ready and And in prior series, it was these are new communities, new product, and we need to give it a little bit of a chance. And we can acknowledge that, hey, on the one hand, there's a lot of activity below 300,000. And on the other, frankly, take us out of it. You can look at all of the public and privates that compete in the higher price points. Their paces in Houston in the quarter were in the ones. And that's kind of where we were. And we decided not to try and bend that curve. I don't think that's forever. I'm probably not going to give it more than six months before we start pulling levers in different ways. But that just felt like in the middle of this, and especially because we were hearing from a lot of folks, gosh, if rates were just a little lower, we'd be able to pull the trigger. Just in the last three weeks, we've seen almost 40 basis points of movement in the 10-year, and I feel like we might have a little bit of tailwind coming there. So, look, I might be wrong, and we may have to adjust this in 30 or 60 days. But in particular, in these newly launched community with zero energy ready, we've been kind of cautious. And in the meantime, we are trying to move through all of that non-zero energy ready product, both the 2B builds and the specs, I'd say we're very competitive with that, but we didn't make any big shift to our incentive approach to achieve these results. As I said, if you take Houston and San Antonio out, 2.8 was a little light to where we wanted to be. I think we did find the market slightly tougher, but we would have been within reasonable distance of our expectations, but for really a set of conscious decisions in Houston and San Antonio. Like, I don't want to whine about weather, but I will say, and I haven't read all of the transcripts from all of our peers, Houston kind of went through it. You know, we had our division office closed for a week. We had about 60 employees without power for time periods ranging from two to five weeks. I think it was just a pretty tough quarter in Houston.
spk04: Got it. No, I appreciate that, and, you know, certainly can appreciate can understand the challenges there with the weather. I guess, you know, hearing your comments about affordability and the $300,000 and the demand there, you know, it's hard to say whether that's a function of that buyer being more constrained. You know, we are hearing more and more anecdotes about softening on the edges among consumers and in the job market, as we saw in the data today. You know, you guys are in a fairly unique position because you're opening up a lot of communities over the next 18 months. And I'm sure to a large extent, you know, at least the near-term openings are kind of fully baked as far as product offerings and things like that. But given kind of what you're seeing on the consumer front, is there any thought or ability, you know, to maybe flex some of the product or floor plans or, you know, product types to cater more towards that kind of high 300, low $400,000 price point if that's kind of where the depth of demand seems to be today?
spk05: Yeah, and again, every market's a little bit different, but let's stay in Houston for a minute. I think you pull up our website and see we have a bunch of communities that have base prices in the high threes. So we're not that far removed from where there was real enthusiasm in this quarter. And, in fact, our product mix, and this is now not a Houston comic because I don't have it at my fingertips, but across our portfolio, our deliveries in the quarter were down, what, Dave, 80 square feet, about 3% year over year. So we have had a little bit of a twist, if you will, in the portfolio, Alan, where we've focused on slightly smaller floor plans as one of the many strategies to deal with this affordability challenge. But we are selling a different home. And that's the thing that whether it's 2,100 square feet or 2,200 square feet or some other number on either side of that, we've chosen to take on standing out by offering a home that others can or won't build. And I think we need to just keep pressing that into the market. And it's with consumers. It's with realtors. I'm really optimistic when people see it when they understand it it's kind of like how could I live without this but if they're doing a screen on a price per square foot basis I don't think there's anything we can do that's going to flip our product that's going to drop us down into that tier where what I would call the price oriented builders are really competing and I'm kind of glad about that because I don't think that's even if we wanted to do that we'd be terribly well equipped to do so
spk04: Understood. Appreciate the thoughts. Thanks a lot. Thanks, Alan.
spk00: Thank you. The next question is from Julio Romero with Sidoti & Company. You may go ahead.
spk01: Thanks. Hey, good afternoon, Alan and David. You guys talked a little bit about Texas and the weakness you saw there. Can you maybe give us a quick state of the union on what you're seeing in your other geographic markets at the moment?
spk05: Yeah, I will tell you that outside of those two markets, as I said, kind of 2.8, there was strength bi-coastally. Felt pretty good about our mid-Atlantic business. Virginia in particular showed some strength. Southern Cal and Las Vegas were pretty strong. Nashville in the middle of the country or not on either coast was pretty strong. So I would say that there wasn't a theme that I can really say strength versus weakness other than what we really saw is a fairly significant shift in the total number of transactions in that sub-300,000 price point in those two Texas markets, which differed, frankly, from what we had seen in prior quarters.
spk01: Got it. That's helpful. And then, you know, I kind of – the fourth quarter ASP guidance is a nice step up from prior quarters. Is that just –
spk05: You know, mix is that... Yeah, you're starting to see some zero-energy homes start to come through, and those were sold as 2B builds.
spk01: Yep, yep. And then did you guys mention your land spend year-to-date and what you're expecting for the year?
spk06: We talked about for the full year, Julio, we'd be at about $750 million. You can just back up what we've done year-to-date to get the fourth-quarter estimates.
spk01: Okay, perfect. That's it for now. Thanks very much, guys. Thank you.
spk00: Thank you. And as a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, please press star 1. Our next question is from Alex Barron with Housing Research Center. You may go ahead.
spk02: Yeah, thanks, guys. So I heard you talk about some weather issues in Texas, but what happened in the southeast? The orders seem to be a bit low there.
spk05: It's funny. We found ourselves in one of our bigger markets, Atlanta, between community count. We had a dip in community count. We closed out earlier in the year. We weren't able to pull forward the activations of the new communities. We had kind of a troughing in community count that was among the bigger factors.
spk02: Got it. Yeah, because we surveyed your community count, and it looked like it jumped up, so maybe it's just recent openings, I guess.
spk05: Yeah, there's always a timing thing. Like within a quarter, it can be a little bit misleading. If you are open on, you know, I'll just pick random dates. If you're open April 1st, but you're sold out by April 15th. Well, you had it at the beginning. If your next community opens the last week of June, but you lost 70 days in between, there is not a demand pattern or a positioning issue. I'm pretty comfortable with our sales paces, and this community count is broad-based that is coming, what we've already had and what's in front of us. It's really distributed across our footprint. I mean, there'll be quarterly anomalies in the data, but there really isn't a southeast message, I don't believe.
spk02: Got it. And assuming the Fed does start to lower interest rates soon and that leads to lower mortgage rates, do you guys anticipate just kind of sticking with your same incentives or decreasing them or, you know, what's sort of the thought process as rates start to come down?
spk05: Well, the thing about incentives is the market really tells us where they need to be. And what's the market? Well, the market's buyers, but it's also buyers who are influenced by what other people do, right? We don't exist in a vacuum. So I am hopeful that lower rates could lead to an environment where we'd see lower incentives. And I think that seems pretty likely. I can't predict. what everybody else is gonna do. And kind of back to my questioning with Alan at the beginning, we're not going to sit back and not compete for sales, right? Be too proud to incent. So we will always compete. It's just sometimes you've got to pick your windows. We made that choice. I think if rates start to come down, we and other builders will definitely benefit.
spk02: Got it. And if I could ask one more, I was happy to see you're starting to buy back shares. Is that more of an opportunistic thing, or do you think it's more of an ongoing shift in strategy?
spk06: It's Dave. What I would tell you is we have a very consistent model we use for capital allocation, and we consider, you know, when we look at excess capital in the business, returns and risk amongst share repurchases, debt repurchases, and incremental land spend, We did, as you mentioned, buy back 1.5% of the company, about that in the quarter, and we'll always be good capital allocators and focus on our models. Again, the model hasn't changed, so not much more to say than that, but it's a consistent model for excess capital.
spk02: All right. Best of luck, guys. Thanks.
spk06: Thank you. Thanks, Ed.
spk00: Thank you. Our next question is from Jay McCandless with Wedbush. You may go ahead.
spk03: Hey, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. I'm just trying to catch up and figure out the, the, what you gave on absorption's day, because if you're going from 146 communities at the end of three Q to over one 55, I mean, are all those back half weighted or, you know, is there some timing issues as to why just through the numbers getting bigger that you wouldn't see a little bit higher absorption, especially with, with what Alan was talking about Atlanta and some timing issues there.
spk06: Well, I would tell you, Jay, we've assumed the absorption pace in the environment really doesn't change much quarter to quarter. I'm happy to take it offline on the math with you, but we've kind of assumed things look pretty similar the way they look throughout the third quarter and the fourth quarter. Okay. I'm not sure if there's a math you want to kind of go through, but we can do it offline if you'd like.
spk03: No, I mean, if you were going to hit that 155 the last month of the quarter or something like that, that would make sense in terms of not getting any better absorption.
spk06: That's right. I mean, we need to come online, as you had imagined, throughout the quarter, and there is some coming on in the latter part of the quarter. Yeah, we will definitely have some September activations.
spk05: And so the average community count will – I don't know if it will be the exact arithmetic average at the beginning of the period and the end of the period. If anything, it might be slightly weighted to the back half. But you take a number in the middle and use the same absorption rate. And that's kind of where our sales guide came from. And, you know, Jay, I think we start to see some rate cutting. I'd like us to do, and I'm hopeful we're planning to do better. But honestly, from a guide perspective, we wanted to be pretty direct about it. If nothing changed in the environment, here's what the math is. And that's where the 1,100 came from. Okay. So...
spk03: Is it too much of a stretch to assume that sales activity from June to July didn't get much better or any color you could give us on what happened in July?
spk05: Yeah, the first part of July looked a lot like June. The last week's been better. But, you know, one week doesn't create a foundation for a quarterly or an annual guidance. But I would definitely tell you the last week in particular has felt quite a bit better. But, you know, try not to... get too enthused about one week or too discouraged by one week. But I would say the back half of July has trended better than the front half.
spk03: Okay. And then the only other question I had in terms of specs, it looks like your finished specs were up a little sequentially, but up a lot year on year. I'm assuming you guys are going to try and blow through some of that, and that's why there's some conservatism around gross margin for the fourth quarter.
spk06: I think your assessment's right, Jay. Your assessment is correct, Jay. I wouldn't say blow through, but certainly there's some, you know, end of year, especially on non-zero energy ready specs, which we talked about last quarter. We don't want to end the year with too many QMI's, so a quick move at home.
spk03: Great. It's all ahead. Thanks.
spk06: Thank you. Thanks, Jay.
spk00: Thank you. And that was our last question. I will turn it back to the speakers for any closing remarks.
spk06: I want to thank everybody for tuning in to our third quarter call. We look forward to talking to you next quarter at our fiscal year end. Thank you very much, and that concludes today's call.
spk00: Thank you. That does conclude today's conference. Thank you all for participating. You may disconnect at this time.
Disclaimer