24 June 2026
If you are covering Berkeley Group's latest results, please see the following comment from Oli Creasey, head of property research at Quilter Cheviot:
Berkeley's full year results were in-line with expectations, unsurprisingly given a prior FY trading statement. Profit before tax of £451m was as expected, albeit down 15% compared to last year, and the £363m net cash balance was slightly ahead of consensus. The group's NAV (net asset value) per share increased materially, by almost 9%, as £233m worth of share buybacks at a discount to NAV took place through the year.
The new "Berkeley 2035" plan anticipates a substantial slow down in these figures over the near-medium term. The guide is for profit before tax to add up to £1.3bn over the next four years, which equates to £350m per annum ( Down 22% vs this morning's figure) although we would not expect it to be delivered equally across the period. Likewise, the company is targeting £528m of capital return to shareholders over the same period (via further buybacks), equal to £132m per year, just over half the amount purchased in the most recent year. The longer-term plan is for higher capital return pace in 2030-2034, although we question how much visibility there can be over these longer-term figures.
Unusually, Berkeley has weighed in directly on UK politics, explicitly calling for policy changes, most notably a cap of 3% to stamp duty on all new homes, and 0% for first-time buyers. As a London & South-East focused builder, Berkeley's customers are far more exposed to SDLT than any other listed builder, so we understand that the tax is of particular concern to the group, but it is unusual for a listed company to call for policy change so directly. Berkeley claims this change to SDLT, plus other changes to planning and housebuilder taxes, would allow London's housing targets to be met, increase tax revenue and raise GDP by 1%. With the current vacuum of leadership in the Government and Labour party, attempts to influence policy may be more able to have in impact than at other times, but we question whether any politician would take tax advice from the companies supposed to be paying it.
