Top Ten Publicly-Traded Builder Share Lower in 2017

Based on 2017 10K filings, the 2017 top ten publicly-traded builders captured a 25.5% share of new single-family home closings, down from 27.4% in 2016. The 25.5% share in 2017 is out of the 2017 US total of 616,000 new home sales.  This count represents a smaller share of the total single-family market when not-for-sale, custom home building is included.

 

This series, however, reflects significant changes from the past year. CalAtlantic, the fifth largest builder in 2016, was acquired by Lennar in 2017; but the 2017 CalAtlantic deliveries are not counted in the 2017 Lennar 10K.  No 2017 10K was filed by CalAtlantic.

So the top ten list compiled here does not count the 2017 CalAtlantic closings, but includes Beazer to round out the top ten.   

2017 Top Ten by 10Ks

The companies’ fiscal years vary and do not perfectly align with calendar years, but the comparison was made against their prior year 10K filings for uniformity, except for CalAtlantic.  

Publicly-traded companies possess many advantages including better access to credit from their own balance sheets, economies of scale in land and material purchases as well as in advertising and land holdings.

However, small builders are better positioned to address the growth in and the knowledge of their local markets and their flexibility allows them to customize their product to meet local demands and preferences.

Also, small home building companies usually have their roots in the local market and use those more personal relationships to improve quality and increase repeat business. 

The number of starts of homes built on an owner’s land, with either the owner or a builder acting as the general contractor, tallied 172,000  in 2017.  

The often held small builder concern that the large national companies will take share away has not occurred. The residential construction industry remains primarily a sector dominated by a large number of small entrepreneurs.

 

 



Tags: , , ,

2 replies

  1. “The residential construction industry remains primarily a sector dominated by a large number of small entrepreneurs”.

    I think this is why your survey of members methodology for determining the number of annual teardowns is questionable. While I’m sure plenty of these small builders are your members, many are not, making the “teardown” survey results conflict with the findings of this study. As you say; it’s these small local builders that are doing the majority of the redevelopment (teardown and replace) and they are doing it in the areas that are most dense and highly populated, the same markets where vacant land is most scarce.

    Maybe the results we are looking for would be best found when working backwards e.g. identify the vacant land in and around the highly populated major metro markets (where people live) layer that over zoning regs (what can be built on the vacant land) – that should determine the number of units that are available to build on without having to replace something else (the teardown) – I’d love to see that in one of your nice graphs or slides. 🙂 I do understand that new housing is built outside of city centers and their suburban neighbors – but most of it is done in that market type.

    Again, getting to a true number of teardowns is professional goal for us – you guys may be getting closer.

    Thanks again for all your work!

    Brian

    • The survey method for the teardown estimates focuses mostly smaller builders. Most such builders are NAHB members. As such, I have confidence in those estimates. However, suggestions on analytics are always welcome. I think we agree, it is a growing area of construction and we need to measure the size of the market.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: