MJ Gleeson Trading Update: FY2026 in Line with Market Expectations, Robust Home Sales and Operational Restructuring

MJ Gleeson FY2026 trading update: steady headline, but the detail matters

MJ Gleeson says FY2026 finished in line with market expectations, which is usually the sort of update investors take as quietly reassuring rather than thrilling. In a housing market that management describes as subdued, that is not a bad place to be.

The key point is that Gleeson Homes did the heavy lifting, while Gleeson Land was held back by previously flagged delays to site sales. The company will report its audited full-year results on 15 September 2026, so this is an early read rather than the full picture.

There is also an important accounting wrinkle here. The company says adjusted profit before tax will exclude exceptional restructuring costs, land asset impairments and legacy site adoption provisions totalling between £11.8 million and £15.0 million. So the adjusted number may look cleaner than the statutory result when the full accounts land.

MJ Gleeson FY2026 key numbers at a glance

Metric | FY2026 | FY2025 | Comment
Adjusted Group Profit Before Tax | In line with expectations | Not disclosed here | Consensus is £10.1 million, with a range of £8.9 million to £11.0 million
Gleeson Homes completions | 1,968 homes | 1,793 homes | Up 9.8%
Average net reservation rate | 0.77 per site per week | 0.71 per site per week | Improved, helped by multi-unit sales
Average net reservation rate excluding multi-unit agreements | 0.51 per site per week | 0.53 per site per week | Slightly lower underlying rate
Forward order book | 848 plots | 845 plots | Marginal increase
Build sites | 63 | 68 | Lower outlet count
Active sales sites | 53 | 57 | Also lower
Gleeson Land site sales | 5 | 7 | Weaker year
Land plots with planning permission or resolution to grant | 2,553 plots | 1,343 plots | Bigger, stronger pipeline
Net debt | £2.6 million | £0.8 million | Still modest, but higher

Gleeson Homes was the bright spot in this MJ Gleeson trading update

The standout positive is housing completions. Gleeson Homes sold 1,968 homes in FY2026, up from 1,793 the year before, which is a solid gain in a tricky market.

That growth was supported by new channels, especially partnerships and private multi-unit sales. The company recorded 320 partnership completions, up from nil, and 301 private multi-unit sales, up from 205. It also notes that total home completions include 86 equivalent units sold under partnership agreements based on the proportion of work completed.

That tells you Gleeson is not relying only on traditional one-by-one private buyers. It is broadening how it sells homes, and in a patchy market that can help smooth volumes and support cash flow.

Reservation rates show a more mixed picture than the headline

Reservation rate is housebuilder jargon for how quickly buyers commit to homes. On the face of it, the average net reservation rate improved to 0.77 per site per week from 0.71.

But there is a catch. Excluding multi-unit agreements, the average rate slipped to 0.51 from 0.53, and in the last six months it fell to 0.53 from 0.64. So the underlying private market does not look especially strong.

That matters because bulk deals can boost volumes, but they do not always say much about day-to-day demand from individual buyers. The order book also only edged up to 848 plots from 845, which is steady rather than exciting.

Project Transform looks like real progress, but FY2027 site numbers are a concern

Management is clearly proud of Project Transform, the operational restructuring carried out at Gleeson Homes. The company says it now has stronger leadership, clearer processes, better reporting and more empowered regional teams.

That reads positively. When a housebuilder is tightening operations in a slow market, it gives itself a better chance of protecting margins and reacting faster when demand improves.

Still, there is a snag. Gleeson opened 13 new build sites during the year but started the new financial year with 63 build sites, down from 68, and 53 active sales sites, down from 57.

Planning delays are part of the story. The company says the wider planning system has improved, but bottlenecks are still holding back outlets and will leave the business operating from slightly fewer sites in FY2027 than previously planned.

For investors, this is one of the more important negatives in the update. Fewer selling outlets can limit volume growth even if demand improves.

Gleeson Land delayed profits, but the underlying portfolio improved sharply

Gleeson Land had a rougher year. It sold five sites in FY2026 versus seven in FY2025, and three expected transactions have been pushed into FY2027. Because of that, the division will report a small operating loss.

The amount of that loss is not disclosed here, so investors will need to wait for the full results. Either way, delayed land deals are frustrating because this division can be lumpy and timing-sensitive.

There is, however, a decent silver lining. The land portfolio now includes five sites with planning permission or resolution to grant, with the potential to deliver 2,553 plots. That compares with eight sites and 1,343 plots a year earlier.

So while near-term sales timing is uncertain, the quality and scale of the pipeline appear to have improved. In plain English, the division looks better stocked even if the checkout queue is moving slowly.

MJ Gleeson balance sheet: still solid, but management is clearly being careful

The balance sheet remains reasonably strong. Net debt ended the year at £2.6 million, up from £0.8 million, which is an increase but not an alarming one based on the information disclosed.

Gleeson Homes’ land creditors, which are deferred payments owed on land purchases, were £15.5 million versus £13.6 million last year. The company says this represents about 13% of land assets, which suggests leverage on land remains controlled.

Management is also being explicit about caution. It is taking a prudent stance on working capital and a cautious approach to site acquisitions because of uncertainty around demand and site viability.

That is sensible, even if it does mean near-term growth may be more measured. In this market, discipline matters.

MJ Gleeson outlook for FY2027: better prepared, but not out of the woods

The company is not pretending the backdrop is easy. It points to the economic impact of geopolitical events and possible policy changes under a new UK Government as sources of uncertainty.

That said, the tone is more constructive than gloomy. Management believes the Homes business is in much better shape operationally, and the Land division has a stronger portfolio to monetise when market conditions improve.

My read is that this update is modestly positive. The company has delivered what it said it would, Homes performed well, and the restructuring appears to be more than just corporate wallpaper.

But it is not a clean all-clear. Underlying reservation rates are softer when you strip out multi-unit deals, Gleeson Land is loss-making this year, margins are still under pressure from inflation and regulatory costs, and site numbers are moving the wrong way for FY2027.

What this MJ Gleeson RNS means for retail investors

The good news: FY2026 profit is expected to be in line with expectations, completions rose 9.8%, and the business looks operationally stronger after Project Transform.

The less good news: Underlying private demand looks softer than the headline reservation number suggests, land sale timing remains awkward, and there will be slightly fewer sites than planned in FY2027.

The big watch items: statutory profit versus adjusted profit, margin pressure, outlet growth, and whether delayed Gleeson Land sales actually complete in FY2027.

If you already follow MJ Gleeson, this update probably does enough to keep confidence intact. It does not scream breakout growth, but it does suggest a business that has steadied itself and is trying to come out of a difficult patch in better shape than it went in.

That may not be glamorous, but in housebuilding, competence in a weak market often matters more than bold promises in a strong one.