@madamswer Certainly, to me (and clearly you too) the Actrol...

@madamswer

Certainly, to me (and clearly you too) the Actrol acquisition looked like no bargain. The reality is, though, that if, and I stress, if, they can get its margins to those of Reece (or close to) and they can increase its revenues, via synergistic benefits, then there's a lot of potential. I'm normally loath to employee the synergy moniker, but we're talking about Reece here (if you'll allow me such sentimentality).

At the back of my mind, I also have the reality softly humming away, that the recent stagnant growth in revenues and earnings occurred in the face of growing shop numbers (though at a reduced pace from that occurring pre 2009).

So that way I see it, there are two possibilities.

Firstly, it's possible that the post 2009 Reece is a less attractive beast. That it has desperately and futilely sought to stem loss of revenues via increasing shop numbers and massive capex.

The other possibility is that the increasing shop numbers and capital spend have laid the ground work for a more prosperous future and that today's prices represent a rare opportunity. This should also be considered in the context that growth in non-residential building construction has been pretty much zero since 2009, and residential building has only started to grow in the last couple of years. It is clear that Reece's revenue has tracked this building activity.

But, yes, the question remains. Should Reece's revenue have grown ahead of this activity, given their strong moat and the continuing growth in shop numbers? Does this mean they would have lost market share if they hadn't opened extra shops in that period? I'm unsure what to make of that.

Cheers, Mars