olivLaw · European equity research
Fuller, Smith & Turner P.L.C. FSTA.L
United Kingdom · London Stock Exchange · ISIN GB00B1YPC344 · Vertical: Listed companies from United Kingdom
Fuller, Smith & Turner is a British operator of pubs, hotels and restaurants, with a largely freehold estate. In the financial year ended March 2026 the company reported cutting electricity demand by over 7% at part of its managed estate, while cost pressures and consumer demand remain central concerns for management.
At the close of 05 Nov 2026, Fuller, Smith & Turner P.L.C. (FSTA.L) stock was 8.40 GBP (+0.24% on the day), with dividend yield 1.47%, beta 0.25, 52-week range 6.16–8.40 GBP.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: ESEF annual reports and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 79.9
- overbought (≥ 70)
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 7.15 – 8.54
- in the upper half of the band · %B 0.90 · band width 17.7%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 7.39 / 7.08
- uptrend (price > SMA50 > SMA200)
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- 0.28 / 0.24
- MACD above signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | EURO STOXX 50 | vs EURO STOXX 50 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | +19.3% | −0.6% | +20.0 pp | — |
| 3 months | +16.0% | −4.2% | +20.2 pp | — |
| 6 months | +29.6% | +4.3% | +25.3 pp | — |
| Year to date | +16.7% | +7.5% | +9.2 pp | — |
| 1 year | +35.9% | +9.9% | +26.0 pp | +5.8% |
| 3 years | +47.4% | +49.8% | −2.5 pp | +26.3% |
| 5 years | +27.3% | +42.8% | −15.6 pp | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
EPS unavailable in the issuer's structured filings (e.g. a partnership reports per unit, not per share).
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 359.1 m | 376.3 m | 397.8 m |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | +4.8% | +5.7% |
| Net income | 9.1 m | 27.2 m | 21.2 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | +198.9% | −22.1% |
| Diluted EPS | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
| net % | 2.5% | 7.2% | 5.3% |
| Free cash flow | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2026 · 28 Mar 2026
- Cash
- 7.4 m GBP
- Financial debt
- 147.9 m GBP
- Net debt
- 140.5 m GBP
- Equity
- 410.4 m GBP
- Total assets
- 702.9 m GBP
- Debt / equity
- 0.36x
- Current ratio
- unavailable
- ROE
- 5.2%
- ROA
- 3.0%
- FCF margin
- unavailable
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (GBP)
Margins
Income statement · GBP
| Line | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 359.1 m | 376.3 m | 397.8 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Operating income | 27.7 m | 28.3 m | 40.0 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Interest expense | 13.3 m | 13.4 m | 11.3 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Pre-tax income | 14.4 m | 33.8 m | 29.5 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Income tax | 5.3 m | 6.6 m | 8.3 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Net income | 9.1 m | 27.2 m | 21.2 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Dividend per share | — | 0.12 | — | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
Balance sheet · GBP
| Line | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 12.2 m | 13.8 m | 7.4 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Receivables | 8.4 m | 12.0 m | 11.2 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Inventories | 4.0 m | 4.6 m | 4.6 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Property, plant & equipment, net | 581.9 m | 585.7 m | 594.0 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Total assets | 722.6 m | 701.9 m | 702.9 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Accounts payable | 59.7 m | 53.3 m | 58.4 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Long-term debt | 145.3 m | 156.0 m | 147.9 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Current liabilities | 64.9 m | 59.1 m | 64.8 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Equity | 431.3 m | 411.7 m | 410.4 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
Cash flow · GBP
| Line | 2024 | 2025 | 2026 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | 68.3 m | 57.7 m | 79.5 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Investing cash flow | -27.2 m | -12.7 m | -36.6 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Financing cash flow | -43.0 m | -43.4 m | -49.3 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
| Share repurchases | 12.4 m | 23.9 m | 14.6 m | esef· 25 Jun 2026verified |
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
1 indicators that do not apply to the sector.
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- indicators available: 3 of at least 6
- score weight coverage: 22.9% of at least 60%
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
05 Nov 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: unavailable
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
23% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
unavailable — no valuation assumptions for the reporting currency
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Valuation methods
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 6.5%
- Equity risk premium
- 6.0%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 12.5%
- Terminal growth
- 3.0%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: indicators available: 3 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 22.9% of at least 60%
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | 5.2% | 25 (vs peers) | 45% |
| Net margin · Quality | 5.3% | 40 (vs peers) | 27% |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | 3.5x | 31 (on a fixed band) | 27% |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF yield · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet· partial31/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality31/100 · 2/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partialunavailable · 0/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
FULLER SMITH & TURNER PLC (FSTA.L). Latest full fiscal year: 2026; data up to 2026-03-28.
Figures computed from the financial statements: revenue 397.8 m GBP in 2026; YoY growth 5.7%; net margin 5.3%; ROE 5.2%.
The estimated value range is 1.21–1.50 GBP per share (median of 1 methods, agreement: single method); assumptions are illustrative. Against the central value of 1.34 GBP, the price of 8.40 GBP leaves a potential of -84.1% (value / price − 1) and a margin of safety of -527.3% (1 − price / value). The range is the median of the methods' low, central and high values, not a probability interval.
Insufficient data for a verdict (indicators available: 3 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 22.9% of at least 60%).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
No signal among the computed factors. That is not an absence of risk: factors without data were not assessed, and business risks (margins, inventory, demand) are in the source-based analysis.
What contradicts it
- ROIC: 5.2%
- The price is above the estimated value range
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, Net debt / EBITDA, Current ratio, P/E (TTM), EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, Shareholder yield (distributions), Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Listed companies from United Kingdom · same country · compared with 39 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Price rebased to 100 (monthly, 5 years)
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BATS.LBritish American Tobacco P.L.C. | 104.3 bn | 13.5 | 16.5% | 30.3% | −1.0% | +7% / +88% |
| ABF.LAssociated British Foods PLC | 14.7 bn | 14.3 | 9.2% | 5.3% | −3.1% | −5% / −15% |
| 0EV1.LCarnival PLC | 5.5 bn | 4.1 | 46.7% | 13.4% | +6.4% | unavailable / unavailable |
| BAB.LBabcock International Group PLC | 5.1 bn | 24.7 | 34.7% | 4.1% | +7.2% | −10% / +158% |
| AUTO.LAutotrader Group PLC | 4.8 bn | 16.4 | 60.2% | 47.1% | +3.9% | −13% / −23% |
| BBY.LBalfour Beatty PLC | 4.2 bn | 16.3 | 23.2% | 2.8% | +15.2% | +20% / +160% |
| ABDN.LAberdeen Group PLC | 4.1 bn | 10.8 | 8.0% | 28.9% | −2.1% | +11% / +41% |
| BKG.LThe Berkeley Group Holdings PLC | 3.6 bn | 11.3 | 8.8% | 13.4% | −4.2% | −0% / −22% |
| BME.LB&M European Value Retail PLC | 2.9 bn | 17.4 | 21.2% | 2.8% | +3.7% | +68% / −51% |
| AJB.LAj Bell PLC | 2.4 bn | 22.8 | 49.9% | 33.1% | +18.0% | +8% / +128% |
| ASHM.LAshmore Group PLC | 1.4 bn | 13.9 | 13.1% | 71.6% | −0.1% | +28% / +18% |
| BCG.LBaltic Classifieds Group PLC | 1.2 bn | 23.2 | 15.8% | 57.6% | +6.9% | −99% / −99% |
| APN.LApplied Nutrition PLC | 763.6 m | 36.2 | 41.2% | 19.7% | +24.2% | +71% / unavailable |
| BAG.LA.G. Barr P.L.C. | 671.9 m | 14.4 | 14.4% | 10.8% | +4.0% | −7% / +26% |
| ASC.LAsos PLC | 494.5 m | — | -81.3% | -12.0% | −14.7% | +71% / +8% |
| ALFA.LAlfa Financial Software Holdings PLC | 486.8 m | 16.3 | 61.5% | 23.8% | +15.3% | −28% / +10% |
| AML.LAston Martin Lagonda Global Holdings PLC | 344.3 m | — | -93.4% | -39.2% | −20.6% | −45% / −85% |
| APTD.LAptitude Software Group PLC | 111.3 m | 28.5 | 7.2% | 6.2% | −7.3% | −30% / −23% |
| AMGO.LAmigo Holdings PLC | 9.9 m | — | — | — | −81.9% | +325% / +844% |
| ASBE.LAssociated British Engineering PLC | 605.3 k | — | -19.1% | — | unavailable | unavailable / unavailable |
| AMIF.LAmicorp Fs (uk) PLC | 221.6 k | 0.1 | 27.5% | 9.1% | +8.1% | unavailable / unavailable |
| AAF.LAirtel Africa PLC | — | — | 24.1% | 10.6% | +29.5% | −7% / +164% |
| AAL.LAnglo American PLC | — | — | -19.3% | -20.2% | +4.5% | +30% / +76% |
| ACG.LAcg Metals Limited | — | — | -80.3% | -32.0% | +134.8% | +60% / +63% |
| AEP.LAnglo-Eastern Plantations PLC | — | — | 16.1% | 19.5% | +25.0% | +5% / +113% |
1- and 3-year price returns: for FSTA.L from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Scenarios are not available. input data missing
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
In brief
Fuller, Smith & Turner is a British operator of pubs, hotels and restaurants, with a largely freehold estate. In the financial year ended March 2026 the company reported cutting electricity demand by over 7% at part of its managed estate, while cost pressures and consumer demand remain central concerns for management 1.
SWOT
Strengths
- A largely freehold property base gives flexibility in financing and a solid position in negotiations, according to the annual report.
- A focus on the premium segment, with sites in areas of higher-income customers, supports pricing and service quality.
- Rigorous risk monitoring and energy hedging up to two years ahead reduce cost volatility.
Weaknesses
- Dependence on customer visit frequency, which has fallen across hospitality, can weigh directly on revenue.
- Exposure to energy and supply-chain costs, where fixed-term pricing contracts have expiry dates.
- City-centre sites are sensitive to transport strikes, which can reduce customer footfall.
Opportunities
- Investment in energy efficiency and electrification could lower operating costs over the medium to long term.
- Expanding sustainable and functional food offers could attract customers whose preferences are shifting.
- An easier labour market could ease hiring and reduce staff turnover if the trend holds.
Threats
- A prolonged conflict in the Middle East could reduce consumer confidence and raise costs.
- Cybersecurity risks, including AI-generated phishing, could disrupt operations and data.
- New tax and energy standard policies could add compliance costs.
Risks
- Cost pressureshigh
Rising energy and transport prices could affect margins once fixed-term contracts expire 1.
- Demand declinehigh
Lower visit frequency and shifting consumer preferences could affect revenue 1.
- Cyber risksmedium
Dependence on information systems and increasingly sophisticated attacks could disrupt operations 1.
- Financing costsmedium
Higher interest rates could affect profit and could test compliance with financial covenants 1.
- Climate regulationmedium
Climate policies and energy performance standards could create adaptation costs for properties 1.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- A largely freehold property base and financing facilities extended to 2029 provide a stable financial base for long-term investment 1.
- Efficiency investment and already reported cuts in energy use could lower operating costs as they scale 1.
- A more favourable labour market and retention programmes could stabilise operations across pubs and hotels 1.
What would break the thesis
- If visit frequency in hospitality keeps falling, revenue could come under pressure even with a premium estate 1.
- Expiry of fixed-term pricing contracts could expose the company to higher energy and supply costs 1.
- Geopolitical and regulatory risks, from carbon taxes to new standards, could add unforeseen costs 1.
What to watch
- Trend in energy prices and the timing of expiry of fixed-term pricing contracts2027
- Direction of visit frequency and spend per customer in pubs and hotelsnext 10-K
- Update of the climate scenario analysis and transition plan2027
- Impact of employment rights legislation and the deposit return scheme2027
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
The business
According to the annual report for the financial year ended 28 March 2026, Fuller, Smith & Turner P.L.C. operates a portfolio of pubs, hotels and restaurants in the United Kingdom, split into a Managed estate, where the company runs sites directly, and a Tenanted estate, where premises are leased to tenants 1. The business model depends on attracting customers and visit frequency, which the company monitors closely 1. The company says it runs a premium estate located in areas with higher-income customer groups 1.
The company emphasises site investment, particularly energy efficiency and the electrification of kitchens and hot water heating, which it presents as reducing both operating costs and exposure to climate-related risks 1. Its sustainability strategy, called Life is too good to waste, also covers locally and seasonally sourced food and partnerships for regenerative beef 1.
The funding structure relies on a largely freehold property base, which the company says gives it more flexibility in raising finance than many peers in its sector. The current financing facility has been extended until August 2029 1.
Segments
Managed estate
Properties run directly by the company are the segment where it controls operations, including energy use and efficiency investment. Rising energy and water costs mainly affect this segment 1.
Tenanted estate
Properties leased to tenants generate rental income. The report notes that under extreme energy price rises, tenants might be unable to meet their lease obligations, which could reduce the company's income 1.
Market context
The company operates in the British pub and restaurant market, a sector sensitive to the economic backdrop, fiscal policy and visit frequency. The report points to reduced visit frequency in hospitality and high customer expectations for premium drinks and service as market challenges 1.
Management assesses that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East could lead to higher energy and transport prices and pressure on supplier pricing, while a looser labour market has eased recruitment pressures across pubs and hotels 1.
Trends
- Rising energy and logistics costsheadwind
The report indicates that a conflict in the Middle East could keep energy prices elevated, affecting utility and fuel costs embedded in the supply chain. The company has negotiated fixed-term pricing on a significant part of its cost base, but the effect could be felt once those terms end 1.
- Shifting consumer preferencesmixed
Trends such as GLP-1 weight management medications and demand for healthier and functional food could change eating and drinking behaviour and spend per visit. The company tracks these trends through research and customer feedback 1.
- Recruitment and retention of stafftailwind
The labour market has become more favourable to employers, which has reduced recruitment pressures across pubs and hotels. The company links this to competitive pay and training opportunities, which led it to lower its assessment of this risk 1.
- Climate policy and sustainability rulesmixed
Introduction of a carbon tax or stricter energy performance standards for commercial property could create adaptation costs. At the same time, the company's climate commitments and efficiency investment could reduce its long-term exposure 1.
Competitive position
The annual report does not name specific competitors. According to the document, the company relies on a premium estate and a flexible menu offer to remain competitive against other hospitality operators 1.
Its competitive position could be affected by how customers change their preferences and by the company's ability to respond to trends such as healthier eating and functional products. The company believes its menu and site investment keep it relevant 1.
- Other UK pub and restaurant operators
The annual report names no specific competitors; the company is implicitly measured against premium operators in the same market.
- Urban hotel operators
The hotel segment competes for the same urban customers, and the report notes sensitivity to city-centre transport and transport strikes.
- Casual dining chains
Competition comes from consumer preferences for healthier meals and for quicker or cheaper eating and drinking options.
- Branded food and drink suppliers
They can influence margins through pricing and product availability, which the report links to supply-chain risks.
News & filings
In the press
No news in our archive over the last 180 days.
Annual reports (ESEF)
- Annual report 202625 Jun 2026
- Annual report 202524 Jun 2025
Sources
- [1] Annual report, fiscal year ended 2026-03-28 (ESEF) · SEC / Fuller, Smith & Turner P.L.C. · 28 Mar 2026
Figures computed by olivLaw from ESEF annual reports and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.