Builders FirstSource (BLDR) 2026财年第三季度财报电话会议：维持业绩指引中值

Builders FirstSource表示，单户住宅建设疲软和运营杠杆率下降拖累了第三季度业绩，但收购、市场份额扩大和成本控制对业绩构成了支撑。管理层维持了其2026全年的净销售额和调整后EBITDA展望的中点值。

核心要点

• 2026财年第三季度净销售额同比下降约2%至39亿美元。核心有机销售额方面，单户住宅下降6%，多户住宅增长2%，修缮与改造业务基本持平。
• 调整后EBITDA下降28%至3.11亿美元，调整后EBITDA利润率收窄290个基点至8.1%，这主要是由于毛利润减少和运营杠杆降低所致。
• 毛利率下降260个基点至27.8%。由于季节性因素、固定成本去杠杆化以及建筑商为平衡库存与销售而放缓活动，管理层预计第四季度毛利率将较第三季度略有下降。
• Builders FirstSource估计，本季度其获得了约1至2个百分点的市场份额，其中木材领域的百分比增幅相对较大，并受益于捆绑销售高附加值产品。
• 公司维持了2026年展望的中点值，包括净销售额142亿美元至146亿美元，以及调整后EBITDA 10.75亿美元至11.25亿美元。
• 管理层仍按计划在2026年实现1.15亿美元的成本削减举措，按年化基准算将达1.4亿美元。此外，供应链和制造维度的举措在第三季度产生了2300万美元的生产力提升节省。

核心财务数据

从第三季度开始，Builders FirstSource更新了其调整后净利润和调整后EPS的定义，使其与调整后EBITDA保持一致。先前期间的数据已按相同基准重新计算。

业务与运营表现

单户住宅仍是疲软的主要来源。管理层指出，Builders FirstSource的销售通常滞后新住宅开工量约三个月。公司还表示，随着房屋面积变小、进行更多价值工程处理以及面临价格压力，自2019年以来可比开工房屋的平均价值下降了约10%。

区域表现喜忧参半。德克萨斯州和科罗拉多州依然疲软，而加利福尼亚州、佛罗里达州和东北部表现出相对韧性。多户住宅销售小幅增长，但随着开发商消化现有项目以及许多市场的入住率仍低于预期水平，管理层预计近期业绩仍将保持低迷。

Builders FirstSource在2026年合并了45家设施，过去三年累计合并了100家，同时保持了90%以上的按时按量交付率（OTIF）。成本削减措施包括设施合并、裁员、绩效薪酬调整以及更严格的精简裁量性支出。

公司在本季度收购了ICG以及Gleckler and Sons，扩大了其在美国东南部的业务和产品产能。自2021年与BMC合并以来，Builders FirstSource已完成44项收购，代表约25亿美元的年销售额。

技术投资包括参与Digs和Scaffold（两个专注于AI的建筑平台）。在内部，一款具有预定自提功能的新销售应用程序在试点测试中将客户下单时间缩短了高达90%。公司还报告称其ERP系统的推进落实取得了持续进展。

管理层业绩指导

管理层收窄了净销售额和调整后EBITDA的范围，同时维持其中点值不变。该展望假设大宗商品价格保持在每千板英尺400美元的长期平均水平附近。

公司还提出了基于不同新房开工量和大宗商品假设的2027年情景预测。管理层反复强调，这些情景并非业绩指导。它们排除了已宣布措施之外的额外成本削减举措，并假设没有新的收购，但包含了2026年完成的收购所带来的翘尾影响。

风险与关注领域

抵押贷款利率在本季度升至7%以上，管理层将购房负担能力视为新房需求的主要制约因素。秋季需求疲软，部分建筑商可能需要进一步减少开工量，以使库存与销售相匹配。

管理层表示，由于新房开工与建材交付之间存在滞后，抵押贷款利率上升的影响尚未完全显现于Builders FirstSource。然而，建筑商的反馈表明，随后的几个期间可能会出现更疲软的活动。

毛利率压力仍是核心风险。行业产能过剩、新房开工量下降以及价格竞争可能会压低利润率，尤其是在下行情景中。管理层还预计第四季度毛利率将略低于第三季度。

燃油和运输成本是另一大逆风。燃油成本约为去年同期的两倍，而通过燃油附加费收回的金额增长了30%。管理层估计，在价格峰值水平下，年度出货柴油成本约为4000万至4500万美元。

约4.1倍的净杠杆率仍高于公司的长期目标。管理层表示对资产负债表状况感到满意，并预计随着EBITDA的改善，杠杆率将回归至目标区间。

分析师问答亮点

• 进一步成本削减：管理层表示，2027年情景分析不包含额外的紧缩措施。公司相信，如果市场走弱，能够通过采取进一步的设施、人员、变动成本和固定开支行动来进行应对。
• 并购与杠杆：Builders FirstSource仍对能够利用现金流出资并带来运营协同效应的小型战略性收购感兴趣。管理层表示，交易估值倍数已有所趋缓，尽管目前愿意出售的企业主有所减少。
• 毛利率恢复：管理层继续认为，在新房开工量恢复正常的情况下，30%至33%的常态化毛利率是合理的。管理层警告称，当前的开工水平、单套开工价值降低以及行业产能过剩仍是障碍。
• 运营杠杆：管理层表示，当运营高效运行时，20%左右的边际贡献率是可以实现的。实现更高的增量盈利能力将需要更强的动能和更高的设施利用率，包括增加班次。
• 市场份额策略：公司正在通过服务、供应商合作伙伴关系、捆绑产品和可用产能逐个市场追求份额增长，而不是仅仅依靠激进的价格战。
• 劳动力约束：管理层表示，建筑劳动力短缺（包括与移民执法相关的干扰）正在促使建筑商考虑更多场外制作和装配式解决方案。公司认为这是高附加值产品的中长期利好因素。
• 2027年假设：情景分析在很大程度上保持2026年的业务结构不变，并纳入了在新房开工量下降情况下的温和价格压力。正式的2027年业绩指导预计将于2月发布。

业绩电话会完整文字实录

---

完整财报电话会议逐字稿

管理层陈述

Operator

Good day, and welcome to the Builders FirstSource Third Quarter 2026 Earnings Conference Call. Today's call is scheduled to last about 1 hour, including remarks by management and the Q&A session. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the call over to Heather Kos, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations for Builders FirstSource. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Heather Kos

Good morning, and welcome to our third quarter 2026 earnings call. With me on the call are Peter Jackson, our CEO; and Pete Beckmann, our CFO. The earnings press release and presentation are available on our website at investors.bldr.com. We will refer to the presentation during our call.

The results discussed today include GAAP and non-GAAP results adjusted for certain items. We provide these non-GAAP results for informational purposes, and they should not be considered in isolation from the most directly comparable GAAP measures. You can find the reconciliation of these non-GAAP measures to the corresponding GAAP measures where applicable and a discussion of why we believe these can be useful to investors in our earnings press release, SEC filings and presentation.

Our remarks in the press release, presentation and on this call contain forward-looking and cautionary statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and projections of future results. Please review the forward-looking statements section in today's press release and in our SEC filings for various factors that could cause our actual results to differ from forward-looking statements and projections.

And with that, I'll turn the call over to Peter.

Peter Jackson

Thank you, Heather, and good morning, everyone. Our third quarter results reflect the disciplined execution by our team and the resilience of our platform. While housing market conditions remain challenging, we are focused on what we can control, delivering solutions that help builders operate more efficiently and investing in value-added products and technology to drive productivity and fuel growth. These efforts are reinforcing our leadership position and our role as the partner of choice for homebuilders. This environment underscores the importance of the operational excellence and differentiated capabilities at scale, which position us to outperform in any market.

Let's turn now to Slide 4. We delivered third quarter results in line with our expectations for sales and EBITDA, even as single-family activity remains soft. Our value-added offerings, cost actions and ongoing productivity efforts helped cushion the impact of lower volumes. I want to thank our team members for their relentless focus on our customers as we head into the final quarter of the year.

Before turning to our strategic priorities, let me spend a moment on the market backdrop. Mortgage rates moved back above 7% during the quarter. And with consumer confidence still weak, affordability remains the main constraint on new home demand. Higher diesel and transportation costs are also adding pressure across the supply chain. Despite these headwinds, we are maintaining the midpoints of our full year net sales and adjusted EBITDA outlook. Single-family starts are tracking with the assumptions we set last quarter and economic forecasts have moved closer to our view since then. Pete will walk through the details in his remarks.

Demand this fall has been weak, and some builders will likely need to slow starts further to bring inventory in line with sales. Our outlook already reflects this cautious view. In a market like this, builders lean harder on partners who can help them control costs and build efficiently, which plays to our strengths. We expect to capture share by delivering outstanding customer service, bundling our broad product portfolio to help builders with affordability and applying technology in ways that make our sales teams more effective.

Performance varied by region with continued softness across Texas and Colorado, partially offset by relative strength in California, Florida and the Northeast. In multifamily, sales were up modestly in the quarter, but developers remain cautious about new starts as the industry works through existing projects and occupancy stays below desired levels in many markets. Based on the current pipeline, we expect multifamily results to stay muted in the near term.

Our priorities have not changed. We will continue to constrain structural costs and grow faster than the market. Even in a weak year, builders are still starting a meaningful number of homes. The growing shortage of skilled trades is driving builders toward off-site and installed solutions where our offerings and our scale position us as the partner of choice.

Slide 5 highlights how we're managing through the downturn while protecting our ability to invest for the long term. We remain on track to deliver the $140 million in cost actions we outlined. As a reminder, $25 million of those savings will hit next year. So far this year, we have streamlined our organization, reduced overhead across the field support center and operations and focused our investments in the initiatives with the clearest near-term value. We have consolidated 45 facilities so far this year and 100 over the past 3 years, while keeping our on-time and in-full delivery rate above 90%. With our scale and experienced team, we are well positioned to manage through today's market and to benefit from meaningful operating leverage as it recovers.

Slide 6 lays out the key initiatives underway across our 4 strategic pillars. This quarter, we gained share in a challenging market. We also generated $23 million in productivity savings through targeted supply chain initiatives and manufacturing efficiencies and made steady progress on our ERP implementation.

Turning to Slide 7. We deployed approximately $161 million in the third quarter towards return-enhancing opportunities that are aligned with our capital allocation priorities. Strong free cash flow generation through the cycle gives us the flexibility to invest in the business, pursue acquisitions and return capital to shareholders over time.

M&A remains an important lever. As shown on Slide 8, we focus on acquisitions that expand our value-added product offerings and strengthen our position in desirable geographies. This quarter, we acquired ICG and Gleckler and Sons, which enhance our ability to serve customers in the Southeast. Since the BMC merger in 2021, we have completed 44 acquisitions, representing approximately $2.5 billion in annual sales, the equivalent of a top 6 LBM player. The industry is still fragmented, and we see a long runway for M&A to contribute to our growth.

Moving to Slide 9. We see technology as an enabler of our self-help efforts, both in how we run our business and in how we serve our customers. Our goal is to help build a homebuilding ecosystem where data flows efficiently from one step to the next. When information moves cleanly between builders, trades and suppliers, everyone works more efficiently, including us.

Our investments are pulling pieces of that ecosystem together. In the third quarter, we led the Series A financing for Digs, whose AI platform brings the builders' construction documents into a single source of truth that follows the home from preconstruction through warranty. We also invested in Scaffold alongside several of the nation's largest homebuilders. Scaffold's AI connects trade contractors to the homebuilder systems they already use and keeps schedules and purchase orders current across all of them.

We're also using technology to help make our own systems and teams more productive. We have piloted a new sales app with will call functionality, which has reduced the time it takes for customers to place an order by up to 90% -- that means faster service for our customers and more capacity for our teams. It's one example of how technology supports the productivity savings we expect going forward. We'll share more at Investor Day about how technology is benefiting our business and our vision for the homebuilding ecosystem.

One of my favorite parts of these calls is recognizing a member of our team. Today, I want to recognize Kay Moberg, a pricing analyst at our Wasilla, Alaska, location. In 1986, Ferris Bueller made skipping school look like an art. That same year, Kay joined Spenard Builders Supply, one of our legacy companies, as a receptionist. And unlike Ferris, she has been showing up ever since. Her area manager calls her a beam of bright light, and she's always ready to jump in wherever she's needed. And when she's not at work, you'll likely find Kay somewhere in the Alaska wilderness, hiking, cycling, hunting or fishing. Her teammates benefit from that, too, because at inventory time, she brings in summer sausage and smoked salmon. I'm told nobody calls in sick on inventory day in Wasilla. Thank you, Kay, for 40 years of keeping our Alaska team well supplied in more ways than one.

I'll now turn the call over to Pete to discuss our financial results in greater detail.

Pete Beckmann

Thank you, Peter, and good morning, everyone. Our third quarter results met our expectations, reflecting solid execution and continued focus on cost management. Our cash flow generation and liquidity give us the capacity to pursue growth opportunities while maintaining financial flexibility.

Turning to Slides 10 through 12. Net sales decreased approximately 2% to $3.9 billion as lower core organic sales were partially offset by growth from acquisitions. Core organic sales declined 6% in single-family, increased 2% in multifamily and were roughly flat in repair and remodel. Even in the softer single-family backdrop, we gained roughly 1 to 2 points of share in the quarter.

As a reminder, our single-family sales don't move one for one with starts. First, there is a roughly 3-month lag between a start and our first sale. Second, the value of a comparable start has declined by about 10% on average since 2019 as homes have become smaller and more value engineered. Third, affordability pressure has extended into pricing across the supply chain, lowering average selling prices per start.

Gross profit was $1.1 billion, down 11%. Gross margin was 27.8%, down 260 basis points, primarily due to the lower housing starts environment and related headwinds. Adjusted SG&A was $785 million, down $5 million. Lower variable compensation, reduced headcount and the benefit of our cost actions more than offset acquired operations and higher insurance, fuel and delivery expenses.

We remain on track to deliver $115 million of cost actions in 2026 or $140 million on a full run rate basis, including the additional savings identified last quarter. These actions are separate from productivity savings. They include additional facility consolidations, adjustments to incentive compensation, tighter control of discretionary spending and the lower merit and overhead spend.

Adjusted EBITDA was $311 million, down 28%. Adjusted EBITDA margin was 8.1%, down 290 basis points primarily due to lower gross profit and reduced operating leverage on the sales decline.

Before I walk through our adjusted EPS, beginning this quarter, we have updated our definition to improve the alignment of adjusted net income and adjusted EPS to be consistent with adjusted EBITDA. Both measures now exclude the same items, such as stock compensation expense and other management identified adjustments, which includes items like severance. Prior periods have been recast on the same basis and a reconciliation is in our release and presentation. Adjusted EPS was $1.51, down 25%, driven by lower adjusted net income, partially offset by share repurchases.

Now let's turn to the cash flow, balance sheet and liquidity on Slide 13. Our third quarter operating cash flow was $147 million compared to $548 million in the prior year, reflecting lower net income and the lapping effect of last year's working capital release. Free cash flow was $76 million. On a trailing 12-month basis, our free cash flow yield was approximately 4%. Our net debt to adjusted EBITDA ratio was approximately 4.1x, in line with our expectations. That is above our long-term target, but we are comfortable with our position, supported by approximately $1.5 billion in liquidity, consistent free cash flow and favorable terms. We expect leverage to return to our target range as EBITDA improves. In the third quarter, we invested $71 million in capital expenditures and $91 million in acquisitions. We did not repurchase shares in the quarter.

Slides 14 and 15 outline our updated 2026 outlook and assumptions. Within our geographies, we continue to expect single-family starts to be down nearly 7%, multifamily starts down about 4% and repair and remodel activity down 1%. We have narrowed our ranges and maintained the midpoints for net sales and adjusted EBITDA. We expect net sales of $14.2 billion to $14.6 billion, adjusted EBITDA of $1.075 billion to $1.125 billion and adjusted EBITDA margin of 7.4% to 7.9%. Our gross margin outlook remains 27.5% to 28.5%. We expect free cash flow of approximately $400 million to $450 million, narrowing the band within our previously stated range.

Our guidance assumes average commodity prices in the range of $390 to $410 per thousand board foot, around the long-term average of $400. Lumber prices have eased slightly as we expected, while OSB prices have risen in recent weeks following mill curtailment announcements.

Moving to Slide 16. As 2027 comes into focus, we have again laid out scenarios showing how we expect to perform across a range of housing and commodity conditions. These scenarios are not guidance. I repeat, these scenarios are not guidance, and they do not include cost actions beyond those already announced. They are meant to frame potential outcomes in different environments.

In closing, we are managing costs and cash closely in the near term while continuing to invest where we see the best long-term returns. Our liquidity and cash generation give us the capacity to do both. We look forward to sharing more about our financial framework and long-term targets at Investor Day next month.

With that, I'll turn the call back over to Peter for some final thoughts.

Peter Jackson

Thanks, Pete. We are the nation's largest supplier of building materials and value-added services to homebuilders. We hold leading positions in manufactured components and in windows, doors and millwork, pairing national scale with strong local relationships in the markets we serve. Technology is a growing part of how we put that scale to work for our teams and our customers.

Our team has managed through cycles before, and we are using this one to strengthen the company. The work we are doing today will make BFS a more efficient, faster-growing business with meaningful earnings upside built to compete and win in any environment.

We'll show you how at our Investor Day on November 17 at the New York Stock Exchange. The leadership team will walk through the many ways we plan to drive shareholder value, and we'll share the long-term targets behind that plan. We hope to see many of you there. Thank you again for joining us today.

Operator, please open the line for questions.

Operator

[Operator Instructions] our first question will come from Matthew Bouley with Barclays.

分析师问答

Matthew Bouley

I wanted to ask a question around the 2027 margin outlook and cost reductions. So I think I'm looking at the midpoint margins sort of in the low 6s, and correct me if I'm wrong. I know this year, you talked about $140 million of cost actions that are beyond productivity. So in a scenario of the lower ends of the range, you point out kind of low 800s or high 700s on single-family starts. How do you see your ability to pull back further on SG&A sort of austerity measures in that environment? And do these scenarios include those type of cost reductions?

Peter Jackson

Yes, it's a fair question. I think as you've seen, we were able to react to the downturn in the market. Very experienced team as much as we don't enjoy shrinking the business. It's a lot more fun to grow it. They know how to do it. And we've executed against that a whole variety of ways that we've made the business smaller to match the size of the market, whether it's location closures, variable costs, fixed overhead reductions, a lot of forms there, whether it be discretionary or the field support center staffing reductions, all actions that we've taken.

We will continue to execute on those based on what the market gives us. So yes, those are opportunities into the future. That's not what we're doing here. This is just our kind of high-level view based on what we're seeing and some of the key variables right now. We haven't gone through our annual operating process. Our planning process that will happen here over the next 1.5 months and into the beginning of next year. We'll roll that out to all of you so you know the detail.

Matthew Bouley

Got it. Okay. No, I appreciate that, Peter. And secondly, I guess, kind of a 2-parter here on M&A. So high level, just how are you thinking about or perhaps kind of explain M&A versus leverage here to the extent you can acquire EBITDA in a leverage-neutral fashion. So just kind of broader thoughts on that outlook? And then secondly, I'd love to hear a little more detail on Gleckler specifically. Our understanding was they were growing. They had a lot of impact perhaps on the Florida market. So just wanted to understand how you were competing with them now that you've acquired them? Any more details on their financials? Anything along those lines would be great to hear.

Peter Jackson

Sure. Yes. So M&A continues to be an area of focus for us. When we look at the business, we continue to be confident in the balance sheet, the strength of what we borrowed, the tenure at which we've borrowed, the interest rates at which we've borrowed. So we feel confident in what we've got established on the balance sheet. These deals are relatively modest. They're in the range of our cash flows that we're seeing. For us, it's -- if you just look at it mathematically, it's ensuring you've got -- you're on the right side of the interest coverage ratio, it's making sure you're on the right side of the valuation in terms of the multiples. I think we can demonstrate and while we never get into details on these calls, we are able to acquire these assets at a discount from what we would have certainly a couple of years ago, but we think certainly against what we can do with them.

And I think that's a good dovetail into Gleckler. It's a great business. You're right. It's -- we're excited to bring the Gleckler team on board. The BFS and Gleckler teams are working very closely together to figure out how to pull those 2 businesses together and put the best people in the right seats. That means for us, I think, opportunities to optimize, whether it be locations, staffing, the way that we apply our resources to meet customer needs in a variety of different categories, expanding candidly in a couple of categories now that we have better capacity in certain product categories, both Gleckler and ICG working together with BFS to deliver on that. And pricing is always part of that as well. But I think that's a real opportunity for us. We're excited about putting those teams together, takes what is already a strong business for us in Florida and makes it even stronger with a better product portfolio for our customers.

Operator

Our next question comes from Mike Dahl with RBC Capital Markets.

Christopher Kalata

This is Chris on for Mike. Maybe just on gross margin. I was hoping you guys could flesh out your thinking around kind of sequential gross margin from 3Q to 4Q. And as we exit the year and given your range of outcomes for '27, how should we think about the potential impact on gross margins on the high end of that range, the low end of that range? That would be helpful.

Peter Jackson

Well, I'll start at the high level, and Pete can give you more detail. I'd say that if you look at the year and the way things have played out, pretty rough start to the year on gross margins, a lot of competition really aggressive sort of through the first quarter and into Q2. Towards the end of Q2, though, things really started to level out. And I would say, since then, we've been in a fairly narrow band of margin performance. I think that's reflective of candidly how aggressively everything went down. I think there was a bit of a digestion by some of the players who led it down and realizing how far they maybe should have gone versus went, and there's been some stabilization at that level.

Now that always comes into question how stable it's going to be whenever you see significant movements on the starts number. So I think that's what the only question mark that remains for us now is what is this most recent move going in mortgages going to produce from a starts perspective. You've heard our commentary around it. We think it's likely some builders will have to change their trajectory a little bit. And then how will the discipline hold up on the margin side for the folks who are serving that smaller market. And we've got some optimism based on what we've seen. We don't think there's a big move from here, but that's the remaining question in my mind.

Pete Beckmann

Yes. So more specifically with Q4, the imputed number is going to be down slightly from Q3 based on just the squeeze, which we anticipate with some of the pullback in the seasonality, some of the deleverage in the fixed cost structure and cost of goods sold, but also what we're seeing and hearing from our customers and some of their moderating to balance inventory and sales.

Now that laps into 2027. As you think about it, we did not give guide, but the way to think about it is we certainly started the year a little bit higher, and it has come down. So we have to digest that lapping effect as we go into 2027. So just that as a framework is the way to kind of think about what transpires or transposes over into the 2027 kind of scenario modeling.

Christopher Kalata

Understood. I appreciate that. And I guess just more broadly on competitive dynamics and given the change -- the more recent change in the demand backdrop, how are you guys thinking about those dynamics through year-end and into next year? And then particularly on the commodity side, I realize that always tends to be a tougher part of the market, but just what are you seeing there specifically?

Peter Jackson

Well, I'll reiterate that I think things have stabilized by and large on the competitive side. We will continue to monitor it and react appropriately. I don't see anything dramatic playing out there. But like I said, movements in starts have a tendency to cause reaction. So we'll keep a close eye.

When it comes to commodity side, I think what you've seen is pretty disciplined behavior out of particularly the lumber mills, maybe a little less so on the OSB side, but that has been moving recently as well. You may have seen one of the announcements that came out last night, cutting another mill. That all is supportive. I think it's supportive of pricing remaining in an area where we can be profitable and more importantly, where the mills can be profitable and where we can make a higher number and not see it as a headwind on top of what we've been facing. I think the broad statement is there's no meaningful movement up in our mind until the markets start to move a little bit more aggressively to the north up and to the right. But at least the bottom is, it seems to be found and the industry is taking the appropriate actions to respond to the real demand on the ground.

Operator

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from Charles Perron-Piché with Goldman Sachs.

Charles Perron-Piché

First, I would like to ask a little bit more about the comments that you've made about your ability to gain share in this environment. It's quite encouraging, especially while you're able to sustain a gross margin within the targeted range that you talked before. I guess against that, I was wondering if you could discuss your approach to share gains versus protecting margin going forward. And as you focus on service and leveraging your scales and offering, is there a possibility for you to grow share without necessarily having to compete aggressively on price?

Peter Jackson

Yes. Great question. Thank you. The short answer is yes. And the way that we're going to execute on that, we'll drill you into more of the details when we're together for Investor Day, but the gist of it is our approach to share gains is very focused around individual actions at the market level. So targeting areas of the business where we know we have a right to win, we win elsewhere. We have a very good product offering. Maybe we've got an opportunity to take advantage of available capacity and focusing our sales efforts, whether it be putting the team aligned around a specific initiative, marketing materials, presenting the case to a national level representative from a homebuilder, a number of different approaches, but very much focused at a market level to be able to capture that incremental growth opportunity.

One way that we do that is by taking these opportunities and reaching out to suppliers and putting together a joint approach to attack a particular market or a particular customer. Those are oftentimes bundled. They're grouped together. It does absolutely rely on what you described, our customer service offering, whether it be on time and in full or the subject matter expertise that we can bring to bear. All of that is where we have focused. We have a very disciplined approach to pursuing that opportunity. And I think it's really yielding results, and we're seeing it in this quarter, and we think we have a real opportunity to continue to deliver on that into the future based on the momentum that we've built this year. We started with a great team. We're just giving them more tools to be able to win.

Charles Perron-Piché

That's very good color. And second question, I guess not all starts are created equal with some builders increasingly shifting their business to build-to-order -- you also hear a little bit more luxury holding relatively better. Can you talk about your ability to service these end market opportunities? And what do those mean from a profitability standpoint given your differentiated offering across your portfolio?

Peter Jackson

Yes. So it's good, I think, on balance. The primary benefit from BTO is visibility. We have an opportunity to serve a wide variety of product categories. As a distributor, we're certainly very focused on managing that and delivering it both at a very high on time and in full, but also at the lowest cost possible, right? Visibility around build-to-order is usually pretty good. And so our opportunity to both capture a bigger percentage of the value of that start as well as ensure that we're efficiently providing it to the job site are certainly advantages that we bring to bear. But all in all, I guess I would describe it as normal business. We certainly do it every day in a wide variety of markets. So it's not a dramatic shift for us, candidly. It's a very modest one. But that's the one advantage I can think of when we think about...

Operator

We'll move next to Rafe Jadrosich with Bank of America.

Rafe Jadrosich

Can you talk about the diesel and inbound outbound freight impact to the third quarter and then how you're thinking about it for the fourth quarter?

Peter Jackson

I don't think we break out the quarters. I mean as a frame of reference, it is a meaningful number for us, right? We run a top 20, top 30 fleet in the country. It's an important number based on sort of the peak numbers we're looking at $40 million, $45 million a year on the cost of diesel outbound directionally. Now we're offsetting that in a number of ways, obviously, including it in pricing. We've announced a delivery surcharge to try and offset some of that. But it's meaningful, and it's something that we've paid a lot of attention to. We're focusing on it operationally doing what we can to make sure our trucks have simple things, like the appropriate amount of air in the tires to ensure that we're getting the best fuel mileage, but also making sure we pass it through where there's no way to offset it ourselves. That's an ongoing battle. It ebbs and flows, as you might imagine, based on the daily price. I don't think we have anything -- I'm looking at Pete, I don't think we have anything for the third and fourth quarter breakdown.

Pete Beckmann

Not that we've prepared to share with the group, but you hit it on the head. We have fuel costs that are double what they were a year ago, and we're working through that in SG&A, but our fuel surcharge is up 30% from year-over-year and what we're able to pass through. So we are making progress on it. It's not all the way where we want it. And the inbound is that we've talked about in the past an inflationary cost that passes through naturally.

Rafe Jadrosich

Okay. That's helpful. And then you sort of commented on the market share trend improving more recently through the year. Are there specific categories or like within your different segments where you're seeing market share gain and more traction versus others?

Peter Jackson

It's pretty mixed. What we've, I would say, acknowledged, and you can see a little bit in the trajectory of the product categories, we pick up a little bit more of the lumber just by virtue of already having a lot of the value add. Now that said, bundling certainly has helped value add. So there's a bit of a synergistic benefit, I guess, where we capture on both sides. But I think just looking at the numbers, you can see that lumber is an area that we've, I would say, picked up more on a percentage basis.

Operator

We'll move on to Ryan Merkel with William Blair.

Ryan Merkel

I want to start with a trend question. Peter, I'm curious to hear how the market has evolved since July, and it sounds like demand hasn't taken a step lower here in 4Q despite the higher rates. Is that right?

Peter Jackson

No. I got to be real careful how we thread the needle on this one, right? So we've -- the momentum for us hasn't shifted yet in response to the mortgage. But I don't want to misstate. We're waiting to see what happens in that demand shift. There's an expectation it will move. We've insulated it from it a little bit in 2 ways. One, it takes a little bit of time for the acknowledgment of the mortgage rates, the sales pace to change, the starts to be sort of changed at the builder level and then that to show up in our number, right? There's a couple of month gap from the start until we start delivering things to the job site, prep the site, the foundation, the slab, whatever, the rough before they start delivering lumber trusses and framing. So that gap is kind of where we are right now.

The commentary from builders is it's pretty sobering. That move in mortgages was a bit of a shock to the system. And I think that the builders have acknowledged that, and we're recognizing that there's going to be something coming. That has a lot to do with what we put out there for the '27 directionality. But these things have a tendency to move quickly and in any direction you might choose to model. So there's a wait-and-see kind of component here. So far, in good shape. I think our share growth has helped us, not teeing up a dramatic falloff because I think we've got enough of a window to flow through with what we have, but certainly expecting something is going to come through.

Ryan Merkel

Yes. That all makes sense. Okay. And then I'll take a shot at the '27 framework. I guess my question is on gross margin. What are the puts and takes? And I realize that the framework doesn't include more cost out. So that's an important consideration. I know you got the Investor Day coming up, but anything you can tell us on gross margin would be helpful.

Pete Beckmann

Yes. So just to reiterate, this isn't guidance, it's scenario modeling using single-family starts and commodities. I talked about a little earlier, the lapping effect that we'll have in gross margin. So that has to be contemplated into the modeling work on the potential outcome. And what Peter just talked about with some of the pacing due to the affordability that will likely play forward into at least the first part of the year, if not the full year, given future relief on that affordability front. I think it's going to potentially be a challenging environment again, and we're prepared to match it with our ability to manage through any environment.

Operator

We'll move on to John Lovallo with UBS.

Matthew Johnson

This is Matt Johnson on for John. Appreciate the time here. I guess, first off, just on the scenarios, just one more question. On the middle scenario you guys have, I think it's calling for single-family starts to be down about 5% and your sales to be down about 3% within that at the midpoint. Is there just any kind of color you guys can give us on how much completed M&A is in that number and kind of what else might be driving that delta? I guess I was just trying to get a handle on what you're assuming for your single-family organic sales performance relative to single-family starts.

Pete Beckmann

Yes. There's some level of acquisitions that are lapping from the 2026 time frame, but no new acquisitions that we've built into it. So I think that's the way to think about that impact from M&A.

Matthew Johnson

Okay. Appreciate that. Then I guess just back on M&A. I think someone asked about it earlier, but you guys completed the Gleckler and ICG deals this quarter, which was encouraging. I guess based on your results and also, I think US LBM's filings, it seems like leverage is becoming a bit more of a challenge just as EBITDA is getting compressed across the industry. I guess, are you guys seeing any less competition for M&A out in the market today? And how would you frame your appetite for M&A with leverage where it's at? And are you seeing more targets come to market just given the state of things out there right now?

Peter Jackson

So, broadly speaking, we still believe that M&A is going to be a long-term path for us to continue to grow. We capture tremendous synergies. We love being able to bring new talent, new regions, markets, products into the BFS portfolio. So I'll start by saying that hasn't changed, and we don't think that, that will change.

The ups and downs of the M&A sort of transaction space, that's absolutely true. I would say in the scheme of things, it's probably a down market in terms of folks being willing to sell. I think if folks are serious about selling, as you can tell, transactions are going through. I think multiples are more modest than they have been, not surprisingly, I guess, in a lot of ways based on our stock price and the dynamic broadly. That's part of the reason why there aren't as many deals on the market.

That said, I do think this is an environment that lends itself to success with mergers. So I do think folks that are selling are doing it strategically. They're looking out for their teams. They're ensuring that their businesses are going to be strong into the future. And by partnering with BFS, they see a path to do that. So certainly proud to be the partner that's executing in that way.

To your point, there are less folks like us now than there used to be. There aren't very many strong players in our space right now just because of the same things we've been talking to you about over the last couple of years. It's gotten a lot harder. It's not shooting fish in a barrel anymore to make money in LBM. You've got to be on your game. You got to be efficient. You got to be focused on controlling what you can control and driving to serve your customer exquisitely and doing it in a way that helps them address affordability. We're uniquely positioned to do that. And I think that's given us opportunities, both as a desirable partner, but also the strength of our balance sheet to continue to execute. It is a weaker or a slower time for that. But like you said, leverage is certainly something we're keeping an eye on. So being able to do some of these deals around the edges of smaller size, but still desirable from a partnering and acquisition perspective, it seems like a real great opportunity for us, and we're taking advantage of...

Operator

[Operator Instructions] We'll move next to David Manthey with Baird.

David Manthey

I'll take my shot at the scenarios here. Last year, you gave us a plus 5%, flat, minus 5% and then what you call the normalized scenario based on 30% to 33% gross margin. I see you didn't give one this year, but just out of curiosity, if you were going to try to put a band around what you'd consider a normalized gross margin today, what would that be?

Peter Jackson

Yes. So normalized gross margin for us is still anchored on normal volumes. So that's sort of 1.115 single-family total for starts. I think at that level, 30% to 33% is absolutely a reasonable normal, and we're going to work really hard to push north on that number. The challenge today is the sheer number of starts, the quality of the starts, the dollar value of the starts and the available capacity in the industry. That's a tough combination. And we're fighting through the reset at this level, and some of that is coming through in margins. I don't think it's indicative of the long term. I don't. I think it's part of the cycle. And I just remain confident that the 30% to 33% is something we'll get back to.

David Manthey

Okay. And with the scenarios, you -- I get it in terms of even on the flat scenario, you're basically saying you could hold the cost structure that makes sense. The down scenario, I guess, seems conservative because you're saying you wouldn't make any adjustments to the cost structure to kind of get to those scenarios. So it seems conservative on that side. But flipping this over and kind of thinking about more optimistically, if we're looking at up scenarios at some point, would you consider sort of -- I think you've talked in the past about contribution margins north of 20%. Is that a realistic level and maybe even higher on the first turn of starts moving up?

Peter Jackson

I agree with the first part. I don't agree with the second part. So I would say, yes, I think in that 20s range for contribution margin when we're humming is not unreasonable. You think about utilization of available capacity, the ability to stabilize pricing and say no to maybe some of the more aggressive or egregious stuff that we're taking now in order to make sure we're still humming. That absolutely can flow through. I think the best, though, the real sort of positive outperforming type of behavior that you've seen from us in the past comes when that momentum has had an opportunity to build when we're running at that higher level and those facilities are able to move to a second shift, for example, or a third shift when we're really squeezing the last of the incremental out, that's when it really starts to flow with kind of phenomenal profitability and when you'll see those higher contribution margin fall-through percentages.

Operator

We'll move on to Keith Hughes with Truist.

Keith Hughes

I'll keep harping on the same thing on the scenarios. You talked here about, I guess, a little bit of a normalization in pricing and margin in the jobs with some of the pressure going away. But the scenarios look like a really extreme decremental margin more akin to what's happened in the last couple of years. Are you not making an assumption that the pressure relents a little bit in any of these scenarios?

Peter Jackson

Yes, definitely not. We started with snap the line today, what's the business if you annualize it, so at current levels and then try to layer on, okay, what happens if it goes down 5%? What happens if it goes down 10% from a market-based perspective. That's our -- it's sort of -- it's an early path. It's a good look. Your point is right on. This isn't all the things we're going to do or how we think we can react to it. It's a first pass, but it's recognizing the market is what it is, and we want to kind of lay it out there as is what it is so that we can get appropriate credit when we outperform it. I think it's -- if it goes down 5% to 10%, it's going to be hard.

Pete Beckmann

Yes. Peter already alluded to it, there's extra capacity that we're still digesting in this environment. We see more step downs, there's still excess capacity and that has to be processed through, which continues to put further pressure on margins in those downside scenarios. That's the way to think about it. Did we lose you, Keith? Did we lose everybody?

Operator

No, we're still here. We'll move on to Sam Reid with Wells Fargo.

Richard Reid

I'll limit it to one question. Just wanted to touch on any mix assumptions that might be embedded in that 2027 scenario planning. Perhaps as you've maybe taken some share in things like lumber, just curious what flows through to the bottom line with respect to growth and EBITDA margin.

Pete Beckmann

Well, in the scenarios, we didn't model any real change to the mix. So basically, the mix that you see in our 2026 numbers, likely the same mix model in scenarios.

Operator

We'll move on now to Trevor Allinson with Wolfe Research.

Trevor Allinson

First is on the multifamily commentary you had in your prepared remarks. I think you said near term, you expect that to remain muted. But how should we think about that pipeline as we move into 2027? Is that an end market that you think you flip to growth as we get into next year? Or does the recent increase in rates mean that, that remains more muted, not just near term, but as we think about next year?

Peter Jackson

Yes. So you've got some cross currents there. This year, the build-to-rent market, I would say, went into a bit of a pause, if you will, while the whole ROAD to Housing Act, the implications with regard to build-to-rent were figured out. My conversations with some of the major build-to-rent players is it scared the jeebers out of everybody and they all said, we're not doing anything until we know what's going on here, not the least of which is because the investment thesis is sort of in the air until that was clear. Who are they going to be forced to sell, they would not be allowed to own, what were the restrictions they might face.

I would say the way it's worked out pretty -- call it beneficial, but not really detrimental to the space. I think you've seen a little bit of a reinitiation of action and movement. Unfortunately, and this is the other side of the coin, rates moving up is not good for that business, right? The cap rates and the ability to pencil a deal got a lot harder. So I think mixed right now on one hand, the relief rally on the other hand, a pause again because of the mortgage rates, we'll see.

But the way we look at it, more than half of that business for us is stuff that we can see into the future. So back order type stuff, trusses and installed millwork, we can sort of see off a little ways. So we have a pretty good sense of what it's going to do over the next quarter or 2. And at this stage, we're not seeing anything dramatic to start to move. I think rates move and a lot of good things happen. So that's a question mark that will sit out there for us, and we'll keep an eye on it.

Trevor Allinson

Okay. And then second, there's been a lot of talk in the industry about the builders running into labor constraints in certain markets. Is that reaccelerating demand for some of your value-added products? And if so, I suspect that's very market-to-market specific. Any specific markets to call out where you're seeing outsized impact there?

Peter Jackson

Well, you're right about the labor issues. Initially, it was a little bit of pressure because they were all going to the data centers. I don't think that's necessarily as big of a deal. I think the bigger deal has been the enforcement of the immigration enforcement. There's a substantial amount of conversation with the builders in our markets. Certain markets really pretty substantially impacted in terms of available labor. Surveys are saying 2/3 of builders are talking about it, and I think that's probably right. It's -- yes, it's market specific, but I want to be real clear. I mean, we're seeing and hearing pretty meaningful stories in places you might not expect. So certainly, Texas, Florida, the Carolinas, sure, but Delaware, West Virginia, places that you wouldn't really think of as immigration enforcement hotspots are still being impacted and seeing declining available labor as a result.

We are benefiting, certainly, folks looking at opportunities to take work off the job site. The troublesome aspect of it is sort of this knee-jerk reaction and trying to deal with jobs under construction that it's just disruptive at this stage. I think in the medium to long term, it will certainly be good for us, and we see it as a tailwind on value add. I think it's part of the story and part of how we can help even to the extent we do install can be challenging, but running a public company and doing it the right way has advantages at times like these when you need to make sure that you can deliver. We're getting great utilization and the teams are meeting the needs of customers, which kind of proves our value as the partner of choice once again.

Operator

We'll move on now to Reuben Garner with Stone.

Reuben Garner

Multifamily and R&R have been a little bit more stable of late. Just curious how you thought about them in your scenarios for '27 and any other kind of comments on those 2 markets in particular.

Pete Beckmann

Yes. We certainly contemplate all the pieces of the segments that build up to the total revenue. The scenarios are really concentrated on the single-family starts and the commodities. I think based on the commentary and what Peter just talked about, we look at multifamily, we think it's going to probably have a similar behavior to the single-family. So as we look through those scenarios, I think we -- without giving guidance because it's not guidance, we took a conservative approach to the multifamily again. And then R&R is kind of flattish as we think about what that looks like. Some of the economists are calling for an increase in R&R into the future, not seeing it yet and not willing to bank on it. Obviously, these are smaller pieces of the overall business, but still meaningful to the overall. So that's kind of down the middle way of saying it's consistent with what we're seeing today.

Operator

We'll move on now to Collin Verron with Deutsche Bank.

Collin Verron

Just wanted to ask one on SG&A. When we look at margins when housing starts were last at these levels, gross margins clearly stepped up, but that's been offset by the higher SG&A spending relative to the sales base. I guess I'm curious how much of that you view as a structural change or how much of that is an opportunity to kind of leverage that going forward? And just maybe some broad comments on how you guys view SG&A longer term?

Peter Jackson

We're going to have an opportunity to take you into some of that detail when we get together for Investor Day. But broadly speaking, I think you're seeing the reset upwards on some of the input costs that are important to us. Primarily, you're talking about labor, wage-related costs like health care insurance, rents and sort of the transport costs in general. So fuel, right, is a good example. That is, in some ways, structural, but I also think it's important to point out that while we are a best-in-class organization that do a lot of things right.

We have a great team. We have not brought to bear modern technology to the extent that we have available to us. So a whole list of areas where, by giving our team the best, most current tools, we think we're going to get better, more efficient, more effective at executing. That absolutely has a benefit on the SG&A as a percent of sales, certainly a benefit in the COGS as well. But we think that productivity is still a meaningful opportunity for us as we go forward and give our teams the tools they deserve.

Operator

We'll move on now to Phil Ng with Jefferies.

Philip Ng

I appreciate you giving us an early look for 2027. I understand it's not formal guidance. Curious, what does it factor in for price? Does that incorporate any negotiations you have had with your larger builder customers? Have you had early conversations in terms of their planning assumptions that's incorporated in this? Just curious what's baked in.

Peter Jackson

Yes. So the discussions with customers are ongoing. I would tell you the real reset, if there is any, isn't going to happen for a few months. That's happening at year-end and into the beginning of the year. Maybe starting now, but it's going to be a little while. Like I said, I think it's industry-driven. So it's not obviously just us. These aren't bilateral negotiations. They're multilateral negotiations for better or worse. And so there's a couple of assumptions in the numbers with regard to price. One is the run rate, the other is the market downturn. It's not massive, as you can tell. But that's kind of how we think about it at this point. And we will absolutely refine it as we get further into the year and have more clarity, both around what the run rates are going to be for starts and what the market reactions are going to be, and that will be rolled out in our actual guidance in February.

Philip Ng

Okay. But it's fair to assume that within this framework, you've baked in some price bleed from current run rates. And then if it comes in better and stuff you do on the cost side, maybe that's a source of upside, but you factored some slippage. Is that fair, Peter?

Peter Jackson

A little. That's right. That's how we do it. When you move down starts, you move down margins a bit.

Operator

This brings us to the end of today's meeting. We appreciate your time and participation. You may now disconnect.