Housing supply in Australia : the impact of the availability of development finance

Before the Global Financial Crisis many providers of finance had growth mandates and actively pursued development finance deals as a way of gaining higher returns on funds with regular capital turnover and re-investment possible. This was able to be achieved through high gearing and low presales in a strong market. As asset prices fell, loan covenants breached and memories of the 1990’s returned, banks rapidly adjusted their risk appetite via retraction of gearing and expansion of presale requirements. Early signs of loosening in bank credit policy are emerging, however parties seeking development finance are faced with a severely reduced number of institutions from which to source funding. The few institutions that are lending are filtering out only the best credit risks by way of constrictive credit conditions including: low loan to value ratios, the corresponding requirement to contribute high levels of equity, lack of support in non-prime locations and the requirement for only borrowers with well established track records. In this risk averse and capital constrained environment, the ability of developers to proceed with real estate developments is still being constrained by their inability to obtain project finance. This paper will examine the pre and post GFC development finance environment. It will identify the key lending criteria relevant to real estate development finance and will detail the related changes to credit policies over this period. The associated impact to real estate development projects will be presented, highlighting the significant constraint to supply that the inability to obtain finance poses.

How does access to development finance shape our cities?

In market economies the built environment is largely the product of private sector property development. Property development is a high-risk entrepreneurial activity executing expensive projects with long gestation periods in an uncertain environment and into an uncertain future. Risk lies at the core of development: the developer manages the multiple risks of development and it is the capital injection and financing that is placed at risk. From the developer's perspective the search for development capital is a quest: to access more finance, over a longer term, with fewer conditions and at lower rates. From the supply angle, capital of various sources - banks, insurance companies, superannuation funds, accumulated firm profits, retail investors and private equity - is always seeking above market returns for limited risk. Property development presents one potentially lucrative, but risky, investment opportunity. Competition for returns on capital produces a continual dynamic evolution of methods for funding property developments. And thus the relationship between capital and development and the outcomes for the built environment are in a restless continual evolution. Little is documented about the ways development is financed in Australia and even less of the consequences for cities. Using publicly available data sources and examples of different development financing from Australian practice, this paper argues that different methods of financing development have different outcomes and consequences for the built environment. This paper also presents an agenda for further research into these themes.

Ecuador industrial development finance /

"June 1985."

Report of the California Water Resources Development Finance Committee and Department of Water Resources to the Legislature on the State water resources development system.

None published, 1967,1974.

$150,000,000 ILLINOIS DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY State of Illinois revolving fund revenue bonds, series of 2002 (master trust)

"First Albany Corporation."

Indian Development Finance Corporation Act : hearing before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One hundredth Congress, first session on S. 721 ...

"October 15, 1987, Washington, D.C."--Pt. 2.

Innovative real estate development finance – evidence from Europe

The authors would like to thank the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) for their financial support of the project and the numerous respondents who gave so freely of their time.

Finance, social economics and community development

The last three decades have seen social enterprises in the United Kingdom pushed to the forefront of welfare delivery, workfare and area-based regeneration. For critics, this is repositioning the sector around a neoliberal politics that privileges marketization, state roll-back and disciplining community groups to become more self-reliant. Successive governments have developed bespoke products, fiscal instruments and intermediaries to enable and extend the social finance market. Such assemblages are critical to roll-out tactics, but they are also necessary and useful for more reformist understandings of economic alterity. The issue is not social finance itself but how it is used, which inevitably entangles social enterprises in a form of legitimation crises between the need to satisfy financial returns and at the same time keep community interests on board. This paper argues that social finance, how it is used, politically domesticated and achieves re-distributional outcomes is a necessary component of counter-hegemonic strategies. Such assemblages are as important to radical community development as they are to neoliberalism and the analysis concludes by highlighting the need to develop a better understanding of finance, the ethics of its use and tactical compromises in scaling it as an alternative to public and private markets.

An assessment of development funding for new housing post GFC in Queensland, Australia

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to identify changes in bank lending criteria due to the GFC and to explore the associated impacts on new housing supply in Queensland, Australia. Design/methodology/approach: This research involves a survey of each of Australia’s big four banks, as well as two prominent arrangers of development finance. Data on key lending criteria was collected: Pre GFC, during the GFC, and GFC recovery stage. Findings: The GFC has resulted in a retraction of funds available for residential development. The few institutions lending are filtering out only the best credit risks by way of constrictive loan covenants including: low loan to value ratios, high cash equity requirements, regional “no go” zones, and demonstrated borrower track record. The ability of developers to proceed with new housing developments is being constrained by their inability to obtain sufficient finance. Research limitations/implications: This research uses survey data, together with an understanding of the project finance process to extrapolate impacts on the residential development industry across Queensland. No regional or sub-market analysis is included. Future research will include subsequent surveys to track any loosening of credit policies over time and sub-market sector analysis. Practical implications: The inability to obtain project finance is identified as a key constraint to new housing supply. This research will inform policy makers and provide important quantitative evidence of the importance of availability of development finance in the housing supply chain. Social implications: Queensland is facing a supply shortfall, which if not corrected, may lead to upward pressure on house prices and falling housing affordability. Originality/value: There is very little academic research on development funding. This research is unique in linking bank lending criteria to new housing supply and demonstrating the impact on the development industry.

Identifying the financial barriers to deliberative, affordable apartment development in Australia

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments in Australia and examine whether demand aggregation and ‘deliberative development’ (self-build) can form a new affordable housing ‘structure of provision’. Design/methodology/approach Market design, an offshoot of game theory, is used to analyse the existing apartment development model, with ‘deliberative development’ proposed as an innovative alternative. Semi-structured interviews with residential development financiers are used to evaluate whether deliberative development could obtain the requisite development finance. Findings Our investigation into the financial barriers of a deliberative development model suggest that while there are hurdles, these can be addressed if key risks in the exchange process can be mitigated. Hence, affordability can be enhanced by ‘deliberative development’ replacing the existing speculative development model. Research implications Market design is a new innovative theoretical approach to understanding the supply of housing, offering practical solutions to affordable apartment supply in Australia. Originality/value This research identifies financial barriers to the supply of affordable apartments; introduces theoretical understandings gained from market design as an innovative solution; provides evidence that a new structure of building provision based on ‘deliberative development’ could become a key means of achieving more affordable and better designed apartments.