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.