Follow Us on Social Media

email icon rss icon linked.in icon google plus icon twitter icon facebook icon

Federal Reserve Economists Zero in on Investors

by Steve Cook on December 20, 2013 · 6 comments

  
Federal Reserve Economists

In today’s economy, there are few people whose opinions can drive national economic policy and change the way entire industries are perceived.  The highly trained 331 economists who work for Federal Reserve are among them.  Their expertise and impartiality give their views on critical issues extraordinary credibility in the halls of Congress, the Administration, the media and, of course, the Fed itself.

Two top Fed economists  have just published a new study on investment in single family rentals.  Though the focus of their concern is plans to securitize single family rentals, they address ”business investing” broadly.  Their findings could help convince policy makers that all investors are a force for economic instability that could, in future, help provide fodder for years to those who would like single family rentals converted back to owner-occupancy.

Rebecca Molloy, a senior economist with a Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard and Rebecca Zarutskie, who got her doctorate at MIT, published Business Investor Activity in the Single-Family-Housing Market December 5.

The authors make passing mention of the lifesaving role investors played during the foreclosure crisis, noting only that investing “has likely aided the recovery in certain housing markets” and “may also have supported house prices in markets where that activity was concentrated.” Hedge funds get more credit for investing in new platforms for property management, marketing, and servicing, and by expanding the number of single-family homes for rent in relatively attractive neighborhoods–at least in some cities.

“On the positive side, these investors are deploying capital to purchase and renovate houses that otherwise might have remained vacant for a long time. Tight financing conditions in the primary mortgage market have likely limited the ability of some potential owner-occupiers to purchase and renovate these properties themselves. Another advantage of this activity is that institutional investors are increasing the supply of single-family rental houses at a time when the demand for such housing appears to be high,” they said.

Large Scale Investors Are Introducing Large Scale Risk

They point out that large investors are creating a new dimension of risk. “Many large investors say that they plan, in time, to sell their entire portfolios of houses and the associated management platforms to entities that will continue to manage them as rental properties, rather than selling homes one-by-one on the owner-occupied market. Some of the largest investor portfolios may go public as real estate investment trusts, or REITs, in order to tap into a broader investor base, which includes both individuals and institutions such as mutual funds and pension funds… However, investors’ use of debt may rise over time as revenues increase and stabilize, and net incomes become positive.

In addition, the ability to securitize rental-income streams in the form of bonds, a new financial innovation introduced recently by Blackstone and Deutsche Bank, may also lead to greater use of leverage to finance the buy-to-rent model,” they wrote.

Investors May Have Overestimated Demand

In summary, they said “Despite these benefits, the large-scale rental of single family homes is still a new business with a short track record and, thus, carries significant risks. Investors may end up having overestimated the demand for rentals in a particular neighborhood, or may have invested more in improving, leasing, and maintain houses than they recoup through rental payments. Neighborhoods may suffer if a particular investor has difficulties managing large numbers of rental properties or ceases operating and cannot find a new investor to buy out their positions.

In this case, a large number of homes that are left vacant or put up for sale on the owner-occupied market could cause a drop in house prices in the area and thus negatively impact other homeowners,” they wrote.

Acknowledging there is little risk to financial stability currently because of the relatively small share of homes held by investors , the authors suggest financial stability concerns may become more significant should debt financing become more prevalent or if the share of homes owned by investors in certain markets rises significantly further. “Greater use of leverage makes financial distress of the investors more likely, which may force them to liquidate their asset holdings at suboptimal values. To the extent that public markets develop for bonds backed by the underlying income or assets of investor portfolios, there is greater risk of the development of shadow banking activities based on these securities or derivatives referencing them,” they wrote.  They recommend it will be important to monitor developments in these markets for signs of the potential to destabilize financial markets.

No Studies on Investors Exist

I came away from the piece with the impression that the authors, though expert economists who made some important insights, could have benefited from a more extensive exposure to real estate investing.  For example, Only their charts mentioned that institutional investors account for only a fraction of the foreclosures converted to rentals since 2009.  Nor did they account for the hundreds of millions that investors of all sizes have spent renovating housing, which does more than make houses rent-ready.  They raise property values and improve neighborhoods that otherwise would fester. And talk about instability: Homeowners in California, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Florida and elsewhere would have lost many millions more in equity had not investors created price floors that stopped the bleeding and restored confidence in devastated markets in 2009-2011.

Why they did not seem to know these things was answered by a single line in the report.

To our knowledge, no studies exist on the effect of single-family-real-estate business investor activity on housing markets or other outcomes.

Shame on us!  As one who has been involved in some very minimal research for Bigger Pockets and others, I know how very little research has been done on the single most important phenomenon in residential real estate.

What difference does all this make?  Hopefully, this discussion will have no impact on your business. However, the Federal Reserve, which oversees the national economy and directly regulates the nation’s banking and financial industry, now has real estate investors of all sizes in its cross hairs.  Should some institutional investors collapse and their investors lose big time or their tenants are forced out into the street, you can be sure this report will set the tone for the government’s response, and that response could include regulatory moves that will limit investors’ debt and access to financing.

Fed Investors Data

Photo Credit: Gwenaël Piaser

Email *
  



{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }

Roy N. December 20, 2013 at 7:04 am

Steve,

Engaging and informative as always.

We are starting to see signs here in Canada of credit tightening, via policy changes at CMHC and OSFI and with the conventional lenders themselves, though it appears to still be focused on the notion of a “soft landing” in the overheated RE markets (Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary). To-date, large institutional investors have not shown the same interest in the Canadian SFH markets … simply because the same opportunity is not there.

Reply

Gerald Harris December 20, 2013 at 8:08 am

Great Article Steve!

The Ethical Real Estate Investor in any town USA has contributed more than he has taken in his or her local market. During the foreclosure crisis when banks weren’t lending at all the Investors were the once’s who bought properties at great prices, rented the properties out ant paid the taxes on that property. There were areas where literally minimal property taxes were being paid at best. This national needs the real estate investor to continue to buy homes, fix them up and rent them out or buy them, fix them up and resell them thus contributing to the beautification of that neighborhood. Once gain, the Goverment is to educated to understand this simple truth.

Reply

Thomas McCombs December 20, 2013 at 9:30 am

Interesting article. It does demonstrate that there is little information in this area .

I have had little success in trying to figure out what the percentage of investor buyers is right here in my own market in Akron, Ohio, but my feeling is that the percentage is higher than what might be expected after looking at the study you refer to.

Investors were and still are the main fall back defense here against total housing price collapse, as they provide that floor you referred to.

Reply

Jag Sekhon December 21, 2013 at 11:29 am

Very nice article Steve! It will definitely be interesting to see if this leads to any tangible changes for investors in the future.

Reply

Jimmy Davis December 22, 2013 at 1:48 pm

I’m wondering if I’m the only one noticing that credit cards aren’t hitting my mailbox with 0% and other low interest offers lately…maybe this could be an early sign that lenders are going to start tightening up….or should I say tightening up even more.

Reply

kathy December 23, 2013 at 10:30 am

I think there is an overall bias against investors and landlords. What about the banks not working with people and causing them to have to move out of their homes? Several of my tenants have gone through foreclosures, cannot buy another home, and are happy to live in a nice, well maintained, single family home while they rebuild their credit. In addition lending requirements are tight and it’s taking more and more work to meet the banks tightened lending requirements. I know several people who have commercial loans which are not being renewed because the requirements have changed. Why don’t they grandfather in people who pay on time instead of forcing them to come up with unavailable money? Basically I think the people who work at banks treat it like a 9-5 job instead of a career where they actually want to help people. Or maybe they are so frustrated and strangled by regulations that the lenders can’t find a way around them to help long-time customers. I think our government is strangling the small business person and free enterprise at a time when good paying jobs are less available.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Comment Policy:

• Use your real name and only your name in the field designated for your name.
• No keywords allowed as anchor text in the name or comment fields.
• No signature links allowed under your comments
• You may use links in the body of your comment, but it must be relevant to the discussion at hand, and not merely be some promotional link.
• We will have NO reservations about deleting your content if we feel you are posting merely to get a link without adding value to our discussion.
If you add value, but still post keywords, we'll use your comment, but remove your link and keywords.
• For more information about acceptable practice, see our site rules.

Want your photo to appear next to your comments? Set up your Gravatar today.

Previous post:

Next post: