Key Takeaways
- The U.S. has largely recovered from the effects of the pandemic, but affordability challenges persist, as there remains limited, albeit slowly growing, affordable housing supply to meet demand.
- Ongoing demand has generally kept occupancy at Section 8, mobile home, and unenhanced affordable properties high and stable, leading to consistent rental revenues.
- However, the age-restricted subsector continues to face challenges including comparatively high vacancy rates and lower-than-budgeted revenues, even though revenue trends have improved year over year and recovered from the lows through the pandemic.
- The high-cost structure within the rental housing sector remained consistent with 2022, with maintenance and repair, insurance premiums, and payroll-related expenses representing the largest share of operating costs.
Overview
The shortage of affordable housing units, along with increased demand for such units, has long been a challenge in the U.S. During the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of households became significantly cost burdened because of rising unemployment rates, rent inflation, and other economic hardships, which spurred demand for affordable units. Considering the number of housing-burdened households has reached an all-time high, we think demand for affordable housing units is unlikely to change despite abatement of some of the economic issues associated with the pandemic.
Despite ongoing expense pressure, financial performance, as measured by S&P Global Ratings-calculated average debt service coverage (DSC), has improved slightly over the past 14 months, when considering bonds across the non-military rental housing sector. Despite the stability in financial and operating performance in 2023, S&P Global Ratings is monitoring the following for the non-military housing rental housing bond sector:
As of May 2024, S&P Global Ratings maintains 59 non-military stand-alone rental housing bond (RHB) ratings, a decline from 65 ratings in the previous year because it withdrew six ratings across five transactions following defeasance or redemption of the outstanding bonds. This report provides more detail to how each property type subsector performed during the past year, and what S&P Global Ratings expects in the coming year.
Age-Restricted Housing
Key Takeaways
- Sectorwide trends in outlook are stable, with notable exceptions that are generally skewed negatively.
- Occupancy has finally stabilized four years after the disruption caused by the pandemic.
- Operators have shifted focus in both staffing and resident services.
Rating Actions Were Generally Negative Despite Occupancy Improvement
We maintain 14 ratings across six transactions in the age-restricted housing sector. Overall, rating actions in the sector were largely negative including multiple downgrades on Great Lakes Senior Living Communities' various liens. On Dec. 21, 2023, we placed the ratings on this issuer's first-, second-, and third- lien bonds on CreditWatch with negative implications (see report). On March 14, 2024, we resolved the CreditWatch placement and lowered our rating on the first-lien bonds to 'CC' from 'CCC-', with a negative outlook, and lowered the ratings on the second- and third-lien bonds to 'D' (default), following draws on the reserves and a missed principal payment on the second and third liens in January 2024 (see report). We also revised several outlooks on other transactions in this sector, including four to negative from stable, and one to positive from negative.
Expenses Stabilize And Rental Revenue Grows
In previous years, operating pressures stemmed from labor and food costs and management's difficulty in controlling expenses. Over the past year, costs have eased with owners and operators reducing employee turnover and reliance on contract labor while more tightly controlling food costs. These efforts could indicate that owners and operators are adapting to the persistent inflationary environment. Furthermore, stabilized occupancy combined with increased rental rates has contributed to improved financial performance for the age-restricted housing subsector.
Chart 1
Table 1
Age-restricted housing--Rating list | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating information | Current key rating factors | |||||||||||||||||||
Issuer (alphabetical) | Rating | Outlook | S&P Global Ratings DSC* | Liquidity--DSRF to MADS | C&L assessment | M&G assessment§ | Occupancy (%)§ | Units§ | Market position assessment§ | |||||||||||
Bethesda Senior Living - 1st Lien | BBB- | Positive | 1.95 | None | Weak | Adequate/strong | 84.6 | 844 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Bethesda Senior Living - 2nd Lien | BB+ | Positive | 1.8 | 1.5 x MADS | Very weak | |||||||||||||||
Covenant Communities Affordable Housing - 1st Lien | BBB | Stable | 1.37 | None | Weak | Adequate | 94.1 | 1,110 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Covenant Communities Affordable Housing - 2nd Lien | BB+ | Stable | 1.99 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | |||||||||||||||
Great Lakes Senior Communities - 1st Lien | CC | Negative | 1.32 | None | Very weak | Adequate/weak | 86.4 | 1,254 | Weak | |||||||||||
Great Lakes Senior Communities - 2nd Lien | D | Not meaningful | 0.94 | 1/2 MADS | ||||||||||||||||
Great Lakes Senior Communities - 3rd Lien | D | Not meaningful | 0.83 | 1/2 MADS | ||||||||||||||||
Minnesota Senior Living - 1st Lien | BB- | Negative | 1.57 | None | Very weak | Strong/adequate | 82.6 | 931 | Weak | |||||||||||
Minnesota Senior Living - 2nd Lien | B | Stable | 0.88 | 1/2 MADS | ||||||||||||||||
Minnesota Senior Living - 3rd Lien | B- | Stable | 0.83 | MADS | ||||||||||||||||
QSH Sanders Glen Affordable Housing | B- | Stable | 1.03 | MADS | Very weak | Weak | 90.0 | 111 | Weak/adequate | |||||||||||
Quality Senior Housing Foundation of East Texas - 1st Lien | BBB- | Stable | 2.33 | None | Weak | Weak | 87.5 | 385 | Adequate/strong | |||||||||||
Quality Senior Housing Foundation of East Texas - 2nd Lien | BB+ | Stable | 1.48 | 1/2 MADS | ||||||||||||||||
Quality Senior Housing Foundation of East Texas - 3rd Lien | BB | Stable | 1.26 | 1/2 MADS | ||||||||||||||||
*Most recent fiscal year. §Assessments and information apply to the transaction and do not differ by lien. DSC--Debt service coverage. DSRF--Debt service reserve fund. C&L--Coverage and liquidity. M&G--Management and governance. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Overall, this subsector appears to be stabilizing four years after the start of the pandemic. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the 85-year-old-plus population is expected to more than double by 2040 and triple by 2060, which we expect could vastly increase the demand for age-restricted housing, potentially improving occupancy levels and profitability. But ongoing inflationary pressures for costs of goods and services, labor shortages, and payroll expenses continue to hamper operating margins.
According to the National Investment Center for Seniors Housing & Care (NIC), senior housing occupancy across the U.S. increased to 86.8% in 2023, from 84.7% in 2022 and 82.4% in 2021. According to the NIC, occupancy of senior housing units remains at a record high through the first quarter of 2024. We expect that demand will continue to rise, and although higher interest rates have led to slower new unit construction, supply is still outpacing demand (both at a slower rate). We expect the difference between supply and demand will narrow in the medium and long term because of the expected increase in the aging population over the next 10-to-15 years.
The ability to hire and retain skilled nursing labor through the pandemic and beyond remains a key challenge for the sector, but the level of assisted-living jobs topped pre-pandemic levels as of first-quarter 2024. When considering the mix of age-restricted units on which we maintain ratings, independent units account for 51%, assisted-living units make up approximately 40%, and memory care units account for the remaining 9% of the ratings. As a result, filling skilled nursing positions is integral to successful operations, and staffing assisted-living and memory care units poses the greatest difficulty due to the low supply of qualified, licensed, and willing applicants. The age-restricted housing industry's responses include focusing and investing in work culture, education, and other employee benefits to recruit and retain workers. These responses have resulted in an increase in payroll and benefit expenses, and will ideally contribute to stabilizing the workforce, which could reduce expenses related to employee attrition and the need for contract staffing, which tends to be substantially more expensive than in-house staff.
Market forces have also required operators to focus on residents' life quality and wellbeing through higher-quality facilities, quality of services, and increased resident engagement. If this trend continues, we expect the changes could materially influence performance of the related bond transactions. In our view, transactions with the best performance have dedicated, experienced, and proactive management teams, as well as involved ownership entities that support the transactions operationally or financially where necessary, to cover cash shortfalls as the sector emerges from these years-long challenges.
Table 2
Age-restricted unit type | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Transaction name | Total number of units | Independent living units | Assisted-living units | Memory care units |
Bethesda Senior Living Communities | 844 | 127 | 582 | 135 |
Covenant Communities Affordable Housing | 1,110 | 655 | 356 | 99 |
Great Lakes Senior Communities | 1,254 | 795 | 377 | 82 |
Minnesota Senior Living | 931 | 600 | 295 | 36 |
QSH Sanders Glen Affordable Housing | 111 | - | 111 | - |
Quality Senior Housing Foundation of East Texas | 385 | 182 | 155 | 48 |
Total units | 4,635 | 2,359 | 1,876 | 400 |
% of total | 100 | 50.9 | 40.5 | 8.6 |
Mobile Home Parks
Key Takeaways
- Ratings remain stable across the subsector with one positive rating action.
- The unique features of this subsector contribute to high and stable occupancy, along with comparatively low expenses.
- Climate hazards, including wildfires, hurricanes, and flooding, create uncertainty related to maintenance and insurance costs.
Ratings And Outlooks Remain Stable, Although Coverage Increases
We maintain 20 ratings across 18 mobile home park (MHP) communities offering mobile-home housing for low-and-moderate-income individuals and families. The rated universe of MHP transactions is stable in terms of financial and operational performance, with 100% occupancy across rated entities and virtually unchanged year-over-year average DSC of 1.63x, up from 1.59x the previous year.
We took one positive rating action over the past year: We raised our rating on Caritas Affordable Housing Inc.'s class II 2021B bonds to 'BBB+' from 'BBB', reflecting improved maximum annual debt service (MADS) coverage, which was spurred by growth in revenue outpacing growth in expenses (see report, published Aug. 22, 2023).
The Unique Features Of This Subsector Provide Rating Stability
The stability in the MHP subsector reflects its unique operating model, where tenants own the physical unit but rent the lot on which the unit is located. This provides lower operational expenses compared with other RHB subsectors because the operator is not responsible for the maintenance of the physical units. Due to lower maintenance and repair and labor costs, the MHP subsector benefits from greater financial flexibility relative to other RHB subsectors.
Due to the complications and expenses associated with moving a physical unit from lot to lot, tenants choosing to move typically put the unit up for sale, continuing to pay lot rent and fees until they sell the unit, at which point the new tenant establishes a new lease on the lot. This unique rental structure contributes to an occupancy rate that historically has remained high and stable. Overall, the combination of stable occupancy and lower operational expenses has resulted in steady profit margins, which is reflected in key rating factors across the subsector. Our coverage and liquidity assessments, which generally incorporate a positive adjustment to account for the stability of cash flows are, on average, strong for the entities we rate. In addition, all rated issuers maintain a debt service reserve fund sized at or above MADS and therefore do not typically have negative liquidity adjustments, which in our view is a credit strength of the subsector.
Chart 2
Table 3
Mobile home parks--Rating list | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating information | Current key rating factors | |||||||||||||||||||
Issuer (alphabetical) | Rating | Outlook | S&P Global Ratings DSC* | Liquidity--DSRF to MADS | C&L assessment | M&G assessment§ | Occupancy (%)§ | Units§ | Market position assessment§ | |||||||||||
Augusta Homes | A+ | Stable | 1.80 | > MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 440 | Weak | |||||||||||
California Municipal Finance Authority - Windsor Mobile Country Club | A+ | Stable | 1.86 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 336 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Caritas Acquisitions I - Caritas Mobile Home Parks - 1st Lien | A- | Stable | 1.44 | MADS | Adequate | Adequate | 99.0 | 1805 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Caritas Acquisitions I - Caritas Mobile Home Parks - 2nd Lien | BBB+ | Stable | 1.32 | 1/2 MADS | Adequate/weak | Adequate | 99.0 | 1805 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Caritas Affordable Housing | A- | Stable | 1.44 | MADS | Stong/adequate | Adequate/weak | 99.5 | 1736 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
Coach of San Diego LLC - Pillar Ridge Project | A- | Stable | 1.47 | MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate | 100 | 227 | Weak | |||||||||||
Linc Hsg - Franciscan Mobile Home Park 1st Lien | A+ | Stable | 1.46 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate/weak | 100 | 501 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Linc Hsg - Franciscan Mobile Home Park 2nd Lien | A- | Stable | 1.29 | MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate/weak | 100 | 501 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Castle Mobile Estates | A+ | Stable | 1.80 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 108 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Copacabana Mobilehome Park | A+ | Stable | 1.97 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Strong | 100 | 173 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Hacienda Valley Mobile Estates | A+ | Stable | 1.90 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 166 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Rancho Del Sol & Grandview East | A+ | Stable | 1.61 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 214 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Rancho Feliz and Las Casitas de Sonoma | A- | Stable | 1.48 | MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate | 100 | 423 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Rancho Vallecitos Mobile Estates | A- | Stable | 1.37 | MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate | 100 | 340 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Sahara Project | A | Stable | 1.51 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 254 | Very weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - San Juan Mobile Estates | A- | Stable | 1.39 | MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate | 100 | 312 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Santa Rosa Leisure Mobile Home Pk | A+ | Stable | 1.9 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 182 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Union City Tropics Project | A+ | Stable | 1.85 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate | 100 | 544 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Vista de Santa Barbara Mobilehome Park | A- | Stable | 1.45 | MADS | Stong/Adequate | Adequate | 100 | 124 | Weak | |||||||||||
Millennium Housing LLC - Westlake & Millbrook Mobile Home Park | A | Stable | 1.8 | MADS | Strong | Adequate | 98 | 425 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
The ratings on nine series of mobile home park bonds are capped due to the application of the criteria "Counterparty Risk Framework: Methodology And Assumptions" (published March 8, 2019). *Most recent fiscal year. §Assessments and information apply to the transaction and do not differ by lien. DSC--Debt service coverage. DSRF--Debt service reserve fund. C&L--Coverage and liquidity. M&G--Management and governance. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Section 8 Housing
Key Takeaways
- Strong demand for subsidized rental housing keeps occupancy rates high.
- Coverage levels improved, but remain hampered by high costs of planned renovations and required property improvements.
- Natural hazards and disasters pose a threat to affordable rental housing stock.
Mixed Rating Actions Across The Section 8 Subsector
We maintain 21 ratings across 18 Section 8 transactions (see table 4), down from 25 ratings across 21 transactions the previous year. From April 2023 to June 2024, we withdrew four Section 8 ratings. All of the withdrawals followed the redemption of the bonds. For three of these withdrawals (associated with two transactions), the bonds were redeemed on the sale of the underlying property.
The ratings in this subsector range from 'A+' to 'CCC' (see chart 3). Subsidized Section 8 rental contracts provide for stable operating revenue, but for transactions with lower ratings, we generally observe erosion in coverage and liquidity and management and governance. In addition, some Section 8 properties in the subsector are characterized by high levels of deferred maintenance and below-average physical condition that we capture in our view of the property's market position assessments.
Since April 2023, the rating actions on four transactions in this subsector were mixed. There were two multi-notch upgrades, one of which also included an outlook change to positive from stable:
- The two-notch upgrade on Chisom Housing Group to 'BBB' from 'BB+' on June 4, 2024 (see full analysis) followed a sharp year-over-year strengthening in MADS coverage and improved operational effectiveness contributed to a revision in our view of management and governance. Furthermore, positive trends in the project's property-specific characteristics led us to view Chisom's market position as strengthened. The outlook remained positive.
- The two-notch upgrade to 'B-' from 'CCC' and outlook revision to positive from stable on NV Homestead Apartments on July 17, 2023 (see report), reflect the transaction's material improvement in DSC following renewal of the transaction's Housing Assistance Payments contract, receipt of low-income housing tax credits allocation, and increased rental revenue that, together, we believe would likely lead to ongoing improvements in credit quality and financial performance.
We also took a negative rating action on one Section 8 issuer and revised the outlook on another transaction to negative from stable:
- Our downgrade on CHC Trestletree LLC to 'B-' from 'B' was due to persistent cash flow pressures in conjunction with certain elevated operating expenses, resulting in MADS coverage of 0.07x and our expectation that coverage will likely remain below 1.0x in fiscal 2023 (see report published Aug. 9, 2023).
- The outlook revision to negative from stable on the 'A+' rated Los Angeles Housing Authority series 2021A and 2020AB mortgage revenue bonds, issued for the Union Portfolio Project, reflects our expectation that operating expenses will continue to pressure cash flows in 2023, culminating in a MADS coverage ratio below 2.0x (see report published Aug. 21, 2023).
Stable Financial Performance Underpinned By Improved Occupancy
This year marked an improvement in financial and operational performance in this subsector, leading to greater rating stability for the Section 8 transactions, compared with 2022. Average first-tier DSC improved slightly to 1.25x from 1.23x and occupancy increased to 96.4% from 94.8%. The primary driver for occupancy increases was units coming back online following the completion of planned renovations and required improvements from damages incurred from natural disasters and other destructive events. Although there are high costs associated with unit turns and renovation, as repairs are completed, properties can generate more revenue and improve margins and coverage.
We expect the robust demand for subsidized rental units will continue to keep occupancy and revenue trends stable and strong for the subsector. In our view, the primary challenge for these properties is management and governance, which materially contributes to the success or failure of Section 8 properties. For example, in the upgrade on Chisom, improved management and governance underscored the overall change in the credit fundamentals. Generally, when we observe weaknesses in management and governance, it reflects one of, or a combination of, the following: lack of experience, resources, or willingness to effectively manage the projects; limited evidence of or execution of strategic or organizational plans; and/or the ability or willingness to meet performance and financial benchmarks, and, in the worst cases, financial obligation.
Chart 3
Table 4
Section 8 housing--Rating list | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating information | Current key rating factors | |||||||||||||||||||
Issuer (alphabetical) | Rating | Outlook | S&P Global Ratings DSC* | Liquidity--DSRF to MADS | C&L assessment | M&G assessment§ | Occupancy (%)§ | Units§ | Market position assessment§ | |||||||||||
American Agape Foundation - 1st Lien | CCC+ | Negative | 0.76 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | Weak | 94.2 | 327 | Weak | |||||||||||
American Agape Foundation - 2nd Lien | CCC+ | Negative | 0.69 | <1/2 MADS | Very weak | |||||||||||||||
Assisted Living Foundation of America - Central Alabama Portfolio Project | BBB | Negative | 1.66 | 1/2 MADS | Adequate/weak | Weak | 89.0 | 427 | Weak | |||||||||||
Assisted Living Foundation of America - Kings Daughters Court | BBB | Stable | 1.72 | 1/2 MADS | Adequate/weak | Weak | 99.0 | 80 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
Carver Gardens | B+ | Stable | 1.06 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | Adequate/weak | 94.5 | 100 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
CHC Inglewood Gardens Apartments | BBB+ | Stable | 1.62 | 1/2 MADS | Adequate | Adequate/weak | 98.3 | 84 | Weak | |||||||||||
CHC Trestletree Properties | B- | Negative | 0.08 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | Weak | 95.8 | 188 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
Chisom Housing Group** | BBB | Positive | 1.90 | 1/2 MADS | Adequate/weak | Adequate/weak | 96.4 | 688 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
Foundation for Affordable Housing - Citrus Grove and East Winds Apartments*** | BB | Stable | 1.03 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | Adequate/weak | 95.0 | 134 | Weak/very weak | |||||||||||
Glorieta Partners - Gardens Apartment Project | CCC | Negative | -0.73 | <1/2 MADS | Very weak | Very weak | 90.0 | 330 | Very weak | |||||||||||
Los Angeles Housing Authority Series 2020AB Section 8 Pool | A+ | Negative | 1.56 | MADS | Strong | Strong | 97.0 | 550 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Los Angeles Housing Authority Series 2021A Section 8 Pool | A+ | Negative | 1.56 | MADS | Strong | Strong | 97.0 | 550 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Minnesota Attainable Housing - Crossroads Square And Camelot Apartments 1st Lien | BB | Negative | 1.06 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | Adequate/weak | 98.0 | 163 | Weak/very weak | |||||||||||
Minnesota Attainable Housing - Crossroads Square And Camelot Apartments 2nd Lien | BB- | Negative | 0.98 | 1/2 MADS | Very weak | |||||||||||||||
NV Homestead Apartments - Coral Gardens | B- | Positive | 1.96 | 1/2 MADS | Weak/very weak | Very weak | 98.0 | 92 | Weak | |||||||||||
RHA Housing Project - Asheboro Affordable Housing and Dothan Affordable Housing, LLC | BBB+ | Stable | 1.26 | 1/2 MADS | Weak | Adequate | 97.8 | 221 | Strong/adequate | |||||||||||
Tulsa Pythian Manor - Pythian Manor Apartments | BBB- | Stable | 1.32 | 1/2 MADS | Weak | Weak | 93.4 | 251 | Adequate | |||||||||||
University Plaza Associates - University Square Apartments 1st Lien | A | Stable | 1.72 | 1/2 MADS | Strong/adequate | Adequate | 99.0 | 442 | Strong | |||||||||||
University Plaza Associates - University Square Apartments 2nd Lien | A- | Stable | 1.53 | 1/2 MADS | Strong/adequate | |||||||||||||||
Washington Place Partners - Washington Place Apartments | BB+ | Stable | 1.23 | 1/2 MADS | Weak/very weak | Adequate/weak | 97.3 | 76 | Adequate/weak | |||||||||||
Wisconsin Hsg Pres Corp - Madison Pool Project | A+ | Stable | 1.66 | 1/2 MADS | Strong/adequate | Strong | 96.4 | 275 | Strong | |||||||||||
*Most recent fiscal year. §Assessments and information apply to the transaction and do not differ by lien. DSC--Debt service coverage. DSRF--Debt service reserve fund. C&L--Coverage and liquidity. M&G Management and governance. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Unenhanced Affordable Housing
Key Takeaways
- Completion of rehabilitation and repairs led to improved occupancy and revenue trends.
- Well-performing, seasoned projects get stronger as occupancy improves and DSC increases.
- Overall performance is stable, with no rating actions.
Stability Across This Small Subsector
We maintain ratings on four unenhanced affordable housing transactions (table 5), down from six the previous year. Our ratings range from 'A+' to 'B+', and the average rating for this subsector is 'BBB-' (chart 4). Since April 2023, we withdrew two ratings in this subsector. One withdrawal was due to defeasance of the bonds following the sale of the property and the other followed redemption of the bonds. There were no rating changes or outlook revisions across the four transactions.
Operators and owners of unenhanced affordable rental housing projects have greater flexibility to adjust rents and implement increases more quickly compared with the Section 8 subsector. This flexibility allows the owners and operators to manage revenue, cover rising expenses, and adapt to changing economic conditions without regulatory oversight. However, units do not receive a governmental subsidy. As a result, when occupancy falls and expenses rise, financial performance could experience greater volatility.
The average DSC for the four transactions increased materially to nearly 2.0x from 1.7x and average occupancy remained relatively stable. The strong demand for moderate- and low-income rental units across the U.S. will likely keep occupancy levels high as units come back online following rehabilitation and repairs and because construction of new affordable housing units remains slow. Average debt per unit increased to $51,226 from $44,194, but this primarily reflects the low debt levels on the defeased and redeemed bonds where we withdrew ratings. Despite this increase, average debt per unit remains relatively low. In addition, in our view, debt obligations shouldn't pressure cash flow if they are properly managed, thereby providing resources for owners and operators to improve, repair, and maintain the assets as well as adequately cover rising expenses.
As with all asset-backed debt, damage or deterioration to the asset would likely affect financial performance. As weather events occur with more severity and frequency, the risk of asset impairment becomes higher and insuring potential losses becomes more expensive. Without a federal subsidy to help bridge the gap, unenhanced affordable properties could be more exposed to financial disruption in such extreme weather events.
Chart 4
Table 5
Unenhanced affordable housing--Rating list | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rating Information | Current key rating factors | |||||||||||||||||||
Issuer(alphabetical) | Rating | Outlook | S&P Global Ratings DSC§ | Liquidity--DSRF to MADS | C&L assessment | M&G assessment | Occupancy (%) | Units | Market position assessment | |||||||||||
Atlantic Housing Foundation Affordable - subordinate 2017B* | B+ | Stable | 1.02 | None | Very weak | Weak | 87.0 | 1,138 | Weak | |||||||||||
Orange County Housing - 1995A HANDS Pool | A+ | Stable | 3.04 | MADS | Very strong/strong | Adequate/weak | 99.0 | 269 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Orange County Housing - 1998C Green Gables | A | Stable | 2.80 | MADS | Strong | Adequate/weak | 99.0 | 95 | Adequate | |||||||||||
Trinity Affordable Hsg - Estates at Eagles Pointe | B+ | Stable | 1.02 | None | Very weak | Weak/very weak | 86.7 | 583 | Weak/very weak | |||||||||||
*Senior bonds are multifamily tax-exempt mortgage-backed securities backed by Fannie Mae and are rated under our Federally Enhanced Housing Bonds criteria §Most recent fiscal year. DSC--Debt service coverage. DSRF--Debt service reserve fund. C&L--Coverage and liquidity. M&G--Management and governance. MADS--Maximum annual debt service. |
Geographical Distribution And Extreme Weather Events
Natural disasters and extreme weather can destroy and disrupt infrastructure assets including affordable housing rental housing stock. We incorporate these evolving risk exposures into our view of the market position for RHB transactions. We typically weaken the market position for properties located in areas highly susceptible to climate hazards such as wildfires, flooding, and hurricanes and other events like earthquakes. As these events become more frequent and severe, we are applying the negative adjustment to more transactions.
Historically, we have focused our discussions with management teams that own or operate properties in coastal areas where the physical impacts from climate change are generally more acute and visible. That said, physical risks are becoming more geographically widespread, with acute and chronic hazards affecting all regions in the U.S. In addition, as discussed in "U.S. Rental Properties’ Expense Trends: Insurance Costs Are Rising Significantly" (June 12, 2023), several insurers have raised premiums or discontinued coverage where severe weather events have occurred to limit their insured losses. S&P Global Ratings continues to observe the effects of rising insurance costs, which are unlikely to abate, across all property types. To maintain credit stability, owners and operators might consider incorporating higher insurance premiums into long-term financial forecasts and quickly adapt to an alternative if insurance coverage becomes unavailable.
The map shows the concentration of age-restricted, MHP, Section 8, and unenhanced rated RHB transactions across the country.
Chart 5
Related Research
- U.S. Public Finance Housing Outlook 2024: A Stable Foundation Despite Emerging Risks And Slower Economic Growth, Jan. 24, 2024
- U.S. Rental Properties’ Expense Trends: Insurance Costs Are Rising Significantly, June 12, 2023
This report does not constitute a rating action.
Primary Credit Analysts: | Lauren B Carter, Boston 6175308005; lauren.carter@spglobal.com |
John T Mariotti, Englewood + 1 (303) 721 4463; john.mariotti@spglobal.com | |
Secondary Contacts: | Nora G Wittstruck, New York + (212) 438-8589; nora.wittstruck@spglobal.com |
Caroline E West, Chicago + 1 (312) 233 7047; caroline.west@spglobal.com |
No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software, or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced, or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees, or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses, and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment, and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors, and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.
To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw, or suspend such acknowledgement at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal, or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.
S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain nonpublic information received in connection with each analytical process.
S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.spglobal.com/ratings (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.spglobal.com/usratingsfees.