How Would a National UK Housing Investment Bank Work - Or Not Work?

The British housing shortage might require an infusion of ideas if not more money. But would a new government bank replicate what private investors already do?

 

Bandied about by housing advocates for the past several years has been the idea of a national housing investment bank. It’s something that has worked in other European countries ­– France, Germany and the Netherlands, in particular – and it specifically addresses the critical housing shortage in the UK.

 

But does something like a housing investment fund, a public-private hybrid, replicate what is already here? Might funding for housing from the private sector, such as joint venture partnerships that unlock unused land for building and which fund infrastructure development, essentially accomplish the same things (they don’t directly, but more on that below).

 

First, understand what such a bank would provide:

 

• A means for channelling pension funds into income-producing investments (funds would be used to develop rental properties, which have predictable cash flows).
• Attract funds from a range of sources, with the backing of Government to boost the confidence of those investors.
• A way to test the concept and then scale it up if successful.
• A way to increase total housing construction output from 120,000-150,000 homes per year to 220,000 homes, what housing economists believe is necessary to close the considerable gap of need in the inventory.

 

Advocating for the not-for-profit fund are the National Housing Federation, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the housing charity Shelter UK. It could be an independent entity, rolled into the existing Green Investment Bank (focused on environmentally-beneficial infrastructure) or as part of the British Business Bank. Ideally, it would be focused on reducing financing costs for affordable housing providers.

 

But not everyone agrees. It won’t do much to lessen the housing shortages, says Hannah Fearn, an editorialist with The Guardian. The British way of investment in housing, says the writer, prohibits a wholesale lifting of the concept from the Continent and successfully translating it to “our own chaotic private rented sector,” she writes. “We can’t assume that a new investment bank would automatically pull in the funding anticipated. Europe has had an easier job convincing institutional investors to consider housing as a viable asset for years. We can’t be sure that simply recreating the bank at the centre would change cultural attitudes here.”

 

Fearn also argues that housing associations, which would be the biggest users of such a bank, already are successful at securing loans on the open market. She also suggests that the uncertain successes of Big Society Capital, called the “big society bank,” doesn’t forebode success. It may be setting up financially vulnerable charities to take on inadvisable risk.

 

What Fearn suggests is that housing associations and councils meet with developers and investors (such as those most interested in capital growth planning) to develop funding vehicles that meet the local need – something that would avoid the costs of a new institution. Better that the money goes to housing than a layer of administration.

 

Investors in housing come in all stripes, including institutions as much as individuals. Those people who consider entering into real estate finance should speak with an independent financial advisor to discuss what fits their best investment strategies.