• About
    • About Us
    • A History of THFC
    • The Board and Staff
    • Our Structure & Governance
    • News & Press
    • FAQs
  • For Borrowers
    • Why borrow from THFC?
    • Our Borrowers
    • ESG and Sustainable Investment
  • For Investors
    • Overview
    • Sustainable Bond Frameworks
    • Key Information
    • Financial Statements
    • Investor Presentations
    • Credit Opinion
  • THFC Insights
  • Contact Us
  • About
    • About Us
    • A History of THFC
    • The Board and Staff
    • Our Structure & Governance
    • News & Press
    • FAQs
  • For Borrowers
    • Why borrow from THFC?
    • Our Borrowers
    • ESG and Sustainable Investment
  • For Investors
    • Overview
    • Sustainable Bond Frameworks
    • Key Information
    • Financial Statements
    • Investor Presentations
    • Credit Opinion
  • THFC Insights
  • Contact Us

Retrofitting social housing: a new mixed funding model

Summary

At the heart of the problem is the simple fact that the energy cost savings of a retrofit project are insufficient to cover the initial costs. Not only this, but any savings that are achieved go to the tenant of the property rather than the housing association landlord who pays for the retrofit.

This initial cost can be reduced in three ways:

  • Economies of scale to reduce costs of labour and materials
  • Grant funding to reduce housing association’s own cost
  • Guaranteed debt funding to minimise cost of raising capital for retrofit

 

In addition, battery storage can maximise the benefit of PVs installed during the retrofit and secure the best possible cost savings by reducing the need to purchase electricity from the grid.

Together these four changes would allow a retrofit project to achieve a positive rate of return over a 30-40 year period, whether this was a shallow retrofit (D-C) or a deep one (D-A).

Whilst the benefit would still go to the tenant, an association would be able to choose to recuperate some of the benefit from tenants, whether through service charges or rent increases, without leaving the tenant net worse off over time.

The Route to Financial Viability

The cost savings achieved through energy savings are modest relative to the capital required. This makes any retrofit project loss making from the outset.

The effect of 50% grant funding is to make certain retrofit projects financially viable, mostly those improving an EPC D house to EPC C. This is because the capital cost of retrofitting D-C is c. £25k compared to almost £70k for EPC A+. Even here, though, the rates of return are under the 3% typical of a public sector type investment proposal.

Across all three dwelling types modelled, the EPC fabric improvement retrofit achieves a return when allowing for match funding. For terraced houses the cashflow becomes positive after just 28 years.

 

Even with grant, then, many retrofit projects still remain loss-making over 40 years. The association is also still left to pay the other half of the capital cost, and to avoid widespread stock disposals to raise cash for this, it is likely debt funding will be required.

The way forward: combining grant funding with borrowing

It is clear that a combination of both capital funding and low-cost borrowing would be required to generate positive financial scenarios.

The modelling shows that low rates and long bond terms provide the best conditions for a retrofit projects.

Over the last 18 months there have been several public bond issues by housing associations and aggregators that have achieved rates of around 2%. In September 2021 Stonewater HA issued a £350m sustainable bond at 1.625% with a 25 year maturity.

However, while part of the reason for the possibility of such rates is the low credit spreads in the social housing sector at the moment, the other part is historically low Gilt yields since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in March 2020. It is unlikely that yields will remain so low over the next few years, and so it cannot be assumed that future issues will achieve comparable rates.

Government Guarantees are a key mechanism to ensure access to such low rates. Two schemes of this kind exist in the housing sector: Affordable Homes Guarantee Programme 2013-2016, Private Rented Sector Guarantee Programme 2013-2016. The former was run by Affordable Housing Finance Plc, a subsidiary of THFC, and saw £3.2bn issued at record low rates and on-lent to housing associations for the development of new affordable housing. The latter scheme was run by ARA Venn for the development of new private rental sector housing. The bonds issued under these schemes were subject to a Government Guarantee and as a result achieved much lower rates, close to the cost of Government borrowing. A second Affordable Homes Guarantee Programme was announced and awarded to ARA Venn in 2020, however loan proceeds can only be used by housing associations for the development of new housing, not for retrofit.

A new guarantee scheme for social housing retrofit would achieve significantly lower interest rates and therefore provide a reliable route for housing associations to access the debt funding needed to begin scaling up their retrofit programmes.

Economies of scale

The final part of the retrofit equation is to achieve economies of scale. At present there is not a industry capable of retrofitting on a scale big enough to achieve cost efficiencies. In part this is due to a lack of skills and knowledge, as well as the costs of still fairly new technologies. However, there is also a lack of demand caused by the hesitation around retrofit, largely because home owners and managers are generally waiting to see how the Government reacts and whether it will put in place funding or new legislation.

Economies of scale are vital if the cost of retrofit is to be brought down. As the cost savings won’t be affected, a reduction of capital cost will have a significant effect on the financial viability of retrofit. For example, the retrofit of a terraced house from EPC D to EPC A would achieve a rate of return on investment of just -0.3% over 40 years even with match funding. Were capital costs to be reduced by 20% this rate of return would suddenly increase to 2.3%.

If the required combination of grant funding and guaranteed debt funding put in place, this would provide a big incentive to housing associations to begin actually spending money on retrofit. The channelling of capital into retrofit would likely help to begin scaling up the industry and realising economies of scale.

  • About Us
  • For Borrowers
  • For Investors
  • FAQs
  • Contact
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Modern Slavery Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Sitemap
Designed By Red 13
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT