How Green Multifamily Helps Bank CRA Ratings

(that’s “New Orleans” for  non-Southerners).

I am conducting workshops on Underwriting Green Multifamily Development this week at the 2010 National Community Development Lending School (”NCDLS”), hosted by the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank.

NCDLS takes place within the National Interagency Community Reinvestment Conference, a big national event for community development professionals, Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) officers, lenders, investors, non-profits and intermediaries.

This is the first time that the topic of underwriting green multifamily developments is part of the NCDLS curriculum. We’ll share more tips from the course for you in Tuesday’s Pacesetter (subscribed, yet?)

A main point we are stressing in workshops is that green multifamily investments fulfill a far larger set of objectives than just better quality housing (which, of course, is a great start). We’ll be educating colleagues on how sustainably-designed apartments help regulated financial institutions to go beyond simply fulfilling CRA requirements. Done right, green apartments can materially improve bank CRA examination outcomes, which satisfies the institution’s broader business objectives.

But first, a short background: The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was established to ensure that regulated financial institutions would have an obligation to help meet the credit needs of local communities in which they were chartered. Briefly, financial institutions demonstrate compliance with these laws by providing “qualified community development loans, investments and services.”

The actual performance requirements needed to comply with the CRA vary by institution size and charter, however, it’s enough to know here that regulators use CRA examinations to verify an institution’s compliance with these laws. Those examination results are considered whenever a financial institution applies to open a branch, merge with another institution or become a financial holding company, which are the key moves bank need to make in order to grow and survive.

The CRA examination can result in four possible ratings: “outstanding,” “satisfactory,” “needs to improve” and “substantial non-compliance.” In work and conversations with CRA officers and other professionals, we learned that many banks typically receive “satisfactory” ratings, but it is very hard to improve an examination rating from “satisfactory” to “outstanding.” If you take a look at the Cliff Notes version of CRA requirements here, especially those for large banks (assets > $1billion), receiving an “outstanding” across examination categories is not a matter of simply being “very good” at a few things, the institution has to be “excellent” at many requirements, which can be very challenging, particularly during a tough economy.

One of the toughest requirements to fulfill-let alone demonstrate excellence at-is in the “Product Innovation” category, where the large bank has to “make EXTENSIVE USE of  innovative and/or flexible lending practices in serving [assessment area] credit needs.” And this is where green multifamily investments help greatly.

» SF Federal Reserve Bank’s CRA page
» CRA page at Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute

Cliffhanger: Which of these investors will earn a green value premium?

Do you believe that achieving a value premium on green properties is possible? Even in the currently tough market?

Well, Jamestown and the State of California have both recently been in the press talking about how they expect to realize extra value from their commercial real estate via green and energy efficiency strategies.

Check out the articles and tell us if you think their projects should earn them greater returns than non-green market peers.

Jamestown: $3-$10 Million Portfolio-wide Retrofit Commitment

Jamestown has committed to greening its entire $4 billion commercial real estate portfolio. In the recent New York Times article about their efforts, they point to their European sensibilities as being the reason why they moved ahead with a portfolio-wide commitment to greening existing buildings.

When  you read through the savings and quick paybacks that they report achieving, it seems clear that their focus is on low-hanging fruit. After all, $3mm-$10mm in retrofit costs are peanuts on a $4 billion portfolio. The good news is that they report realizing immediate savings — meaning permanent increases to property net operating income.

Nonetheless, or perhaps because of that, they focus on the green/energy efficient building’s ability to attract the right kinds of tenants and assure the asset’s sale to a broader pool of buyers. The article showcases several recent efforts, including 999 Peachtree Street in Atlanta, GA, which recently earned LEED-Gold status.

We actively follow how German and other European investors are moving quickly to incorporate comprehensive acquisition and portfolio management sustainability programs. You can read previous posts about these investors’ enhanced criteria and due diligence here. More good stuff –> If you receive Pacesetter, our newsletter, you recently read and downloaded the new EECE study ranking global property funds according to reported and implemented energy efficiency practices.

State of California: Will Green Buildings Net Higher Sales Prices?

The State of California recently put a portfolio of 11 properties, totaling 7.3 million square feet, on the market for sale-leaseback transactions. The State is reporting that these properties, most of them being, in their words, “some of California’s most energy efficient and environmentally friendly properties” could sell for $2 billion, and would be “attractive to a market that is seeking sustainable, green designs.”

What makes this an item worth tracking is that the state official making that quote is also reported as saying that the sale will allow the State of California to “lock-in the lowest rental rates seen in years“.  Bids on the sale are due 14 April. It will be interesting to see the extent to which a green premium can be realized when market or transaction conditions stipulate particularly low rents.  The beauty of real estate is that it is not rocket science — there is no free lunch, and all trade offs come with their price. We are seeing and hearing that, in tough markets, green strategies help to hold back some amount of value deterioration, but are not necessarily rewarded with immediate upside.

That being said, there are multiple angles to watch here.  For instance, the concerns expressed recently by some investors about the mixed-use Boston property that attracted 27 bidders and might close at a “crazy” 6% cap rate.

Why the concern? That cap rate, indicating a valuation far higher than typical for the current point in the real estate cycle (even for Boston), reflects the current shortage of high quality properties combined with a lot of capital on the sidelines. This kind of activity raises fears of a liquidity bubble, even in these tough times, as investors pay up to win what few good deals are available.

That could be a strategy that helps Schwarzenegger shrink the state’s debt woes by more than they would typically recover from the assets.

Yes, the excitement continues!

Norwegian fund putting $16 billion into socially-responsible real estate

The juggernaut Norwegian Global Pension Fund has just announced that it intends to significantly expand its real estate holdings globally.

According to the report in Responsible Investor, “Environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors including energy efficiency and water consumption are to be key planks“ within the criteria for new property investments.

The $16 billion investment amount represents 5% of the fund’s overall value and its manager, Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), indicates that the fund will need a few years to actually invest in ESG-screened real estate to achieve that level, as the allocation comes from portfolio shift created by cutting the fund’s bond portfolio.

How will they actually invest responsibly?

This is interesting, as there is no real consensus about reporting standards and measurements that constitute responsible investing in the institutional real estate field (see our previous posts and papers about Metrics for Responsible Property Investing, for more details).

NBIM will be required by the government to produce an annual report of the portfolio, including an “assessment of how it conforms to responsible management and the exercise of ownership rights. The bank will be allowed to hire external managers and outsource operational functions, with returns benchmarked against a customised version of the Investment Property Databank’s Global Property Benchmark.”

Overall, we are noticing increasing interest by foreign investors in US markets, as they believe that property values have nearly bottomed out. That, plus the growing requirement for green and socially-responsible properties can possibly spur a near to mid-term shortage in green real estate, even as property markets generally are expected to be in a slow recovery.

As we have seen in previous cycles, lots of capital seeking an asset in short supply can always create some interesting market action. From my point of view, the Norwegian Global Pension Fund is not alone in the direction they are taking. Expect to hear more on this point in the near future, as others get in on the action.

Green building investment an ‘affordable truth’

Did you catch Paul Krugman’s op-ed in the NY Times this past Sunday?

Essentially, he says that going green is more affordable than certain folks would like for us to realize. Moreover, he thinks that the investment that would be required by buildings to go green would provide a great “organic” stimulus for economy (excuse the pun).

Consider, for example, the case of investment in office buildings. Right now, with vacancy rates soaring and rents plunging, there’s not much reason to start new buildings. But suppose that a corporation that already owns buildings learns that over the next few years there will be growing incentives to make those buildings more energy-efficient. Then it might well decide to start the retrofitting now, when construction workers are easy to find and material prices are low.

The same logic would apply to many parts of the economy, so that climate change legislation would probably mean more investment over all. And more investment spending is exactly what the economy needs.

Big Landlord’s: “It’s LEED or bleed”

Thanks to Greg Porter, of MP Commercial Partners, for sending along the WSJ “adver-journalism” piece featuring several large landlords and the USGBC. It contains a good lineup of industry pacesetters who build and/or retrofit green and have seen a boost to the bottom line from operating environmentally friendly buildings. Essentially, it was a “get on the bus” writeup, encouraging environmental certification of buildings.

Remember that I asked in yesterday’s post, about whether Bloomberg’s pullback on mandating green retrofit mattered for large landlord crowd? My take: the horse is out of the barn on greening buildings and they were under pressure to keep up with the Jones’.

Read what the landlords in this article have to say — even though they’ll continue to push for more incentives at every government level — since their reports of overwhelming tenant and resident preference for green and energy efficiency buildings basically mean that a LEED or Energy Star certification is just the price of entry into the big ticket game.

Then and now

A few years ago I was on a panel that was moderated by an industry icon. Cap rate compression was still the hot thing and sustainability was pretty much ignored in real estate circles.  The moderator asked me (then a lender) if I thought green buildings would ever be worth more than conventionally-built assets. I told him that conventionally-built assets would probably start trading at a discount once enough green buildings were up and running. I’ll never forget him looking at me as if I had two heads.

Today’s WSJ article contains the following quote by Dave Pogue, of CBRE:

“This is a growing movement,” he concludes. “If you don’t improve your buildings to a good standard, there will be a market penalty. We’re already at a point where sustainability gives you an edge.”

Good to see that I probably won’t have to endure panels like that one any more.

Be a tenant and investment hero with these Empire State Building retrofit tips

Heard at ULI Fall 2009 session: “Green Retrofits: What is making this the wave of the future?”

I went in to this session thinking that I’d already heard all there was to know on the well-publicized Empire State Building (ESB) retrofit. I’m pleased to report that my assumption turned out to be wrong … this session was a thriller; a high-protein download with lots of how-to’s that practitioners can use to be a tenant hero and  improve value with a comprehensive energy efficiency retrofit strategy. A thorough reporting of all the great tips would be too long for this post, but I think you’ll be able to put these highlights to good use:

The Set-up: A Great Business Case

Anthony Malkin, of Malkin Holdings spoke on behalf of the ESB ownership. The other speakers were representatives of New York City, the Rocky Mountain Institute and Johnson Controls.

The Empire State Building was already going through a $550 million repositioning, managed by Jones Lang LaSalle, before the ownership began to consider an energy efficiency retrofit. Since capital was already available for retrofit, no outside financing was needed to pay for the retrofit investment.

The team reported that the retrofit added nearly $13 million in upfront costs, with calculated savings worth $4 million per annum, so, the overall retrofit metrics are great, with the team reporting strong economics:

• Building annual energy costs were $11 million p.a., or 88 kBtu/sf/yr.
• 38% annual reduction in energy usage is projected; almost double the industry average.
• 3.1 year payback vs average 10-20 years.

Top Energy Tip: Reduce Load and Use

The evaluation of an aging chiller showed that the retrofit team can’t only focus on ‘easy’ measures such as changing light bulbs to achieve energy savings. The better business case comes from investing opportunities to reduce the building’s energy load, in addition to use. In the case of the ESB,  $40mm was slated for new chillers in a cooling plant, but load reduction measures elsewhere eliminated need for new chillers (!)  Result: Existing chillers were retrofitted for $5mm.

Tenant Relations Hat-trick

Investment real estate is only as valuable as the bundle of leases that generate rental income. So, many owners are motivated to green and/or retrofit their buildings when they know that it will help them to keep existing and/or attract new tenants. The trick is to get tenants on board with doing their share to keep energy costs down. When discussing retrofit costs/benefits with tenants, the ESB team focuses on the three drivers of tenant occupancy costs: payroll, utilities and rent.

In the case of the ESB, tenant buy-in on retrofit measures was crucial, since analysis revealed that more than half of the energy conservation measures would take place in the tenant’s space.  The team discussed three interconnected programs they use to assist tenants with reducing energy within their suites. The bonus they discovered is that word of these programs has attracted the attention of brokers and prospective tenants that typically would not include the ESB within their search for new space, so now the building has become competitive with a larger universe of possible tenants than prior to the retrofit.

Here are the three key tenant-related programs:

1. Pre-built space: Vacant suites were pre-fitted to turn-key status for prospective tenants, containing many features which would aid tenants with maintaining energy reduction upon move-in.
2. Tenant design guidelines: For tenants that build out their own suites, the landlord’s design guidelines incorporate energy efficiency measures
3. Tenant energy management program:  The ESB team developed a special energy management guide to help tenants understand how they use energy; they also give the tenants reports about their energy usage within their space, telling them how their energy use compares with the building average.

*   *   *

Next Page »