It seems that each week brings a new article lamenting the prohibitive cost of housing in some U.S. city. This is hardly news for tenants in certain markets (e.g. New York and San Francisco) where prohibitive housing costs are a well-worn phenomenon. What’s more surprising is that the notion has gained traction in historically “affordable” markets like Denver, Salt Lake, and Wichita. Of course everyone wants cheaper houses and lower rent. But is there a reason the issue has recently gained broader attention? And are people even thinking about affordability in the right way?
In real estate terms, affordability is the ratio of rent to income. In this brief article we’ll discuss why the metric matters, how the affordability dynamic is playing out across the U.S. today, and how we try to apply the concept more intelligently in our investment process.
Why affordability matters
Investors tend to view affordability as a rough predictor of their ability to sustain or increase rents. We too believe affordability is an important metric. In fact, we think it’s one of the most important metrics when considering an apartment or other residential investment. In a previous blog post we described how we identify the factors that drive multifamily rent growth. Dynamics around affordability, at least based on our work, have historically been among the strongest predictors of relative rent growth.
Regardless of whether affordability is the single most important factor or simply one of several, it’s surprising that investors take such an inconsistent — even lazy — approach to such a widely cited metric. Getting affordability right (or wrong) can directly inform the likelihood that your rents have room to increase, or whether your operating income is at risk of being capped at current levels.
How is affordability calculated?
This seemingly basic number can be surprisingly difficult to pinpoint. The problem starts with the fact that there is no uniform definition of “affordability”. It is most commonly described as the ratio of gross rents to median household income. In our experience, the typical threshold for what’s considered healthy, or “affordable”, is a 30% rent-to-income ratio, meaning 30% or less of pre-tax income going to rent.
But as soon as you start to apply this concept to an actual investment opportunity, a number of questions arise. Where can I find reliable income data? And do I care about the entire local population, or just my tenants? Should I include rents across all my units, or just my 1-bedrooms? If I renovate units to a higher quality level, will I attract a different tenant base with different incomes?
Facing this added complexity, most investors default to oversimplifying. The U.S. Census provides median incomes down to the zip code level. Simply take property rents and divide by that median income number to get an affordability measure. But for multifamily investors, is this even a remotely useful output? Let’s use Boston as a high-level example: Overall incomes imply an affordability ratio of 20%. But that conclusion changes materially when we add just one critical distinction by separating owner and renter households. Thankfully, Census data makes this possible without much difficulty, and, as the graphs below illustrate, median incomes can vary widely between owners and renters. In fact, on average, owner household incomes are twice the level of those of renter households. When you compare owner and renter incomes in Boston, median owner incomes are $108k, 125% higher than median renter incomes of $48k. By keying in on the renter base specifically, Boston’s affordability ratio jumps from 20% to 29%, a full 45% worse than the initial high-level estimate.
Owner / Renter Median Household Income
Source: ACS, as of 2016
Select MSA’s: Difference Between Owner and Renter Median Household Incomes ($ Amt)
Source: ACS, as of 2016
What’s the reality for renters today?
It turns out that the press has picked up on a real phenomenon: rent growth across the U.S. has outpaced incomes since the financial crisis. So on average, people’s monthly rent check today feels more painful than is has historically. But that feeling is relative. In reality, much of the U.S. still falls comfortably below what we would consider healthy affordability levels (i.e. 30% rent to income). So yes, New Yorkers still have plenty of reason to complain. Renters in Wichita, however, may just need to adjust to the fact that they don’t have it quite as good as they used to.
U.S. Cumulative Rent vs. Income Growth
Source: Green Street Advisors Multifamily RevPAF Growth; U.S. Census Median Household Income
Importantly for investors, we do not see a widespread rent “bubble” where rents today are unsustainable relative to incomes (as was the case with U.S. home prices pre-financial crisis). Rather, we just see a shrinking list of markets that are likely to experience outsized rent growth going forward.
What’s my takeaway as an investor?
Takeaway #1: Affordability is a critical metric for understanding potential rent growth. Unfortunately, most real estate investors tend to oversimplify their affordability analysis or apply inconsistent data to support whatever opportunity is at hand.
Takeaway #2: Static metrics are helpful but totally insufficient. With respect to affordability, we believe that the evolution in affordability over time (especially going forward) is even more important than a snapshot of affordability today. Sure, New York is “unaffordable”, but is it less affordable than it used to be? And is it likely to get even more or less so in the future? If more affordable, is that due to rising incomes or falling rents? There are plenty of reasons New York should have persistently lower affordability than most other markets. What matters more is how that dynamic has evolved over time.
Applying what we know
Combining these takeaways, our basic strategy is as follows: Identify locations where 1) affordability today is relatively healthy for the actual renter base we’re serving, and 2) where affordability is likely to improve (or at least remain healthy) due to rising incomes. The below maps visualize these elements at a high level.
Our investment in Dallas is an example of this strategy at work. When we acquired the property, average affordability amongst our renter base was 24%. Incomes in that market had been rising faster than the national average, and both external forecasters and our internal assessment led us to conclude that trend would likely continue going forward. This alone doesn’t make for a successful outcome, but we do believe it’s an important tailwind when comparing that deal to similarly priced opportunities in other markets.
Median Rent as a % of Renter Household Income
Source: ACS, as of 2016
On a national level, some interesting themes emerge. For example, areas like Seattle may actually become more affordable given the high expected pace of future wage growth. This possibility supports continued rent growth even in one of the country’s more expensive markets. For certain other metro areas, such as Atlanta and Houston, rising incomes are expected to support at least inflationary rent growth.
However, many cities may continue to see the proportion of rent to income increase, due mainly to weak income growth. The question for these cities is to what extent affordability can continue to deteriorate before rents flatten or even reverse. This consideration alone doesn’t negate the potential for good real estate investments in those markets, but investors should be making those investments fully aware of the potential affordability headwind. All else equal, our strong preference at Cadre is to pursue opportunities in markets where we can identify healthy affordability at the asset level, and project an income-driven tailwind in the years to come.
Estimated Change in Affordability Ratio by 2021
Source: ACS, as of 2016; CoStar
The views expressed above are presented only for educational and informational purposes and are subject to change in the future. No specific securities or services are being promoted or offered herein.
This communication is not to be construed as investment, tax, or legal advice in relation to the relevant subject matter; investors must seek their own legal or other professional advice.
Performance Not Guaranteed
Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Any historical returns, expected returns, or probability projections are not guaranteed and may not reflect actual future performance.
Risk of Loss
All securities involve a high degree of risk and may result in partial or total loss of your investment.
Liquidity Not Guaranteed
Investments offered by Cadre are illiquid and there is never any guarantee that you will be able to exit your investments on the Secondary Market or at what price an exit (if any) will be achieved.
Not a Public Exchange
The Cadre Secondary Market is NOT a stock exchange or public securities exchange, there is no guarantee of liquidity and no guarantee that the Cadre Secondary Market will continue to operate or remain available to investors.
Opportunity Zones Disclosure
Any discussion regarding “Opportunity Zones” — including the viability of recycling proceeds from a sale or buyout — is based on advice received regarding the interpretation of provisions of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Jobs Act”) and relevant guidances, including, among other things, two sets of proposed regulations and the final regulations issued by the IRS and Treasury Department in December of 2019. A number of unanswered questions still exist and various uncertainties remain as to the interpretation of the Jobs Act and the rules related to Opportunity Zones investments. We cannot predict what impact, if any, additional guidance, including future legislation, administrative rulings, or court decisions will have and there is risk that any investment marketed as an Opportunity Zone investment will not qualify for, and investors will not realize the benefits they expect from, an Opportunity Zone investment. We also cannot guarantee any specific benefit or outcome of any investment made in reliance upon the above.
Cadre makes no representations, express or implied, regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information, and the reader accepts all risks in relying on the above information for any purpose whatsoever. Any actual transactions described herein are for illustrative purposes only and, unless otherwise stated in the presentation, are presented as of underwriting and may not be indicative of actual performance. Transactions presented may have been selected based on a number of factors such as asset type, geography, or transaction date, among others. Certain information presented or relied upon in this presentation may have been obtained from third-party sources believed to be reliable, however, we do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or fairness of the information presented.