Homebuilding and Land Site Investment Are Separate Entities in the UK

Historically, homebuilders bought land, achieved zoning changes, constructed houses, then sold them. But land site developers change the equation – and reduce risk.

After five full years of an economic downturn for homebuilders, sellers and buyers, the news is instead looking up in the United Kingdom. The Wall Street Journal reported in April 2013 that homebuilder stocks were up 80% over the previous 12 months, buoyed in part by the government’s Help-To-Buy schemes announced earlier in the year.

This came about six months after Reuters reported that UK home builders were sitting on land banks, much of which was purchased in 2009 and later, when the price of land had plummeted. They are now about to leverage the value of that land, pending development consent from local planning authorities, to build new homes.

But many of those homebuilders suffered quite a bit through the earlier years of the recession, with portfolios of property that included land purchased just prior to the financial crisis of 2008. That expensive land was a drag on profits – those firms that had deep pockets might have been able to afford to carry the costs, but many homebuilders (particularly smaller ones) fell out of the business entirely because of crushing debt.

Some of this recent land investing and building history helps illustrate how the business of development on raw land has been bifurcated in recent years. Instead of builders taking on the full risk of investing, building and selling, land investment specialists now undertake the first stages. In addition, real estate analysts at Savills report that the forthcoming Basel III banking regulations could constrict debt funding, which further limits how much risk homebuilders will be willing to assume. They will instead look for smaller parcels of serviced (infrastructure-built) properties.

The new approach is for land specialists, themselves or with the help of investors, to make strategic land purchases. They engage in intensive market research to identify where growth is most critical, then investigate raw land where that might be possible, taking into account seller predispositions, existing and needed infrastructure, as well as how amenable to planning changes are local planning authorities. The land specialists might (and often do) build the infrastructure – roads, water and sewer, and electrical capacity – but then sell parcels or plots to homebuilders, who have greater experience at both construction and the marketing of the built properties.

To a land site investor, the holding of property for several years before construction begins – as happened to homebuilders since 2008 – does not fit the business model. The investor’s objective is to turn the investment as quickly as possible, and to buy land in the first place that will sell at an optimal price in the near term. This is part of why land-to-build investors are coming to real estate from other alternative investment categories: If their options are hedge funds, precious metals, real estate investment trusts (REITs) or market-traded securities, the return on investment formula places heavy weight on timing. The land investor may plan to achieve a return in as little as 18 months after acquiring raw land (note: it sometimes can take five years to bring a property to market and realise the return on investment).

A key component is of course zoning changes, taking land that might be designated for agriculture or other uses and have it designated by local authorities for residential or commercial development. Homebuilders may have this capability in-house as well, or may contract it out to others. With land investment specialists, it is an essential part of the business model and a key component of achieving profitability. Relationships with local planning authorities in strategic locations certainly aid in this process.

Land investment, particularly with raw (unbuilt) properties, involves risks just as much as with other types of investment. But by controlling for factors such as land planning, and splitting the risks – and rewards – of building and selling completed homes, residential land investors mitigate those risks. Individuals who are interested in land investments should speak with a personal financial planner to determine if any particular investment fits their overall financial portfolio.

What Is the UK Community Infrastructure Levy?

The purpose and implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy is part of the 2008 UK Planning Act.

The increased burden on infrastructure from new developments is real and should be built into development costs. But is the CIL the way to do it?

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a product of the UK Planning Act 2008, enforced since 2010, as a means of making developers pay for the increased burden on infrastructure that comes with new homes and businesses. It is an outgrowth of earlier recommendations in 2003 from economist Kate Barker, who felt that planning gains that went to developers should be partially channelled to overburdened infrastructure features (roads, schools, utilities, etc.) and to increase the stock of social housing.

UK strategic land investors, of course, need to take this into consideration. Infrastructure will make the properties they develop more valuable – but only if funds from the CIL are put to use in ways that materially affect the new developments. Evidence suggests this does not always happen that way.

In its most basic form, the CIL is charged on any building that has some degree of human occupancy (i.e., not parking or warehousing) including residential, commercial and retail space. Only buildings adding or constructing anew 100 square metres or more of floor space (gross internal area) on or after 6 April 2013 are subject to the levy. Changes of (existing) building uses are not liable, nor are structures that are not actually buildings (such as warehouses or wind turbines). Social housing development and buildings owned by charities are exempt as well.

Implementation of CIL has of course met some criticisms, many of which make a legitimate point. Because local planning authorities collect the levy and apply it as they choose – within prescribed parameters, of course – they are instructed to establish charging schedules. This was to be completed as of April 2014 but now is likely extended to April 2015. Those authorities can also set different rates for different sized developments, however they must establish evidence to justify those different rates.

Importantly, a “CIL in kind” provision allows that developers themselves may be best suited to build certain infrastructure components using cost-effective methods. For example, when building a community of 50 homes, the developer or homebuilder might be able to establish water and other utility services with the equipment they already have in place, where they are most familiar with the land and adjoining infrastructure. It could be much more cost efficient than to channel funds through a bureaucracy that then hires a third party to do the work.

A columnist for The Guardian who writes on local government issues took a swipe at the CIL for having a significant unintended consequence. Ian Blacker wrote in October 2012 that the CIL may actually be reducing the number of affordable homes. He cites how in London, the mayor wants to channel CIL funds to the gargantuan Crossrail project, not social housing. Also, that the CIL funds in any planning authority can be geographically used anywhere in that authority, well removed from where the infrastructure needs are increased by new development.

Blacker concludes the CIL is uncharted territory, stating, “we are entering the realm of unintended consequences.” To the developer, joint venture land investment managers as well as the local planning authorities, this may be unsettling news.

But the demand for housing is largely unmet; investors in development still find places to build and where the return on investment makes it worthwhile. Whether or not the CIL cuts into planning gains is yet to be determined; would-be capital growth fund investors are encouraged to consider CIL costs and speak with an independent financial planner to see where real estate investments might fit within a broader investment portfolio.

A Diversified Investment Portfolio Might Include Raw Land

In a world of complicated and often obfuscated investments, raw land is relatively simple and answers a strong market need: we need more houses in the UK.

Achieving the proper balance in an investment portfolio is perhaps the second most important objective to the investor – the first being maximized returns in all components of that portfolio, quarter upon quarter, year after year.

Investment advisors who deal in traditional market-traded securities will speak of an ideal 40-60 mix of stocks and bonds, respectively, with subdivisions for higher-risk/higher-returns and lower-risk/lower-returns asset allocations. But since disappointment and volatility have characterized the markets in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008, millions of investors have ventured into alternative investments that include real estate (real estate investment trusts, REITs, plus the actual ownership of built property and raw land), rarities (art, antiques, coins, wine, vintage cars), hedge funds, and the like.

With this new awareness and preference for alternative investments has been a migration away from that 60-40 stocks-bonds mix. But what is the neat new formula to serve as one’s guide?

The answer is as varied as perhaps the number of different investors. Age and family situations will always be factors that can alter the mix, of course. But what many investment advisors are saying is that the investor might fare best when they understand the intrinsic nature of the investment, perhaps even get involved with it on some level. The vintage car buyer should not only think of those four wheels as an asset but rather as an irreplaceable prize of meaningful provenance, for example.

The same might be said for investors in land. The more one knows about the variables surrounding land, the more confidence he or she might have in the investment. Now to be clear, the individual who is new to land investing is strongly advised to work with professionals.  Strategic land professionals know how to take raw acreage through planning authority approvals to construction and to the ultimate (and profitable) sale of the property. And on its merits, land investing has much to offer:

1. Land is transparent. As compared to such exotic and opaque investments as derivatives, the value of land in its current condition is fairly easy to determine. A bit harder to project is value growth, the dynamics of which vary from location to location. But even with that, there are solid models for projecting how those dynamics can affect future value.
2. Finite supply and pronounced demand. The shortage of housing in the UK is well reported and grows every day, as the population continues its increase while only half as much building is completed relative to the need. While the dearth of lower-income and social housing is often discussed, the affluent are also battling to find homes as well (check the pricing of London housing, which have more than recovered to pre-2007 levels).
3. Buy-to-let vs. buy-to-build? The investor class is finding at least two options in real estate. One is to purchase housing flat by flat or building by building, which involves active management of properties with all the risks inherent in human occupation; a variation on this of course are REITs, the returns on which since becoming part of the UK investment landscape have been disappointing. That said, rental properties are doing well as the housing crisis is characterized by the supply-demand equation and, consequently, rapidly rising rental rates. But land purchased for the purpose of building new housing and commercial structures can deliver high yields but with fewer of the hassles of rental property.
4. Growth. While it may be investment malpractice to predict exceptionally high returns on land investments (raw properties, including greenfield and brownfield tracts), there are many examples of that happening. And note the current scenario fits a historical pattern: some of the greatest wealth of individuals has been achieved by way of land ownership and investment.

Of course, the only advisable means by which one allocates their investments in anything is through the counsel of a personal financial advisor.

Advisory: None of the information contained on these pages constitutes personal recommendations or advice. If you are unsure about the meaning of any information provided on this website, then please consult your financial or other professional advisor.

Real Asset Portfolio Investing

Investors who choose real asset portfolio investing appreciate diversification and reduced exposure.

The expertise that an investment advisor can offer means informed investment decisions and reduced risk as well as a range of ownership.

When an investor chooses to participate in a real asset portfolio, he or she is being strategic on at least two fronts. One is that real assets (commodities, precious metals, real estate, etc) are often used as hedges against inflation and market volatility that may be affecting financial instruments such as stocks and bonds. Second, by investing through a portfolio, the investor is avoiding exposure that might come from owning just one or two real assets.

Real estate is historically a smart place to achieve real asset growth – a large proportion of personal wealth has been historically achieved through both developed and undeveloped land. The “lone investor” alternative – owning just one piece of property – subjects that investor to the whims and happenstance of local jurisdictions and local economics. It does the owner of a large tract of land little good if the local jurisdiction is unfavourable to zoning changes or if a depressed regional business environment causes that land to drop in value.

This is where a well-managed real asset portfolio offers a strong advantage. The portfolio will have multiple properties in multiple locations. A portion will be readily realisable, returning value at paced durations. Any exposure to local challenges would be minimal, largely because fund managers are skilled at avoiding problematic assets in the first place. The level of expertise an experienced fund can bring to bear on a land acquisition also reduces the risk of poor investment decisions and low returns.