articles Ratings /ratings/en/research/articles/201027-u-s-public-finance-report-card-what-a-difference-a-decade-makes-housing-finance-agency-rating-stability-in-11712826 content
Log in to other products

Login to Market Intelligence Platform

 /


Looking for more?

In This List
COMMENTS

U.S. Public Finance Report Card: What A Difference A Decade Makes: Housing Finance Agency Rating Stability In Uncertain Times

COMMENTS

The Post-Election Landscape For U.S. Public Finance

COMMENTS

Approval Of Nontraditional Revenues Dominates Recent Ballot Measures For U.S. State And Local Governments

COMMENTS

History Of U.S. State Ratings

COMMENTS

U.S. State Ratings And Outlooks: Current List


U.S. Public Finance Report Card: What A Difference A Decade Makes: Housing Finance Agency Rating Stability In Uncertain Times

U.S. state housing finance agency (HFA) issuer credit ratings (ICRs) remained stable from 2019 to 2020, with no movement in ratings since our previous report card ("Housing Finance Agencies Are On Solid Foundations Amid Shaky Federal Landscape," Oct. 18, 2019). As of Oct. 26, 2020, S&P Global Ratings rates 23 state HFAs, one of which (4%) was in the 'AAA' category, 20 of which (87%) were in the 'AA' category, and two of which (9%) were in the 'A' category (see chart 1). We have not rated any HFAs below 'A-' since 2010. As reported previously, three HFAs were upgraded in 2019: California Housing Finance Agency, District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency, and Iowa Finance Authority, due to improvements in key financial ratios. The majority (20) of HFA ratings are in the 'AA' category, which has been the median rating of HFAs for over a decade. Between 2010 and 2019, the majority of rating movement took place in the 'A' category, with ratings slowly migrating closer to the median (see table 2).

Chart 1

image

Lessons learned from the Great Recession encouraged proactive program and risk management, which we view as a strength. By increasing liquidity, growing profitability, and removing risk, HFAs regained financial strength and built resiliency over the 10-year period from 2010 through 2019; this has been particularly critical during the past 10 months of 2020, in the throes of the COVID-19 pandemic. While we continue to hold a negative sector view for U.S. public finance housing, outlooks have been stable in 2019 and 2020 year-to-date, for all 23 state HFAs that we rate.

(For the purposes of this report card, we have excluded Massachusetts Housing Partnership and rated HFA mortgage insurance funds, such as New York City Residential Mortgage Insurance Corporation. Additionally, in 2017, the number of rated state HFAs decreased by one to 23, with the withdrawal of New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority's ICR.)

Chart 2

image

2019 Ratios Continue Mostly Positive Trend

For the sixth consecutive year, HFAs posted growth in equity and assets in 2019, with mixed performance in key HFA ICR ratios--equity, profitability, asset quality, and liquidity. While not all HFA ICRs have been reviewed to include fiscal 2019, this report card includes fiscal 2019 information for 22 out of the 23 HFAs that we rate. Note that the financial analysis for some HFAs may have been updated and average metrics may differ from our last report card.

Record-breaking equity and assets

Average HFA equity was $904.9 million in 2019, compared with $846.6 million in 2018, a 6.9% increase. Likewise, the average HFA asset base increased by 7.4% to $3.5 billion, compared to $3.3 billion in 2018. The average total equity/total assets ratio held stable at 30.4% in 2019, in line with 2018 (30.1%) and 2017 (30.6%), with very slight fluctuations. In our view, these slight fluctuations are not a credit concern given the stability of the ratio compared to the high growth in assets in the past few years. In fact, much of the historical improvement in this ratio, doubling from 2010 through 2017, was due to the reduction in assets across HFAs. Not until 2018 did HFAs begin adding to their post-recession asset bases.

Chart 3

image

Improving profitability trends

A similar trend occurred in 2019 with respect to profitability, as return on assets (ROA) recovered to 1.6% after declining slightly to 1.4% in 2018. The average HFA ROA ratio has generally increased year-over-year since 2010, more than doubling since 2014. This ratio demonstrates the effectiveness of an HFA's assets to generate income, in our view. While we acknowledge that much of the improvement in ROA over the decade was due to reductions in HFA asset bases, influencing factors also include diversification of income and high one-time premiums from the sale of assets in the secondary to-be-announced market.

Chart 4

image

Net interest margin (NIM) measures the difference between interest income and interest expense, relative to interest-earning assets, and indicates the profitability of an HFA's core lending activity. In 2019, the average HFA NIM reached an all-time high, at 1.8%, growing from a relatively stable 1.6% range from 2017 through 2018. This growth in 2019 is a reflection of HFAs' primary income source of on-balance sheet lending. We believe record-level NIM in 2019 is also an indicator of diversified funding sources for HFAs, and the broader use of taxable financing at very low interest rate spreads when compared to tax-exempt financing.

Chart 5

image

Better-than-ever asset quality

The average loan balance on HFA balance sheets grew to $2.1 billion in 2019 from $2.0 billion in 2018. For most rated HFAs, this loan balance includes a mix of single-family and multifamily loans. Despite the recent growth in on-balance sheet loans, the non-performing assets ratio (the percentage of loans and real estate owned (REO) that are more than 60 days delinquent and in foreclosure) declined to a 10-year low in 2019 at 1.6%. However, preliminary reports show a possible uptick in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting federal relief programs. This compares with a ratio of 4.2% in 2010 (see chart 9). As mentioned in our "U.S. Public Finance Report Card: The Not-So-Secret Sauce In State Housing Finance Agency Programs' Stability," published Oct. 15, 2020, on RatingsDirect: "The shift to MBS assets is a marked trend for HFA programs, reflecting a change in strategy and expected improvement in performance given the support from the federal government." This strategic shift that HFAs have taken toward MBS and government insurance or guarantees is an important factor in evaluating HFAs' capital adequacy and coverage for potential losses. Generally, as the whole loan portions of HFA portfolios have declined, so too have their delinquencies relative to total assets, while a focus on MBS assets leads the growth in loan programs.

Chart 6

image

Liquidity strategies vary, but short-term investments remain steady

Diversification of HFA programs has improved liquidity ratios overall--measured by total loans to total assets and short-term investments to total assets. Total loans to total assets slightly decreased to 62.5% in 2019 from 63.8% in 2018. The flattening trend in this ratio is due to a combination of program diversification toward MBS and on-balance sheet issuance becoming attractive in recent years. Due to differences in HFA portfolio composition and overall strategy, this ratio has varied greatly across rating categories (see table 1) and does not solely inform our view of liquidity. Other factors such as the ratio of short-term investments to total assets and, generally, an HFA's internal and external liquidity sources and market access are also important.

Chart 7

image

The proportion of short-term investments to total assets declined slightly in 2019 to 15.6% compared to 16.8% in 2018, mainly as a result of fluctuations in investment income and increases in long-term assets. Since 2012, however, this ratio has ranged between 15-17%, indicating a relatively consistent level of short-term investments available to support short-term risks. We also evaluate an HFA's asset-to-liability management, investment portfolio, and liquidity policies relative to its short-term risks, and find these factors to be in-line with each HFA's current rating.

Chart 8

image

A Tale Of Two Recessions

Despite the resiliency and flexibility HFAs have built since the Great Recession, 2020 has posed greater challenges than expected, amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. As we said in "U.S. Public Finance Housing Mid-Year Sector View: Uncertainty Lies Ahead," published Aug. 27, 2020, "the effect on the housing sector will lag and be dependent on the financial wealth and liquidity of housing organizations and the amount and duration of any federal or state support." Heading into the COVID-19 pandemic, the federal landscape was shaky, with multiple initiatives to downscale government support of housing programs. If the current challenges continue with no end in sight, HFAs may find themselves with strained balance sheets and tight liquidity in 2021.

History may not repeat itself, however, given a few striking differences between the economic challenges of 2020 and the Great Recession. These differences lie in the financial strength and risk profiles of rated HFAs--then and now--as well as in the housing market and municipal market, in general.

Among the provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed in March 2020 were programs to aide homeowners and renters who may be impacted by the pandemic. Under the CARES Act, borrowers could request forbearance on government-insured or government-guaranteed mortgage loans, regardless of delinquency status. This shifted unprecedented strain onto mortgage servicers who were required to grant forbearance and advance mortgage payments. As noted in "How The U.S. Municipal Housing Sector Is Bracing For COVID-19 Related Impact," published April 14, 2020, "those HFAs that service loans could face additional stress to advance mortgage and escrow payments for the expected higher numbers of borrowers who will enter forbearance."

While certain aspects of the current crisis, such as elevated unemployment, are similar to the Great Recession, the housing market nationwide continues to be strong and HFA lending has not skipped a beat. Demand for affordable housing is greater than ever, as interest rates have hit record lows and supply is ever-so-scarce. Still, we expect the general economic recovery to be slow and uneven. According to our economic research, "The U.S. Economy Reboots, With Obstacles Ahead," published Sept. 24, 2020, "If Congress fails to agree on another package of aid to American households and businesses, the recovery could suffer from a cutback in consumer outlays--especially from the lowest-income families, who tend to spend a higher percentage of their incomes than wealthier individuals do." The report indicates our expectation of the "recovery to enter a slower growth phase heading into 2021, and we forecast the economy won't get back to its pre-pandemic levels (real GDP of fourth-quarter 2019) until late 2021, with an annual GDP growth rate for next year at 3.9% (was 5.2% in June)." The report also notes that the housing market has recovered with a vengeance from its spring 2020 slump, with all indicators at levels not seen in 13 or more years. We are now forecasting housing starts at 1.3 million a year through 2021 (see table 3).

Unlike during the Great Recession, market access is widely available and HFAs have taken advantage of the continued low interest rate environment. Refinitiv reports that U.S. public finance housing bond issuance peaked in 2019 at $26.8 billion in 2019; as of September 2020, housing issuance was only slightly behind last year's pace. Very different from the start of the Great Recession is the now-booming single-family issuance in 2020, with issuance in Q2 2020 surpassing the same periods in the prior two years. (See "U.S. Public Finance Report Card: The Not-So-Secret Sauce In State Housing Finance Agency Programs' Stability, Oct. 15, 2020, on RatingsDirect.)

In our view, HFA access to both internal and external credit and liquidity continues to be strong. Those HFAs that were able to fund liquidity needs internally in the past have substituted with external facilities. Internal liquidity could prove valuable over the next six to 12 months, at a minimum, depending on the HFA's business lines and portfolio composition. HFAs that service their own portfolios and those of other lenders, may require additional liquidity for loan advances if delinquencies or forbearance programs continue. While we are monitoring these credit concerns and performing stress scenarios in some cases, HFAs are generally in a stronger position in 2020 than they were a decade ago when the impact of the Great Recession was most prevalent. Below, we outline the key differences between HFAs, then and now.

Equity: then and now

The average equity-to-assets ratio in 2010 was 16.8% compared to 30.4% in 2019. The improvement in equity, as mentioned in previous report cards, was largely due to a general reduction in assets from 2010 through 2017. This period was marked by low interest rates, high prepayments and in some cases, loan portfolio write-downs and secondary market loan sales. The equity position of HFAs today is much stronger, and in recent years, is bolstered by interest-bearing assets on HFA balance sheets. Total equity plus reserves to total loans (58.4%) has doubled since 2010 (26.5%), demonstrating the ability of HFAs to cover significantly more loan losses if warranted.

Chart 9

image

Profitability: then and now

In 2010, HFAs were hardest hit in profitability. Some HFAs experienced multi-year net losses due to the reduction in loan interest and investment income during the Great Recession, coupled with higher loan losses and other increased expenses related to other challenges during that time (e.g. limited liquidity and market access, and counterparty downgrades.) Average ROA in 2010 was reported at just 0.3% as a result, significantly below 2019 at 1.6%.

Average NIM was reported at 1.0% in 2010, while 2019 reported significantly higher at 1.8%. Facing historically low interest rates during the current crisis, HFAs have adjusted their business models to diversify revenue sources and benefitted from very strong market access for both tax-exempt and taxable execution.

Chart 10

image

Asset quality: then and now

As the Great Recession manifested primarily as a housing crisis, NPAs were at historic highs in 2010, averaging at 4.0% of total loans and REO, but significantly higher for some HFAs in particular. This average ratio declined by more than half over the past decade to 1.6% in 2019. We partly attribute the decline in the average ratio to the smaller average loan balance within HFA portfolios, but recognize the stronger quality of loans in portfolios originated over the last 10 years as a main credit driver. The typical post-recession HFA loan portfolio is largely characterized by government insurance or guarantees and private mortgage insurance providers that hold higher ratings than in 2010. Additionally, the loan loss reserves to total loans ratio increased to 4.3% in 2019 from 4.0% in 2010.

Certainly, the past seven months of 2020 have proven to be a test of asset quality and reserves in HFA programs. While not all HFA portfolios have been affected by the pandemic the way they were during the Great Recession, delinquencies have risen to Great-Recession levels in some states. The highest delinquency and foreclosure rate of a rated HFA program in the past 10 years was 25%. Disclosure reports and informal HFA surveys indicate that, while delinquencies are elevated and forbearance programs widely available, some borrowers who have requested forbearance are still paying their mortgages. We expect that the improved financial strength, as indicated by 2019 ratios, will allow HFAs "to withstand elevated delinquencies for the remainder of the year." (See "U.S. Public Finance Housing Mid-Year Sector View: Uncertainty Lies Ahead," published Aug. 27, 2020.)

Chart 11

image

Liquidity: then and now

Loans comprised a higher percentage of total assets in 2010 (70.1%) than in 2019 (62.5%), with a similar contrast among short-term investments at 21.9% and 15.6%, respectively. The decline in the percentage of loans to assets indicates a more liquid asset base, particularly if those other assets are available for short-term needs. HFAs have increased long-term investments by purchasing MBS and other investments that we consider to be liquid. Indeed, liquidity remains an important tool in the current crisis. In contrast with 2010, external liquidity is widely available at a relatively low cost to HFAs, and HFAs are equipped with a more robust toolbox today. We continue to monitor HFA liquidity, especially for HFAs that service their and other lenders' loans, as the COVID-19 pandemic and any related forbearance programs continue.

Chart 12

image

Management: 20/20 Hindsight

In our view, management continues to be one of the biggest drivers of HFA rating stability. It is clear that HFA management has in some ways prepared for this crisis since the Great Recession, and is not likely to make the same mistakes this time. Adept at long-term financial planning, HFA management teams have prioritized equity preservation and built intrinsic liquidity for when they need it most; that time may be now. Despite the challenges HFAs have faced this year, as we head into 2021, we expect the majority of HFA ICRs will be unchanged and remain in the 'AA' rating category due to proactive management, prudent underwriting, risk mitigation, and sufficient financial cushion built over the last decade.

Table 1

Housing Finance Agency Ratios By Rating (2010-2019)
Rating category AAA AA+ AA AA- A+ A A- All (average)
Equity (%)
Total equity/total assets
Five-year average (2015-2019) 54.0 36.5 30.3 22.0 25.0 28.2 29.7 29.6
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 47.0 32.6 26.4 18.7 21.3 19.0 20.5 25.2
2019 57.2 36.5 28.7 26.7 21.0 N/A N/A 30.4
2018 57.9 42.8 29.9 22.7 30.3 25.7 N/A 30.1
2017 53.5 35.1 32.3 21.5 26.0 35.7 N/A 30.6
2016 51.5 34.0 31.4 20.2 25.0 27.5 N/A 29.3
2015 49.7 34.1 29.3 18.8 22.5 23.7 29.7 27.6
2014 48.3 33.0 28.2 19.1 20.1 11.9 28.7 25.5
2013 45.4 30.7 25.6 17.2 18.7 10.2 18.0 22.9
2012 39.3 28.7 22.1 15.0 17.0 8.9 17.4 20.3
2011 34.5 26.1 19.1 13.5 16.5 N/A 15.1 18.2
2010 32.4 24.8 17.2 12.6 15.4 8.8 14.0 16.8
Total equity and reserves/total loans
Five-year average (2015-2019) 83.9 57.4 53.1 48.1 44.6 53.0 46.0 52.0
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 73.5 51.2 43.5 36.3 39.4 33.7 33.2 42.2
2019 87.8 52.7 55.9 63.6 48.9 N/A N/A 58.4
2018 88.5 65.2 57.1 53.7 51.0 52.3 N/A 55.5
2017 84.3 59.4 53.6 47.1 44.5 70.8 N/A 52.4
2016 80.6 55.8 52.4 40.2 41.9 48.5 N/A 48.9
2015 78.1 54.1 46.7 35.8 36.9 40.5 46.0 44.7
2014 75.7 51.5 41.3 30.5 38.9 17.5 44.2 39.3
2013 72.5 49.9 37.5 27.4 35.7 14.8 29.6 35.8
2012 63.6 44.2 33.7 24.0 32.7 12.7 30.6 32.0
2011 54.9 40.7 30.4 20.8 32.1 N/A 25.4 28.8
2010 49.5 38.4 27.0 19.5 31.2 12.8 23.7 26.5
Profitability (%)
Return on average assets
Five-year average (2015-2019) 1.6 1.1 1.1 1.5 2.4 2.8 1.8 1.4
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.6 1.7 (0.6) 1.0
2019 2.0 1.3 1.2 1.9 2.9 N/A N/A 1.6
2018 1.8 1.0 1.2 1.6 3.2 2.8 N/A 1.4
2017 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.7 3.0 3.3 N/A 1.5
2016 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 3.3 N/A 1.2
2015 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.1
2014 1.4 0.9 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 (0.6) 0.8
2013 1.4 0.6 1.1 0.6 1.1 0.6 (0.7) 0.8
2012 1.2 0.7 1.4 0.4 0.8 1.1 (1.1) 0.8
2011 0.9 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.7 N/A (1.1) 0.5
2010 1.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.2 (1.7) 0.3
Return on assets before loan loss provision and extraordinary item
Five-year average (2015-2019) 1.7 1.0 1.2 1.6 2.3 2.8 1.4 1.6
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 1.5 0.8 1.3 1.0 1.5 1.7 (0.2) 1.1
2019 2.2 1.2 1.3 2.0 2.6 N/A N/A 1.6
2018 2.2 1.0 1.2 1.8 3.3 2.3 N/A 1.6
2017 1.7 0.9 1.2 1.7 3.0 3.5 N/A 1.6
2016 1.6 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 3.3 N/A 1.2
2015 1.6 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 2.0 1.4 1.2
2014 1.4 0.9 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 (0.6) 0.9
2013 1.5 0.7 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.7 (0.0) 1.0
2012 1.3 1.0 1.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.0
2011 1.0 0.5 1.6 0.4 0.7 N/A (0.5) 0.8
2010 1.3 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.7 (1.2) 0.6
Net interest margin (%)
Five-year average (2015-2019) 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.7 2.4 1.6
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 2.5 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.5 0.7 1.6 1.4
2019 2.9 2.0 1.4 1.9 1.3 N/A N/A 1.8
2018 2.7 1.8 1.5 1.7 1.6 0.8 N/A 1.6
2017 2.7 1.9 1.4 1.6 1.7 0.8 N/A 1.6
2016 2.6 1.9 1.4 1.4 1.9 0.6 N/A 1.5
2015 2.6 1.9 1.3 1.3 1.8 0.6 2.4 1.5
2014 2.5 1.7 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.7 2.0 1.3
2013 2.4 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.6 1.1
2012 2.2 1.5 1.1 0.8 1.3 0.8 1.5 1.1
2011 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.3 N/A 1.3 1.0
2010 2.1 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.3 0.6 1.1 1.0
Asset quality (%)
NPAs/total loans and real estate owned
Five-year average (2015-2019) 3.5 2.2 2.4 3.1 2.1 N/A 2.3 2.4
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 3.5 2.8 3.0 3.8 2.1 2.9 6.1 3.1
2019 3.1 1.3 1.3 2.2 0.7 N/A N/A 1.6
2018 3.0 1.5 2.5 3.1 1.7 N/A N/A 2.4
2017 3.5 2.7 2.2 3.0 2.0 N/A N/A 2.3
2016 4.4 2.6 2.8 3.2 2.8 N/A N/A 2.7
2015 3.4 3.0 3.1 4.0 3.2 N/A 2.3 3.1
2014 3.7 2.8 3.3 4.6 1.4 1.8 3.8 3.4
2013 3.8 3.8 3.4 5.0 1.4 3.0 6.1 3.9
2012 3.3 3.6 3.4 4.0 2.4 2.8 6.2 3.7
2011 3.1 3.4 3.8 4.0 2.5 N/A 8.5 3.9
2010 3.4 3.8 3.8 4.5 2.7 3.9 9.5 4.2
Loan loss reserves/total loans
Five-year average (2015-2019) 15.6 2.6 6.2 3.3 1.5 N/A 3.4 4.6
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 12.5 2.5 4.8 2.4 3.9 0.4 3.0 3.9
2019 15.9 4.4 4.8 3.4 0.3 N/A N/A 4.3
2018 16.2 2.0 6.8 3.4 1.8 N/A N/A 4.7
2017 15.6 2.1 6.4 3.2 1.7 N/A N/A 4.5
2016 15.2 2.2 6.7 3.3 1.9 N/A N/A 4.7
2015 14.9 2.4 6.1 3.2 2.0 N/A 3.4 4.5
2014 14.5 2.5 4.9 1.7 7.6 0.3 3.7 3.7
2013 13.9 2.9 3.8 1.6 7.0 0.4 3.9 3.3
2012 8.2 2.4 3.7 1.3 5.3 0.5 3.7 1.2
2011 5.7 2.4 2.4 1.3 5.6 N/A 1.5 3.9
2010 4.9 2.1 2.1 1.3 5.7 0.4 1.6 4.0
Loan loss reserves/NPAs
Five-year average (2015-2019) 453.9 339.8 267.3 311.8 94.8 N/A 145.7 291.1
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 380.7 4,152.1 453.4 175.7 233.6 7.1 66.9 931.8
2019 510.5 421.1 116.5 449.4 34.7 N/A N/A 299.2
2018 541.5 310.1 247.2 290.1 140.5 N/A N/A 280.7
2017 447.5 300.8 266.5 339.0 112.0 N/A N/A 285.8
2016 338.5 286.2 317.9 278.2 107.3 N/A N/A 277.9
2015 431.5 380.9 388.3 202.3 79.6 N/A 145.7 311.8
2014 393.9 10,116.4 161.8 42.5 549.8 8.8 98.8 1,796.6
2013 358.4 10,077.9 138.4 37.2 498.5 6.6 64.5 1,775.6
2012 355.6 7,214.7 207.7 42.4 304.4 8.2 58.6 1,314.7
2011 265.3 9,426.9 151.2 37.4 297.8 N/A 17.1 1,657.1
2010 164.7 2,986.6 2,538.5 39.0 211.0 4.7 16.8 1,318.7
Liquidity (%)
Total loans/total assets
Five-year average (2015-2019) 79.0 68.2 67.3 58.9 57.4 53.7 68.8 65.7
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 77.5 68.6 69.8 65.1 61.5 63.0 66.9 68.4
2019 79.6 76.0 63.8 54.7 42.9 N/A N/A 62.5
2018 80.2 70.1 64.0 55.9 59.7 49.1 N/A 63.8
2017 77.9 63.7 68.8 58.4 59.6 50.4 N/A 66.1
2016 78.7 64.5 68.7 61.4 61.7 56.8 N/A 67.1
2015 78.6 66.6 71.3 64.1 63.0 58.4 68.8 69.0
2014 78.9 68.6 73.9 70.9 64.4 72.6 70.9 71.7
2013 77.6 66.5 73.6 71.2 65.2 72.6 70.1 71.3
2012 75.9 70.4 73.1 70.6 66.8 73.4 64.6 71.5
2011 73.9 69.4 70.7 72.8 66.5 N/A 63.3 70.9
2010 74.1 69.7 70.0 71.3 65.4 70.6 63.5 70.1
Short-term investments/total assets
Five-year average (2015-2019) 7.0 11.3 15.6 17.6 24.0 31.1 24.5 16.2
Ten-year average (2010-2019) 9.0 13.0 16.0 17.8 22.4 27.8 23.3 17.2
2019 6.5 12.7 13.8 18.9 22.3 N/A N/A 15.6
2018 7.7 9.7 17.3 18.5 21.1 36.7 N/A 16.8
2017 7.0 10.9 16.3 16.3 25.4 34.5 N/A 16.5
2016 6.6 12.1 15.8 16.5 25.6 28.6 N/A 16.2
2015 7.1 11.0 14.6 17.6 25.4 24.6 24.5 15.8
2014 8.0 12.2 13.8 17.2 23.0 24.0 21.9 17.2
2013 8.2 15.0 14.3 17.1 14.6 21.9 21.9 16.1
2012 9.9 13.0 13.9 20.8 15.4 19.9 25.6 16.9
2011 14.3 16.0 18.9 15.6 25.1 N/A 23.7 18.9
2010 14.5 17.1 21.0 19.6 26.5 32.1 22.5 21.9
NPA--Nonperforming assets. N/A means that there were no outstanding ratings at that level in that year.

Table 2

Housing Finance Agency Issuer Credit Rating And Outlook History (2010-2020 YTD)
Issuer 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 YTD

Alaska Housing Finance Corp. (AHFC)

AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable

Arkansas Development Finance Authority (ADFA)

AA-/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)

A/Negative A-/Negative A-/Negative A-/Stable A-/Stable A-/Stable A/Positive A/Positive A+/Positive AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA)

A+/Negative A+/Negative A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Positive A+/Stable A+/Stable A+/Stable

District of Columbia Housing Finance Agency (DCHFA)

A-/Stable A-/Positive A-/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Stable A/Positive A+/Stable A+/Stable

Illinois Housing Development Authority (IHDA)

A+/Stable A+/Positive A+/Positive AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Iowa Finance Authority (IFA)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Positive AA/Positive AA/Positive AA+/Stable AA+/Stable

Kentucky Housing Corp. (KHC)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA-/Negative AA-/Negative AA-/Negative AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MassHousing)

A+/Stable A+/Stable A+/Stable A+/Stable A+/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA)

AA+/Positive AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable

Missouri Housing Development Commission (MHDC)

AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable

Nebraska Investment Finance Authority (NIFA)

AA-/Stable AA-/Positive AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

Nevada Housing Division (NHD)

AA-/Positive AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency (NJHMFA)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

New York City Housing Development Corp. (NYCHDC)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA)

AA/Stable AA/Negative AA/Negative AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Rhode Island Housing and Mortgage Finance Corp. (RIHousing)

AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Negative AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Utah Housing Corp. (UHC)

AA-/Negative AA-/Negative AA-/Negative AA-/Negative AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable

Virginia Housing Development Authority (Virginia Housing)

AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable AA+/Stable

West Virginia Housing Development Fund (WVHDF)

AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable AAA/Stable

Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA)

AA-/Negative AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA-/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

Wyoming Community Development Authority (WCDA)

AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable AA/Stable

Table 3

S&P Global Ratings U.S. Economic Outlook for U.S. Public Finance Housing (Baseline)
As of September 2020
Q4 2019 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020f Q4 2020f Q1 2021f Q2 2021f 2017 2018 2019 2020f 2021f 2022f 2023f
Key indicator
Residential construction (% change) 5.8 19.0 (37.9) 30.0 (1.0) 2.0 6.4 4.0 (0.6) (1.7) 0.2 2.2 4.4 4.5
CPI (% change) 2.0 2.1 0.4 1.5 1.5 1.6 2.9 2.1 2.4 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.4 2.1
Unemployment rate (%) 3.5 3.8 13.0 8.9 7.9 7.5 6.8 4.3 3.9 3.7 8.4 6.7 5.7 4.7
Payroll employment (mil.) 151.8 151.9 133.7 140.7 142.6 144.4 146.0 146.6 148.9 150.9 142.2 146.4 149.9 152.6
Federal funds rate (%) 1.7 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.8 2.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1
10-year Treasury note yield (%) 1.8 1.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 2.3 2.9 2.1 0.9 1.2 1.7 2.0
Mortgage rate (30-year conventional, %) 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.0 4.0 4.5 3.9 3.2 3.0 3.5 3.7
Housing starts (mil.) 1.43 1.48 1.06 1.40 1.32 1.33 1.33 1.21 1.25 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.36 1.36
Federal surplus (Fiscal year unified, bil. $) (356.6) (386.9) (2000.9) (474.8) (815.2) (668.5) (222.5) (665.8) (779.0) (984.4) (3219.1) (2013.6) (1334.2) (1228.8)
Quarterly percent change represents annualized growth rate. Annual percent change represents average annual growth rate from a year ago. Quarterly levels represent average during the quarter. Annual levels represent average levels during the year. Quarterly levels of housing starts are in annualized millions. Quarterly levels of CPI and core CPI represent year-over-year growth rate during the quarter. Forecasts were generated before the third estimate of Q2 2020 GDP was published by the BEA. f--Forecasts. Sources: Oxford Economics and S&P Global Economics' forecasts.

Table 4

U.S. Public Finance Housing Team
Name Title Location Telephone E-mail
James Breeding Senior Director and Analytical Manager Dallas (1) 214-871-1407 james.breeding@spglobal.com
Marian Zucker Senior Director and Sector Lead New York (1) 212-438-2150 marian.zucker@spglobal.com
Alán Bonilla Director and Lead Analyst San Francisco (1) 415-371-5021 alan.bonilla@spglobal.com
Aulii Limtiaco Director and Lead Analyst San Francisco (1) 415-371-5023 aulii.limtiaco@spglobal.com
Joan Monaghan Director and Lead Analyst Centennial (1) 303-721-4401 joan.monaghan@spglobal.com
Adam Torres Director and Lead Analyst New York (1) 212-438-1141 adam.torres@spglobal.com
David Greenblatt Associate Director New York (1) 212-438-1383 david.greenblatt@spglobal.com
Raymond Kim Associate Director New York (1) 212-438-2005 raymond.kim@spglobal.com
Ki Beom Park Associate Director New York (1) 212-438-8493 kib.park@spglobal.com
Daniel Pulter Associate Director Centennial (1) 303-721-4646 daniel.pulter@spglobal.com
Emily Avila Associate New York (1) 212-438-1824 emily.avila@spglobal.com
Jose Cruz Associate San Francisco (1) 415-371-5053 jose.m.cruz@spglobal.com
Joshua Saunders Associate Chicago (1) 312-233-7059 joshua.saunders@spglobal.com
Jessica Pabst Ratings Analyst Centennial (1) 303-721 4549 jessica.pabst@spglobal.com

Related Research

This report does not constitute a rating action.

Primary Credit Analyst:Aulii T Limtiaco, San Francisco + 1 (415) 371 5023;
aulii.limtiaco@spglobal.com
Secondary Contacts:Marian Zucker, New York (1) 212-438-2150;
marian.zucker@spglobal.com
David Greenblatt, New York + 1 (212) 438 1383;
david.greenblatt@spglobal.com
Research Contributors:Prasad Patil, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P Global Ratings affiliate, Mumbai
Saurabh Khare, CRISIL Global Analytical Center, an S&P affiliate, Mumbai

No content (including ratings, credit-related analyses and data, valuations, model, software or other application or output therefrom) or any part thereof (Content) may be modified, reverse engineered, reproduced or distributed in any form by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written permission of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC or its affiliates (collectively, S&P). The Content shall not be used for any unlawful or unauthorized purposes. S&P and any third-party providers, as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, employees or agents (collectively S&P Parties) do not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the Content. S&P Parties are not responsible for any errors or omissions (negligent or otherwise), regardless of the cause, for the results obtained from the use of the Content, or for the security or maintenance of any data input by the user. The Content is provided on an “as is” basis. S&P PARTIES DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE, FREEDOM FROM BUGS, SOFTWARE ERRORS OR DEFECTS, THAT THE CONTENT’S FUNCTIONING WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL OPERATE WITH ANY SOFTWARE OR HARDWARE CONFIGURATION. In no event shall S&P Parties be liable to any party for any direct, indirect, incidental, exemplary, compensatory, punitive, special or consequential damages, costs, expenses, legal fees, or losses (including, without limitation, lost income or lost profits and opportunity costs or losses caused by negligence) in connection with any use of the Content even if advised of the possibility of such damages.

Credit-related and other analyses, including ratings, and statements in the Content are statements of opinion as of the date they are expressed and not statements of fact. S&P’s opinions, analyses and rating acknowledgment decisions (described below) are not recommendations to purchase, hold, or sell any securities or to make any investment decisions, and do not address the suitability of any security. S&P assumes no obligation to update the Content following publication in any form or format. The Content should not be relied on and is not a substitute for the skill, judgment and experience of the user, its management, employees, advisors and/or clients when making investment and other business decisions. S&P does not act as a fiduciary or an investment advisor except where registered as such. While S&P has obtained information from sources it believes to be reliable, S&P does not perform an audit and undertakes no duty of due diligence or independent verification of any information it receives. Rating-related publications may be published for a variety of reasons that are not necessarily dependent on action by rating committees, including, but not limited to, the publication of a periodic update on a credit rating and related analyses.

To the extent that regulatory authorities allow a rating agency to acknowledge in one jurisdiction a rating issued in another jurisdiction for certain regulatory purposes, S&P reserves the right to assign, withdraw or suspend such acknowledgment at any time and in its sole discretion. S&P Parties disclaim any duty whatsoever arising out of the assignment, withdrawal or suspension of an acknowledgment as well as any liability for any damage alleged to have been suffered on account thereof.

S&P keeps certain activities of its business units separate from each other in order to preserve the independence and objectivity of their respective activities. As a result, certain business units of S&P may have information that is not available to other S&P business units. S&P has established policies and procedures to maintain the confidentiality of certain non-public information received in connection with each analytical process.

S&P may receive compensation for its ratings and certain analyses, normally from issuers or underwriters of securities or from obligors. S&P reserves the right to disseminate its opinions and analyses. S&P's public ratings and analyses are made available on its Web sites, www.standardandpoors.com (free of charge), and www.ratingsdirect.com and www.globalcreditportal.com (subscription), and may be distributed through other means, including via S&P publications and third-party redistributors. Additional information about our ratings fees is available at www.standardandpoors.com/usratingsfees.

Any Passwords/user IDs issued by S&P to users are single user-dedicated and may ONLY be used by the individual to whom they have been assigned. No sharing of passwords/user IDs and no simultaneous access via the same password/user ID is permitted. To reprint, translate, or use the data or information other than as provided herein, contact S&P Global Ratings, Client Services, 55 Water Street, New York, NY 10041; (1) 212-438-7280 or by e-mail to: research_request@spglobal.com.


Register with S&P Global Ratings

Register now to access exclusive content, events, tools, and more.

Go Back