How it works
Each property (or group of properties) is assigned a risk rating that helps convey our assessment of the risk of a loss to investors
The assigned risk ratings are the following:-
- Low
- Low-medium
- Medium
- Medium-high
- High
The basic premise is that for a loss to lenders to occur the following events have to happen:-
- The existing rental counterparty needs to default on the lease or the lease ends and they do not want to renew
- We can’t find another rental counterparty to enter into a lease on roughly equivalent (or better) terms
- We sell (under instructions from the lenders) for an amount that, after fees, is less than the price they paid for the loan (we refer to this as a capital loss)
It is clear that the price lenders pay for the loan is a key factor when it comes to assessing the chances of a loss and consequently this is a significant contributor to our risk assessment.
There is also risk of a loss if a rental counterparty stops paying rent for a period which we can not recover before the property is repossessed (we refer to this as a rental loss). Finally there is a risk of a loss if development work is undertaken that runs into problems that result in additional costs in excess of the amount budgeted(we refer to this as development loss).
Ratings are determined by way of a defined formula depending on a set of qualitative and quantitative inputs which are set out below:-
Quantitative inputs
- Purchase price of the property
- The latest Hometrack valuation or, if no Hometrack valuation exists for that property, the change in the Land Registry House Price Index since the purchase date for the property type in the local authority area of the property
- The current Exchange price
- Remaining Contingency fund
- Any rent deposit that is held
- Any capitalised works
- Expected fees/costs if the property is sold
- Time left on the lease
- Time to the next break clause
- The existence of any armageddon clauses
Qualitative inputs (Risk factors)
- Rental counterparty credit risk
An assessment of the credit worthiness of the rental counterparty, ie how likely they would be to break the lease - Lease renewal likelihood
How likely we assess the rental counterparty is to renew the lease - Ease of replacement of rental counterparty
Our assessment of how easy it would be to find a new counterparty on similar terms to lease the property - Ease of sale of property adjustment
Our assessment of how easy it would be to sell the property at a fair market value. Specialist property is considered harder to find a buyer - Development risk
- How much work is scheduled to be undertaken on the property
The qualitative inputs are all assessed by Housemartin and we refer to them as Risk factors. They are set with reference to the following criteria and are displayed in the property details section of each loan. We have agreed to take a cautious approach when assessing these factors.
These Risk factors then determine a series of Risk scores which have been set by Housemartin in the following Risk grids.
The quantitative and qualitative inputs are used to produce estimates of the expected capital loss if a property had to be sold now and also an estimate of the rental loss if a rental counterparty was to stop paying and we had to take legal action to repossess the property.
We then adjust the capital loss and rental loss by what we call ‘Scaling scores’. These are calculated using the Risk scores, with the aim being to take into account the likelihood of the estimated loss ever coming to pass. This produces the Scaled capital loss and Scaled rental loss.
Finally the scaled losses are converted into coefficients that produce the ultimate Risk rating.
Valuation input and estimated capital loss
For each property, the framework first estimates what the asset might be worth today. Where a Hometrack valuation is available, this uses the latest Hometrack estimate for that specific property; where Hometrack does not apply, it uses the original purchase price adjusted by the change in the Land Registry House Price Index for that property type in the relevant local authority.
From this valuation, we deduct the current loan value linked to the property and allow for capitalised costs and remaining contingency within the loan structure, as well as realistic selling costs (currently £1,000 plus 3.2% of the sales price) and an “ease of sale” adjustment that reflects how straightforward the property is likely to be to sell. The result is an estimate of the capital gain or loss if the property were sold now, which feeds into the capital component of the overall risk rating.
The below is an example of this calculation:-
|
Latest Hometrack valuation |
180,000 |
|---|---|
|
Current net price on the Exchange |
(209,242) |
|
Capitalised works |
10,091 |
|
Remaining contingency |
5,408 |
|
Expected sales fees |
(5,825) |
|
Ease of sale adjustment |
(3,016) |
|
Estimate of capital loss if property sold now |
(22,584) |
For a more detailed explanation of RICS valuations, Hometrack valuations and the Land Registry HPI figures used here, see ‘How Housemartin values properties’.
Scaled capital loss
We then take the estimate of capital loss and adjust it by what we call a Combined scaling score to produce a Scaled capital loss. This is done to produce a scaled figure that takes into account the likelihood of the estimated loss ever coming to pass.
The Combined scaling score is calculated as follows:-
Combined scaling score = (the time to break score + rental counterparty credit score + armageddon score) * ease of replacement of tenants score
The rationale behind the calculation is that we are assessing the chance that the current lease ends (either naturally, by a break or armageddon clause being exercised or by a counterparty defaulting) but discounting it by our assessment of the chances of finding a new counterparty on similar terms as the existing lease.
The Scaled capital loss is then calculated by multiplying this Combined scaling score by the expected Capital loss.
It is important to note that the resulting scaled capital loss is not a forecast of the estimated loss but simply a way of quantifying a potential loss in a way that allows us to translate it into an ultimate risk rating.
Continuing the above example, if the property has the following risk scores:-
| Time to break score | = 27% |
| Rental counterparty score | = 2% |
| Armageddon score | = 0% |
| Ease replacement tenants | = 90% |
Using the above formula we get a Combined Scaling Score of (27% + 2% + 0%) * 90% = 26%.
The Scaled capital loss is therefore 26% * 22,584 = £5,872
Rental loss
The estimate of rental loss is a cautious view taken that legal action will be required to repossess the property and the time taken to do so is currently set at 12 months. We also assume that we can not recover any of the rent due during this period, which hopefully would not be the case. The estimate of rental loss is therefore calculated as property yield * s the current Exchange price.
So, in our example, if the current Exchange price is £173,183 and the current yield is 6.8%,the estimate of rental loss is 173,183 * 6.8% = £11,776
Scaled rental loss
We then multiply the Rental counterparty credit score by the estimated Rental loss and add on any overdrawn contingency fund amount to produce the Scaled rental loss.
Again this is simply a way of quantifying a potential loss in a way that allows us to translate it into an ultimate risk rating.
Continuing our example, the Rental counterparty credit score is 2% so we get a Scaled rental loss of 2% * 11,776 = £235
Scaling coefficients
We then take the scaled capital loss and scaled rental loss and convert them into a coefficient that when summed with the Dev risk coefficient produces the Scaled total coefficient which is input into the Risk rating risk grid to produce the ultimate risk rating.
Scaled capital coefficient
The Scaled capital loss divided by the current Exchange price of the property, expressed as a percentage.
In our example this gives, 5,872 / 173,183 = 3.39%
Scaled rental coefficient
The Scaled rental loss divided by the current Exchange price of the property, expressed as a percentage.
In our example this gives, 235 / 173,183 = 0.14%
Dev risk coefficient
The Dev coefficient is simply the risk score corresponding to the assessed dev risk factor taken directly from the risk grid.
Assume for our example the Dev risk factor is 2 (a reasonable level of mainly cosmetic works required) which gives a Dev risk coefficient of 2% (from the risk grid)
Scaled total coefficient
The Scaled total coefficient is the sum of the above three coefficients.
Scaled total coefficient = Scaled capital coefficient + Scaled rental coefficient + Dev risk coefficient
Risk Factors
| Risk Factor | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rental Counterparty Credit Risk | Tenant is a substantial counterparty with strong finances and a good track record. Tenant possibly receives government support | Tenant is a substantial counterparty with good track record and reasonable finances | Tenant is relatively insubstantial counterparty with stong finances OR Tenant is a substantial counterparty with some questions over finances OR is let on an APT | Tenant is relatively insubstantial counterparty with weaker finances | Tenant is insubstantial counterparty with weaker finances and/or have had a significant credit event |
| Ease of sale of property | Normal mass-market residential housing or apartments with a large potential sales market and in excellent condition | Normal mass-market residential housing or apartments with a large potential sales market and in fair condition | Slightly specialist residential housing with more limited market | Property has usage covenants or substantial practical usage restrictions or has a more limited resale market and the property is intended to be sold to redeem the loan in more than 10 year’s time OR is expected to have reasonable demand from specialist buyers at that time | Property has usage covenants or substantial practical usage restrictions or has a more limited resale market and the property is intended to be sold to redeem the loan in less than 10 year’s time OR is expected to have poor demand from specialist buyers at that time |
| Ease of replacement of tenants | There are an abundance of tenants who would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement at or around the current rental level | There are a high number of tenants who would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement at or around the current rental level | There are a reasonable amount of tenants who would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement at or around the current rental level | There are a low amount of tenants who would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement at or around the current rental level | It would likely be a struggle to find tenants who would be willing to enter into a similar arrangement at or around the current rental level |
| Development risk | No or minimal works required (no structural) | Reasonable level of works required but mainly cosmetic although may include relatively minor electrical and plumbing works | Fairly extensive level of works required which may include some minor structural works and likely electrical and plumbing works | Considerable works required including some structural works and major plumbing and electrical works | Significant structural works required including a back to brick refurbishment of the property with completely new plumbing and heating systems and rewiring |
| high | reasonable | low | no/limited | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lease renewal likelihood | There is a high chance the tenant renews the lease at expiry | There is a reasonable chance the tenant renews the lease at expiry | There is a low chance the tenant renews the lease at expiry | There is a no or a limited chance the tenant renews the lease at expiry |
Risk Grids
| 1 | 50% |
| 2 | 60% |
| 3 | 75% |
| 4 | 90% |
| 5 | 100% |
| 1 | 0% |
| 2 | 2% |
| 3 | 5% |
| 4 | 10% |
| 5 | 20% |
| 1 | 2% |
| 2 | 4.5% |
| 3 | 7% |
| 4 | 12% |
| 5 | 15% |
| 1 | 2% |
| 2 | 10% |
| 3 | 30% |
| 4 | 40% |
| 5 | 50% |
| below | ||
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 3% | LOW |
| 3% | 7% | LOW-MEDIUM |
| 7% | 12% | MEDIUM |
| 12% | 15% | MEDIUM-HIGH |
| 15% | HIGH |
| time to break (y) | 4y+ | 3y-4y | 2y-3y | 1y-2y | sub 1y | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| chances of renewing | ||||||
| 0% | no/limited | 60% | 70% | 80% | 90% | 100% |
| 20% | low | 48% | 56% | 64% | 72% | 80% |
| 50% | reasonable | 30% | 35% | 40% | 45% | 50% |
| 70% | high | 18% | 21% | 24% | 27% | 30% |
Risk rating
Finally, the risk rating for each property is calculated by plugging the Scaled total coefficient into the risk rating grid.
So in our example we have the following coefficients:-
| Scaled capital coefficient | = 3.39% |
| Scaled rental coefficient | = 0.14% |
| Dev risk coefficient | = 2.0% |
Then the Scaled total coefficient will be 5.53%.
Plugging this into the risk rating grid gives a Risk rating of Low-Medium
| from | to | rating |
| 0% | 3% | LOW |
| 3% | 7% | LOW-MEDIUM |
| 7% | 12% | MEDIUM |
| 12% | 15% | MEDIUM-HIGH |
| 15% | HIGH |
Reviews
We endeavour to review all settings every 6 months but also whenever anything meaningful happens to either a counterparty or to a property. Any significant changes in quantitative or qualitative data will be communicated to Lenders by way of an update.