research report on phil. housing finance sector of philippines
Post on 20-Oct-2014
754 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Institute of Business Science and Medical Arts, Inc.
In Depth Study of Housing Finance Sector
(Philippines)
In Partial Completion of the Requirements in Financial Management 1
School Year 2012 - 2013
Sumitted by Group 3: Submitted to:
Nelsie Grace D. Pineda Mrs. Katherine Cindy
Sajul
Honey Grace Mendoza Instructress
Marvin Mejico
INTRODUCTION
Home is a dream of a person that shows the quantity of efforts,
sacrifices, luxuries and above all gathering funds little by little to afford one’s
dream. Home is one of the things that everyone wants to own. Home is a
shelter to, person where he rests and feels comfortable. And in every nation,
every family dream of having their own house. The prevailing public
viewpoint is that every household must own a house, no matter how humble
it may be. Its opposite, renting a house is a less preferred, second best
situation. Home ownership is preferred because of the assurance of a place
to live in, its investment value, the status given by society to home
ownership and the uncertainties of its opposite - renting.
As in other Asian countries, housing situation in the Philippines is
characterized by the emergence of continuing demand for affordable
housing units in response of the increasing population and household size,
both in urban and rural areas. Affordability poses a challenge due to such
factors as low income levels, inadequate supply of desired units and limited
accessibility to housing finance packages.
Housing need for the period of 2007-2016 is estimated at 7,552,409
units, which is admittedly huge and far greater than what the government
can respond to by itself. This total consist of 3.9 million units comprising of
future housing needs resulting from population growth; plus some 1.3 million
in housing backlog, consisting of housing needs for the homeless (e.g. living
Page 2 of 57
in caves, under the bridge, in agricultural/industrial/ commercial buildings,
push carts, and streets) dilapidated or condemned housing units, marginal
housing and double-up households in acceptable housing units; and some
estimated allowances for inventory losses.
The rapid formation of new households, especially in urban areas, has
contributed to an acute demand for housing that has not been adequately
met by the supply side of the market. Over the last decade, the private
sector provided an annual average of 50,000 housing units, mostly for non-
poor families. The government-led shelter program provided on average only
about 277,404 “units of housing assistance”, from July 2010 to December
2011, many of which went to employed members of pension funds. The
demand-supply gap is mostly noticeable at the lower end of the housing
market as the poorer households failed to get access to decent housing. In
turn, the government has intervened in the housing market to make it more
responsive to demand, especially of the poor households. Government
intervention consists of regulatory, production and financing measures. To
provide shelter for the poor, the government has set aside P7 billion for the
housing sector, 23 percent higher than the 2011 appropriation of P5.7 billion.
In particular, the National Housing Authority will have P5.6 billion to resettle
families affected by calamities and living along high-risk, and to support
medium-rise housing and slum upgrading programs.
The housing situation in the Philippines faces new issues and
challenges. This paper will discuss the improvements made in the housing
Page 3 of 57
finance sector, the expected trends, and the areas of needed reform; the
housing needs of the public and the efforts of government in satisfying these
needs; resource mobilization and budgetary appropriations on housing
programs; as well as home lending programs of private and public agencies.
Furthermore, strategies on home development and urbanization are
discussed for effective implementation of housing programs as means of
poverty reduction and people empowerment.
The paper will briefly outline the context in which the housing finance
sector operates – the macro-economic environment, the overall financial
system and the housing market – before detailing the development,
structure, products and extend of both the mortgage and microfinance
sector for housing and the subsidies that apply to housing finance. It
concludes with a summary of main recommendations.
Page 4 of 57
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Based on the study conducted by the World Bank on Housing Finance
of the Philippines on 1982, residential construction in the urban Philippines is
dominated by a few big developers who acquire land and prepare serviced
lots. Some have their own building contractors associated with them, but
nearly all will sell serviced lots to households for them to contract
(eventually) on their own for a home or sell to contractors for home building.
Consequently this industry has emerged into the most popular means of
providing affordable housing to Filipinos through real estate businesses.
Year before that, the government adopted a total system approach in
housing finance production and regulation. An interacting network of
Housing agencies with specific functions, namely funds generation,
mortgage purchase, mortgage guarantee, regulation and socialized housing
production was established and maintained. A housing finance system, with
the long term, objective of integrating savings mobilization, secondary
trading and credit insurance, was put into place. Unfortunately, the system
failed to take off beyond the primary mortgage market, and even the
mortgage origination set up with a single mortgage lending institution was
sub-optimal.
Page 5 of 57
Subsequent shifts in housing policies and programs were undertaken in
line with the United Nations Global Shelter Strategy. In 1986, a Revised
National Shelter Program was implemented with the primary object of
developing a self- sustaining and equitable housing delivery system through
increased private sector participation in both housing finance and
production. In addition to the set- up established in 1991, Executive Order
No. 90 provided a source of funds for housing finance through the country’s
social insurance and provident institutions: the Social Security System (SSS),
the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and the Home
Development Mutual Fund (HDMF).
Housing finance in the Philippines has been characterized by both
development period and mortgage financing being focused essentially on
two segments of the market, luxury housing and “mass housing “in the P
80,000 to P150, 000 ranges. This harmony of supplier and household
financing has made these the vibrant sectors of the housing market, but at
the cost of undernourishment elsewhere.
According to the study on the Dynamics on Housing Demand in the
Philippines: Income and lifecycle effects by Marife Ballesteros (2002), the
root of the housing shortage is the fact that the majority of households are
unable to pay for the cost of housing and land. The minimum housing cost of
P150 thousand per unit is 3.8 times the yearly wages of an unskilled laborer
in 1997. Likewise, a P250 thousand unit housing is 3.1 times the annual
income of an employee earning a median income of P6, 700 per month. This
Page 6 of 57
ratio is expected to be on the rise given the high rate of increase of housing
prices in the country. Average annual housing price appreciation in the
Philippines (i.e. Manila) is 32 percent per year, the highest among other
major cities in Asia (HABITAT and World Bank 1993). The table below
summarizes the results of the aforementioned study.
Table 1. Key Features of the Housing Market in the Philippines
Feature Underlying Causes
High unit housing cost relative to income
Low wages, high unemployment, Construction cost rising faster than wages, high rate of increase in urban land prices
high rate of increase in urban land prices
Scarcity due to limited infrastructure developments, scarcity due to institutional problems (e.g. property rights and bureaucratic bottlenecks), holding of lands due to low land and property tax
Lack of long term financing and unsustainable housing finance
Undeveloped secondary markets, graft and corruption, poor subsidy transfer mechanism
Undeveloped rental housing market for low income households
Government bias on home ownership, rent control law
Gilberto M. Llanto emphasizes two housing finance projects of the
government in his “Environment and Urbanization; Shelter finance strategies
for the poor: Philippines,2007”. First, The Community Mortgage Program,
which is designed to meet the need for shelter financing for the poor, is a
low-income home financing program that allows informal settlers to acquire
an undivided tract of land through a community mortgage. The CMP has two
kinds of project: on-site and off-site. On-site projects allow illegal settlers to
formalize claim to the land they occupy by buying it from the owner through
Page 7 of 57
a community mortgage loan. Off-site projects entail relocation to another
area. The main source of funding is government budgetary appropriation,
which is given to the Social Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC) to manage.
The loan packages are not only for lot acquisition but also for home
improvements and construction. The loan is amortized monthly over a 25-
year period. It is primarily informal settlers wanting to access lots and legal
titles who have used the CMP. During the period 1993–1998, the CMP
accounted for an estimated 60 per cent of “completed units of assistance”
targeted by the NSP. The CMP seems to be a successful housing program for
urban poor households in terms of reach and affordability. However, despite
its better than average collection rates, the CMP faces a sustainability
problem. Loan repayment rates are highly variable across community
associations. The government, which has problems with its huge fiscal
deficit, would be hard pressed to continue allocating a huge budgetary
appropriation annually to the CMP. Reasons for low repayment rates are as
follows:
1. In off-site projects, it was difficult to organize heterogeneous
households. In on-site projects, problems were related to group size
and maintenance of cohesion and cooperation among group
members;
2. weak monitoring systems;
3. cases where community association officers “temporarily borrowed”
the loan collections and these were never repaid;
Page 8 of 57
4. weak enforcement of the community associations’ internal rules;
5. the suitability of the location of CMP projects for human habitation
6. Recalcitrant households are bound to emerge who refuse to repay
the loans on various pretexts or excuses.
Next is the The Development of Poor Urban Communities Sector
Project (DPUCSP). DPUCSP is a decentralized shelter finance strategy for the
urban poor jointly developed by the government, the Development Bank of
the Philippines (DBP) and the Asian Development Bank. Intended for
implementation during the period 2003–2009, the project has three
components: site development, shelter finance and capability building of
agencies involved in the project. The main channels for retail loans to urban
poor households will be microfinance institutions such as microfinance rural
banks, NGOs and cooperatives, which will get funding from the DBP. There is
private sector participation in shelter financing, a decentralized shelter
delivery framework with the help of local government units, NGOs and other
community-based organizations and a break away from ill-targeted credit
subsidies. Research shows the positive effect of a community-based
perspective in World Bank-supported projects. The participation of
microfinance institutions enables the DPUCSP to draw on their strengths in
reaching the intended beneficiaries and efficiently collecting loan
repayments.
Llanto and Orbeta (“The State of Philippine Housing Programmes: A
Critical Look at How Philippine Housing Subsidies Work - 2001”) observed
Page 9 of 57
that of the government’s housing programs, it is only with the CMP and the
resettlement of informal settlers that there is a matching of intended and
actual beneficiaries of the subsidy. The Philippine experience with housing
subsidies showed that credit subsidies were captured by unintended
beneficiaries and caused distortions in the credit markets. The transfer of
credit subsidies takes place through banks or lending institutions that may
have biases against the intended beneficiaries, i.e. poor households. High
transaction costs, information asymmetry and a perception of high credit
risks prevent the poor from accessing the formal credit markets. Thus, the
non-poor tend to capture the subsidies.
The recent studies showed the efforts made by the government to
meet the inflated housing demands but such efforts are hampered by the
inaccessibility and non suitability for habitation of the programs, delinquent
payments and increasing urban prices. The existence of informal settlers in
Metro Manila proves the scenario. More programs are now being
implemented so as to reduce the housing gap of the country which will be
discussed later in this paper.
METHODOLOGY
Data Collection
Page 10 of 57
Informations on housing finance system of the Philippines were
collected through recent studies conducted by the World Bank, the PIDS and
other relevant researchers. The housing demand facts and figures were
gathered from the estimation of The Development of Shelter Monitoring and
Information System for year 2007-2016. Population figures and distribution
were extracted from the National Statistics Office online portal inclusive of
current and projected population. Cost of living and economic indicators
were collected through reliable online websites. Details on housing programs
and performance reports were obtained from different national agencies
such as HUDCC, NHA, HUGC, HGC NHMFC and Pag-ibig.
Statistical Treatment
After collecting the necessary data, a comparison of the past figures
with the current statistics were made to distinguish the boom in population
and the degree of developments on housing finance of the Philippines. The
differences between figures are determined and the rates of increase or
decrease are finally obtained.
In determining the housing need the following computation was
used:
Housing need = Housing needs (HN) for the Homeless+ HN for HHs in dilapidated/condemned HUs+ HN for HHs in marginal HUs+ HN for Doubled-up HHs in acceptable Hus+ Allowance for inventory losses+ Projected increase in household population
Page 11 of 57
Allowance for inventory losses• computed by multiplying the derived replacementrate (1.33%) to the number of households living in other acceptable HUs (O*)Definition of Terms
Other acceptable HUs (O*) = [HHs in HUs – (Homeless + HHs in Dilapidated/Condemned Units + Doubled-upHHs + HHs in HUs made up of predominantly or entirely makeshift/salvaged materials]
Discussion Procedure
The discussion of the topics are divided into chapters namely, the
macroeconomy, the housing sector, finance sector and government subsidy.
Each chapter is comprehensively discussed to fully illustrate the housing
situation in the Philippines. Statistical data which includes graphic
representation from relevant sources are provided therein. Furthermore, a
more comprehensive illustration of data is provided in the appendices for
additional reference.
I. The Macroeconomy
Page 12 of 57
Under this chapter, the economic situation of the Philippines is
presented, its economic growth, private consumption rate, labor force and
economic inflows brought about by OFW remittances and new investment.
The said economic indicators are linked to housing and its future
implications.
Economic Growth
In the second quarter of 2013, Philippines’ GDP expanded an annual
7.5 percent, from 7.7 percent in the previous quarter and 6.3 percent a year
earlier. Strong consumer and public spending, together with increasing
investment were enough to offset a drop in the external sector. As in
previous years, private consumption would provide the basis for growth.
Sustained increase in investment, particularly in construction, and higher
public spending, would provide an extra boost. Growth in exports would
hinge on the recovery of electronics exports and higher growth of non-
electronics. The economic growth projection of 6.4 percent in 2014 would
depend on the ability of the government to further increase infrastructure
spending and the private sector to increase investment spending.
Private Consumption
Private consumption grew by 6.1 percent and contributed 4.3
percentage points (ppt) to overall growth. Private construction also
performed well, growing by 8.6 percent. It contributed 0.5 ppt to GDP growth
as demand for residential and office space accelerated. Overseas workers’
remittances remained an important driver of private consumption, and
Page 13 of 57
lately, private investment in housing and real estate. According to the
Consumer Expectations Survey of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, around 12
percent of surveyed households in 2012 used remittances to buy real estate
properties.
Labor Force
The latest round of the Labor Force Survey (LFS) in January 2013
estimated that net job generation declined to 606,000 from 1.1 million a year
ago, or almost 50 percent lower. Agriculture actually shed 637,000 jobs,
while manufacturing, other industries, and services recorded net job creation
of 125,000, 268,000, and 851,000, respectively (Figure 1). Most workers in
the services sector are informally employed. In recent years, net job creation
has fallen short of the increase in the working age population (i.e., the
potential labor force) indicating that the economy remains hard pressed to
provide good jobs to majority of Filipinos (Figure 2).
Remittance growth of at least 5 percent will sustain the growth of
private consumption and to some extent household investment in housing
and real estate. However, there is growing concern about the effects of the
rapid capital inflow, which is fuelling the high growth of the asset and credit
markets (Table 2).
Fig. 1 Only about 600,000 jobs (on a net basis) were created in January 2013.
Page 14 of 57
Figure 2. Net job creation in January 2013 was significantly lower than the change in the potential labor force.
Table 2. Growth of Loans by Universal and Commercial Banks
2010 2011 2012
Total Loans
Gross of revenue repurchase(RRPs) arrangement 8.9 16.4 15.4
Net or RRPs arrangement 8.9 19.3 16.2
Real Estate Loans* 12.2 25.2 29.7
Credit card loans 4.2 9.0 13.4
Source: BSPNote:* includes loans in renting and other business activities sector
Price Indices
The Philippines’ annual headline inflation accelerated to 2.7 percent in
September from 2.1 percent in August. A higher annual increment in the
heavily-weighted food and non-alcoholic beverages index primarily brought
about the uptrend. Faster annual increases in the indices of alcoholic
beverages and tobacco; housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels; and
health were also noticed during the month. Inflation a year ago was 3.7
percent. Year-on-year inflation in the Philippines was higher in four
commodity groups namely: food and non-alcoholic beverages index (2.5%
from 1.8%); alcoholic beverages and tobacco index (31.2% from 31.0%);
housing, water, electricity, gas and other fuels index (1.1% from -0.3%); and
Page 15 of 57
health index (2.7% from 2.6%). The rest of the commodity groups have
either slower annual increments or retained their previous month’s annual
rate. Source: NSO
Index
Consumer Price Index (Excl.Rent):
41.03
Rent Index: 8.57
Groceries Index: 42.9
5
Restaurants Index: 23.1
8Consumer Price Plus Rent Index:
25.44
Local Purchasing Power: 29.4
8
Philippines Housing Index
Housing Index in Philippines decreased to 8839000 PHP THO in December
of 2012 from 9315000 PHP THO in November of 2012. Housing Index in
Philippines is reported by the NSO, Philippines. Philippines Housing Index
averaged 4746634.81 PHP THO from 1979 until 2012, reaching an all time
high of 80880327 PHP THO in April of 2000 and a record low of 22571 PHP
THO in June of 1979. In Philippines, Housing Index is measured by the value
of real estate transactions.
Page 16 of 57
II. The Housing Sector
The subject of this study is housing finance in the Philippines; however,
to provide the essential background against which to view the functions to
which the housing finance must serve, this chapter describes the current
housing finance situation in the country. In addition to dwelling conditions,
the extent of homeownership and the demand for housing, the discussion
also covers some selected features of the residential construction industry.
Finally, it should be noted that the focus of this chapter, and indeed of the
whole report, is on urban housing.
Population Boost
Between the years 1990 – 2000, population grew at a rate of 2.34%,
which slightly declined during 2000 – 2010 with a rate of 1.90%. Manila and
Quezon City maintains to be in the top for two decades. It is expected that
this ratio will continue to increase for the ensuing years. (Appendix A 1 and 2)
Informal Settlers
The housing problem is evident in the proliferation of slums and
informal settlements in the urban areas. Informal settlements have grown by
leaps and bounds. In Metro Manila, households in informal settlements
increased by more than 81 percent between 2000 and 2006. Recent
estimates show that more than a third of urban populations are slum
dwellers. In Metro Manila there were about 581,059 informal settlers (data
from HUDCC as of July 26, 2010). These communities are characterized by
Page 17 of 57
unsanitary conditions, congestion, and limited access to basic urban services
(e.g., health centers, schools, waste disposal, safe water supply). With rural
urban migration expected to continue, and six out of ten Filipinos living in
urban areas, addressing the housing problem must be embedded within a
larger urban development framework or environmental sustainability.
Resettlement and relocation programs have been implemented but have
attained limited success in providing employment, livelihood opportunities,
and adequate services to many of the relocates.
Table 3. Proportion of Households in Informal Settlements
2000 2006 Growth (%)
All households
Philippines 3.60 3.80 5.55
Urban 3.48 5.65 62.35
Metro Manila 5.30 9.60 81.13
Income Expenditure for Housing
Survey showed that each household spends Php 70,000 to 900,000 for
housing construction/rental, and maintenance and repair base on their
income. The amount spend on housing construction and rental of house and
lot varies but at a very minimal difference. This only suggests that the
allowance for rental is almost equal with building a house. Rationally, if
chances are provided, it is more practical to build a house rather than to
rent. Appendix B shows figures of this.
Page 18 of 57
Housing Demand
The National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF)
2009-
2016 finds the housing problem to be serious and is a largely urban
phenomenon. The magnitude of housing need, defined as the housing
backlog plus new households, is enormous and is estimated to reach about
5.8 million Housing units in 2016 In Metro Manila; the total backlog has been
projected to reach 496,928 housing units.
Page 19 of 57
With an enormous total housing need of 3.7 million as of 2010, a total
of
812,463 housing and shelter security units (i.e., house and/or lot) were
provided from 2004 to 2010. The National Urban Development and Housing
Framework (NUDHF) 2009 - 2016 indicate that Regions 3, 4B and NCR
account for about half of the total housing need.
Table 4. Total Housing Need by Region 2011 - 2016
Estimate of Housing Needs 2007-2016
Page 20 of 57
Accumulated Housing Needs (As of Jan 1, 2007) 1,273,395
ALLOWANCE FOR INVENTORY LOSSES (2007-2016) 2,369,025
NEW HOUSEHOLDS (2007-2016) 3,909,990
New HHs (likely to afford to own/rent acceptable HU) 3,624,999
New HHs (incremental to the accumulated needs) 284,991
TOTAL 7,552,409
Informal Residential Construction
Outside of Metro-Manila there are very few even middle-size
contractors. Small firms are the rule. "Foremen" who operate out of their
homes account for two-thirds or even more of the market. The small
contractors and individual skilled craftsmen serve the informal housing
market needs for major improvements to existing, often low-quality units. To
reduce out-of-pocket expenditures, it is common for members of the
household to work with the hired craftsmen or additionally to assemble other
family members and friends as well. Furthermore, the information flow on
locating and hiring such craftsmen appears to be very good.
Page 21 of 57
Page 22 of 57
Dwelling Status
The 2010 Census of Population and Housing (2010 CPH), counted a
total of 19,715,695 occupied housing units in the Philippines as of May 1,
2010. These are housing units with households and persons living in them at
the time of census enumeration.
Between 2000 and 2010, the number of
occupied housing units increased by
4,824,568 or 32.4 percent. Of the six
decennial censuses in the country, the
inventory of housing units between the
1980 CPH and 1990 CPH had the largest
increase of total occupied housing units
at about 40.9 percent.
Among the 17 regions, Region
IV-A had the most number of
occupied housing units, making up
14.1 percent of the total occupied
housing units at the national level.
This was followed by the National
Capital Region with a 13.4 percent
share. Region VI had the most
number of occupied housing units in the Visayas while Region XI ranked first
in Mindanao.
Page 23 of 57
A total of 19,715,695 occupied housing units and 20,171,899
households in the Philippines in 2010. These translate to a ratio of 102
households for every 100 occupied housing units, with an average of 4.7
persons per occupied housing unit. In 2000, there were 103 households per
100 occupied housing units and 5.1 persons per occupied housing unit.
In 2010, single houses made up 86.5 percent of the total occupied
housing units in the country. About 4.5 percent were of duplex type while
8.5 percent were multi-unit residential buildings/houses. By comparison, in
2000, single houses accounted for 87.7 percent of the total occupied housing
units, 3.5 percent were duplex and 6.9 percent were multi-unit residential
buildings or houses.
In 2010, 45.7 percent of the occupied housing units in the country had
outer walls made of concrete/brick/stone, up from 30.8 percent in 2000. The
proportion of occupied housing units with outer walls made of wood, on the
other hand, decreased from 22.7 percent in 2000 to 18.1 percent in 2010.
Similarly, those with outer walls made of bamboo/sawali/cogon/nipa
decreased from 22.8 percent in 2000 to 18.1 percent in 2010.
Meanwhile, majority (78.1 percent) of the occupied housing units in
2010 had roofs made of galvanized iron/aluminum. This is higher than the
proportion of 67.6 percent recorded in 2000. The proportion of occupied
housing units with roofs made of cogon/nipa/anahaw, on the other hand,
declined from 22.3 percent in 2000 to 15.0 percent in 2010.
Page 24 of 57
By comparison, all regions in Luzon, except for Region IVB, were
reported as having the largest proportion of housing units with outer walls
made of concrete/brick/stone ranging from 40.2 percent to 70.8 percent. In
contrast, four regions reported to have the largest proportion of occupied
housing units with outer walls made of bamboo/sawali/cogon/nipa. These
are Region IVB with 42.2 percent, Region VI with 40.5, Region XII with 39.0
percent, and Region XI with 28.8 percent. On the other hand, four regions
were reported as having the largest proportion of occupied housing units
with outer walls made of wood, namely, CARAGA with 55.5 percent, ARMM
with 49.6 percent, Region X with 41.1 percent, and Region IX with 39.0
percent.
Across the country, a proportion of about 54.5 percent to 89.4 percent
of the occupied housing units in each region had roofs made of galvanized
iron/aluminum.
Eight in every 10 occupied housing units (77.7 percent) in the country
in 2010 either did not need repair or needed a minor repair. About 14.9
percent were reported as needing a major repair. The rest of the occupied
housing units were categorized as follows: unfinished construction (3.4
percent), under construction (1.2 percent), under renovation/being repaired
(0.9 percent), and dilapidated/condemned (0.4 percent).
Two fifths (40.1 percent) of the occupied housing units in the
Philippines were built within 10 years prior to the 2010 CPH, that is, in the
period 2001 to 2010. Eleven regions recorded proportion of occupied housing
Page 25 of 57
units built in the period 2001 to 2010 higher than the national figure of 40.1
percent. About 25.3 percent were built during the period 1991 to 2000. The
remaining 34.6 percent were built more than 20 years prior to the 2010 CPH
with 14.9 percent during the period 1981 to 1990, 7.4 percent during the
period 1971 to 1980, and 6.5 percent in 1970 or earlier.
In 2010, 61.7 percent of the total 20,171,899 households in the
country owned or amortized the lots that they occupied. The corresponding
figure in 2000 was 52.6 percent of the total 15,278,808
households. Moreover, 22.2 percent of the households occupied lots for free
but with consent of the owner. On the other hand, about 12.1 percent rented
the lots that they occupied. Only two regions had proportions higher than the
recorded national figure. These are NCR (33.4 percent) and Region IVA (15.0
percent). Meanwhile, 2.4 percent occupied lots for free without consent of
the owner. (See Appendix B)
Page 26 of 57
III. Financial Sector
This chapter discusses the current situation of the financial sector in
the Philippines paying particular attention with the real estate business
funding. More specifically, the focus is on the lending status of real estate
firms and contributing factors to its prices.
The construction and real estate sectors contributed significantly to the
faster-than-expected expansion of the Philippine economy in 2012. The
central bank’s accommodating monetary policy stance, which has resulted in
the lowest interest rate regime, has encouraged lending to construction and
real estate activities. Construction and real estate grew by 14.4 and 18.9
percent, respectively, in 2012. Their average growth rates of 12.4 and 8.2
percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2012 were the highest since 1995-1997.
Bank lending to real estate grew by an average of 14 percent in the last
three years. Since 2010, strong capital inflows and domestic demand have
fueled the growth of the stock market. The main stock market index, along
with the property index, doubled in value in the last three years. And, since
2004, while real estate selling prices grew by up to 90 percent, rental values
on the average rose by around 60 percent. Some observers argue that the
current economic landscape exhibits some similarities to the two years
preceding the 1997 financial sector crisis. In the light of these trends, a
concern for the possible emergence of asset price bubbles is
understandable.
Page 27 of 57
The surge in construction and real estate activities reflects higher
demand for office spaces and residential condominiums, and house
and lots.
(Figure 2.1; refer to Box 2.1 for an overview of the Philippine real estate
market). Moreover, 2012 growth benefited from low base effect, because
between 2009 and 2011, real estate companies put on hold major
development projects in light of the volatile growth outlook brought about by
the European fiscal crisis and slowdown in other advanced economies. By Q4
2011, many Philippine real estate companies, encouraged by the positive
prospects for the Philippines, resumed construction of projects previously put
on hold. The country’s fast-growing business process outsourcing (BPO)
industry and robust overseas Filipino workers' (OFW) remittances are the
main sources of demand for office and residential properties (Figure 2.2). For
example, the luxury residential segment, which largely caters to the
expatriate market (e.g., BPO expatriates), expects to see an additional
10,600 units in 2013 from an annual average of 3,500 units in the last 5
years, while the Makati Central Business District (CBD) expects to see an
additional 336,000 square meters (m2) of office spaces in 2013 from an
annual average of about 178,000 m2 in the last 5 years (Figures 2.3 and 2.4).
Real estate price inflation in recent years is much lower than in the pre-1997 period.
Though rising, capital and rental values are still below their 1997 peaks,
as supply remains relatively strong. The average selling price for mid-range
residential condominiums grew by up to 90 percent since 2004 to around
Page 28 of 57
PHP100,000 per square meter (sqm). High-end units now sell at prices up to
PHP 200,000 per sqm, an increase of 50 percent.1 In contrast, rental values
have not increased by as much since 2005.
1 This refers to the average capital value for premium three-bedroom units in the Makati central business district. Source: Colliers International Philippines Research (2012)
They are currently lower relative to 1992-97, which saw a tripling of rental
rates. The rental price of Grade A office space in Metro Manila CBDs ranges
from about PHP 800 to 1,000 per sqm, still below the 1997 peak of PHP
1,200. On housing rental, the official statistics show that housing rental
inflation hovered at around 3 percent from 2007 through early 2013 from a
high of 18 percent in 1996 (Figure 2.5). Since 2008, the divergence between
rental and sale values is not growing as fast as one would expect if there was
a real estate bubble developing.2
Page 29 of 57
The inflation outlook for rental values is expected to be moderate
given the high supply of pipeline residential condominiums and office spaces.
At the same time, most banking sector indicators show significant
improvements from their levels in the 1990s, thanks to the prudent
banking policies put in place after the 1997 crisis. Lending to real estate is
capped by prudential measures such as limits to bank exposure to real
estate to at most 20 percent of total loan portfolio (TLP).3 Bank asset
indicators have also improved remarkably. Non-performing loans as a share
of banks’ TLP have gone down to 2 percent from 14 percent in 1996. Bank
Page 30 of 57
3 Source: BSP Circular No. 600 on regulatory framework governing bank real estate loans.
lending to real estate is still relatively modest considering that interest rates
are at historically low levels (e.g., bank lending rate of as low as 5 percent
from over 15 percent in 1997).
Low interest rates are driving real estate lending but leverage is
still low relative to 1997. In 2012, real estate loans (RELs) grew by around
30 percent and were equivalent to 4 percent of GDP, lower than 1997’s 60
percent growth and RELs equivalent to 6 percent of GDP. Thus far, the
balance sheets of top real estate companies remain healthy. The average
debt-to-equity ratio of the top six Philippine real estate companies weighted
by market capitalization was around 53 percent in 2012 (Table 2.1), lower
than the debt-to-equity ratios seen at the height of the Asian financial crisis
(i.e., 66 percent for the top real estate companies and 170 percent for the
Philippines’ top 1,000 non-financial corporations).4
4 World Bank staff estimates. Source: SEC 17-A forms, Business World top 1,000
corporations.
Risks arising from bank lending to real estate firms are lower today.
Page 31 of 57
This is because i) many weaker firms have been weeded out following
the 1997 financial crisis, ii) the balance sheets of the remaining firms are
stronger given lower leverage, iii) there has been a shift from lending against
specific projects to lending against developers’ balance sheets, and iv)
developers are making more prudent decisions and are adapting better to
difficult times by recalibrating the pace of real estate development and
postponing new project launches when the outlook turns negative, among
others. 5
Moreover, most real estate companies have adopted the practice of
pre-selling properties and starting construction only after reaching
60 percent in pre-sales to further reduce risks.
Through pre-selling, firms are protected from over committing
resources to a project without adequate revenue cover.6 This practice,
among others, is credited for having averted a hard landing in 2009.7 In the
case of office buildings, construction normally begins only after a portion of
the leasable area has been pre-committed to tenants. While the pre-
commitment requirement used to be 60 percent for office buildings, this has
gone down to around 30 percent in recent years due to the high demand and
faster turn-over time required by expanding BPO companies.
5 See Le Borgne, et. al. (2009) for more discussion 6 However, through pre-selling, a substantial portion of the risk is transferred from
developers to buyers and not necessarily reduced7 See Le Borgne, et. al. (2009) for more discussion
Page 32 of 57
Page 33 of 57
Box 1.1Overview of the Philippine Real Estate Market
The Philippine real estate market comprises five main segments: i)
residential (e.g., condominium units, and house and lots), ii) office
spaces, iii) shopping malls, iv) hotels, and v) industrial lots. The
residential segment accounts for the biggest share of total revenues at
around 55 percent (equivalent to 6.4 percent of GDP).8 Leasing of
shopping malls and office spaces comprise another 40 percent of the
property market (Box Figure 1.1).
Real estate development has expanded geographically. Private
building construction has become more dispersed with the development
of new projects outside Metro Manila such as the Provinces of Cavite and
Laguna, and Metro Cebu and Metro Davao. The concentration of
construction activity in Metro Manila has gone down to 40 percent from
almost 80 percent in pre-1997 and 60 percent prior to 2009 (Box Figure
1.2).
The demand for mid-range residential properties mostly comes from
residents and OFWs, and funded by savings, remittances, and stock
market earnings. Buyers comprise both local end-users and investors.
8 This is estimated as the weighted revenue shares per segment of the top five
Philippine real estate companies according to market capitalization. Source: SEC 17-A
reports of real estate companies.
Page 34 of 57
End-users include residents and OFWs who buy condominium units for
use as “vacation houses” (i.e., the unit is used when OFWs return to the
Philippines and are largely left vacant for the rest of the year). High-
end/luxury properties are largely purchased for investment, with the
purpose of renting out the unit to the expatriate market.
Source: Real estate companies’ SEC 17-A reports and PEU Author’s interviews with
Philippine property management and research firms, and real estate companies in
December 2011, and February and April 2013.
IV. Government Subsidy
Housing is households' largest and most widely owned asset. To
substantially improve the conditions of the targeted sectors, such as tl3e
poor's access to housing, the Philippine government has provided subsidies
that are expected to bring down housing costs. The subsidies in the housing
markets are meant to enable the majority of the population to afford housing
units that are made available to them at a lower cost.
Brief overview
During the 1970s and up to the mid-1980s, the government was
involved in the direct production and provision of housing and related
services and it imposed rent control in an attempt to make housing more
accessible to the low- and middle-income groups. It also initiated the
creation of a secondary mortgage system operated through the National
Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC) that purchased the mortgages
of loan-originating financial institutions. The NHMFC drew funding from the
Home Development Mutual Fund (HDMF), paying 12.75 percent per annum.
Those funds were then lent to HDMF members at subsidized interest rates.
In 1987, to rationalize the housing sector, the Aquino government
created, through Executive Order No. 90, the Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), the highest policymaking and
coordinating body for urban and housing development. It formulates policies
Page 35 of 57
and guidelines to accomplish the National Shelter Program, a scheme
intended to deal with the housing backlog. HUDCC coordinates, monitors and
exercises oversight functions over the activities of government agencies
such as the National Housing Authority (NHA), NHMFC, Home Insurance
Guaranty Corporation (HIGC)*, and the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLRB). NHA is the sole government agency responsible for housing
production. The HDMF, Social Security System (SSS) and Government
Service insurance System (GSIS) provide funds to the NHMFC which is tasked
to administer the government's Unified Home Lending Program (UHLP). The
UHLP distinguishes "socialized" housing from "economic" housing and
maintains different financing approaches and regulations in each of these
categories. EO 90 enlists the support and cooperation of the private sector in
the production and financing of low-cost or "socialized" housing. The
government encourages both private builders and financial institutions to
cater to the lower segment of the housing market by providing them a
package of mostly financial incentives and subsidies. Under the Urban
Housing and Development Act of 1992 (RA 7279), a major piece of social
legislation under the Aquino administration, the government seeks to
undertake the following objectives:
(1)provide decent shelter to the poor;
*HIGC is now called the Home Guaranty Corporation (HGC) by virtue of Republic Act 8763 (March 7,
2000) that provided it a new mandate: to pursue the development
(2) develop a framework for the use of urban land;
(3) involve the community in shelter development and construction;
Page 36 of 57
(4) maximize local government participation in socialized housing; and
(5)employ the services of the private sector in socialized housing
programs.
A companion piece of legislation, the Local Government Code of 1991
(RA 7160), provides that local government units (LGUs) be jointly responsible
over the provision of socialized housing and regulation of shelter-related
activities.
The National Shelter Program
The National Shelter Program (NSP) is the government's
comprehensive strategy to address the country's housing problem. It rests
on three basic principles, namely:
(1) reliance on the initiative and capability of beneficiaries to solve
their housing problem with minimum assistance from the
government;
(2) the private sector as the principal player in providing decent and
affordable housing; and (3) the government as enabler, facilitator
and catalyst in the housing market, while focusing assistance to
families within the poverty line.
The NSP has four major programs:
(1) production of housing units,
(2) mortgage financing,
(3) developmental loans and
(4) community programs.
Page 37 of 57
These programs target either direct end-beneficiaries households or
private developers/private banks--the intermediary institutions used by the
government to direct assistance to beneficiaries.
Private homebuilders have reinforced the policy bias for
homeownership by declaring that the National Shelter Program (NSP) targets
can be attained given adequate funding from the government. This policy
has led government to try to raise as much funding as possible for home
ownership by households, especially the low income group and make it
available as cheaply as can be provided. Making cheap funds available
Page 38 of 57
became synonymous to providing interest subsidies to prospective
homeowners, and other types of subsidies to the housing sector in general.
Housing Finance System of the Government
The agencies involved in housing finance are the NHMFC, SSS, GSIS
and HDMF. These agencies provide mortgage loans to low- and middle-
income borrowers. The NHMFC provides takeout funding to public and
private institutions using funds provided by GSIS, SSS and HDMF. The NHMFC
uses those funds to take out mortgage loans originated by private
developers and private banks using the so called "formula lending"
approach. It is to be noted that funding doesn’t come from the General
Appropriation Act.
The government uses a combination of direct subsidies through
concessional interest rates, and indirect subsidies, e.g., tax breaks,
guarantee schemes, etc. Indirect subsidies also include periodic
recapitalization to strengthen, insolvent housing agencies.
Housing Subsidy Programs
The Home Development and Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG Fund has several
programs to address the housing requirements not only of its members but
of private developers as well. These include:
A. Credit Facility for Individual Members
This is a financing program for active Pag-IBIG members here and
abroad who have completed the necessary monthly contributions. The
Page 39 of 57
housing loan may be used to purchase a fully developed lot or house and lot,
purchase of lot and construction of a residential unit thereon, construction or
completion of a house on a lot owned by the member, home improvement,
and refinancing of an existing mortgage with an institution acceptable to
Pag-IBIG.
B. Facilities for Private Developers
The Pag-ibig Credit Facility for Developers aims to provide a liquidity
mechanism for private developers to enable them to continue developing
housing projects pending the take-out of delivered and complete housing
loan applications. Under this facility are several schemes which the
developer may avail of such as:
Pag-IBIG Developmental Loan Program, which seeks to create
additional housing inventories through the provision of developmental
financing at easier terms and lower rates to developers or proponents
of housing projects.
Pag-IBIG City Program, which provides a ready inventory of completed
housing units in a project to be known as a Pag-IBIG City, which shall be
available for sale at more affordable prices to Pag-IBIG members.
This program also intends to lower the project financing costs for
housing development since HDMF shall provide a faster turnaround of the
developer’s investment, thereby increasing his capacity for housing
production. This shall redound to the benefit of Pag-IBIG members in terms of
lower priced housing packages.
Page 40 of 57
Takeout Mechanism under The Developers’ CTS/REM Scheme
In order to fast track the government’s housing program, Pag-IBIG
opened the takeout mechanism under the developers Contract To Sell/Real
Estate Mortgage (CTS/REM) mechanism by providing an express take-out
window for accredited developers who meet the standards set by Pag-IBIG
Fund for project development and house construction.
The program aims to enhance the asset quality of the Pag-IBIG
mortgage loan portfolio by instituting a credit risk-sharing mechanism with
housing developers. It also defines the parameters in the allocation and
disbursement of funds allocated for housing, specifically for developer-
assisted member-loans.
Development of Medium/High-Rise Condominium Building (MHRB)
Projects in Metro Manila and Highly Urbanized Cities
This program aims to provide a ready inventory of condominium units
for sale at more affordable prices to eligible Pag-IBIG members in the Metro
Manila area and highly urbanized cities. Through this program, Pag-IBIG
members who are working in the Metro Manila area and highly urbanized
cities will have an opportunity to acquire condominium units in the area,
thereby reducing transportation costs to and from their places of habitat.
Through a faster turnaround of their investments in the construction
and development of medium/high-rise condominium buildings in the Metro
Manila area and highly urbanized cities, this program will provide developers
Page 41 of 57
with a liquidity mechanism that will increase their capacity for housing
production and reduce project financing costs.
c. Developmental Housing Loan Program for Local Government
Units
This program is geared towards sustaining the capabilities of LGUs to
fast track the development and implementation of housing projects in their
respective localities, and to make housing accessible and affordable for its
employees and constituents.
d. Group Land Acquisition And Development (Glad) Program
The GLAD Program aims to provide financial assistance to organized
groups of formally employed Fund members for the acquisition and
development of raw land or partially developed land, which shall serve as the
site of their housing units.
2. Abot-Kaya Pabahay Program
The Abot-Kaya Pabahay Fund was created pursuant to R.A. 6846 or the
Social Housing Support Fund Act, with the objectives of enhancing the
affordability of low-cost housing by low-income families and providing
developmental financing for low-cost housing projects thus eliminating risks
for the funding agencies involved in housing.
The program was devoted to provide amortization support,
expedite the development of land into suitable sites for social housing
by providing developmental financing to developers of low-cost
Page 42 of 57
housing projects, and establishes a strong guarantee system to ensure
viable cash flow for the funding agencies involved in housing.
The program is divided into three components namely:
Amortization Support – A qualified borrower shall be eligible to
apply for administration support. Eligible borrowers with the
appropriate family income shall be entitled to a monthly amortization
support for the first five years of the loan amortization period.
Developmental Financing – Under this component, proponents of
low-cost housing projects shall be entitled to a developmental
financing loan not exceeding 80% of the entire project cost
Both the Amortization support and Developmental financing
components of the Abot Kaya pabahay Fund are administered by the
Socialized Housing Finance Corporation (SHFC).
Cash Flow Guarantee – This program, with Home Guarantee
Corporation (HGC) (www.hgc.gov.ph) as trustee and administrator,
seeks to eliminate credit risk for funders of socialized housing loans.
On December 1994, RA 6846 was amended by RA 7835 or the
Comprehensive Integrated Shelter Finance Act (CISFA), which increased the
AKPF fund from P2,500 million to P5,500 million and provided specific annual
allocations for 5 years. The law further states that allocation for the housing
programs shall be appropriated annually for a period of five (5) years or until
such time the total fund requirement provided for in this Act shall be been
fully released specifically for the following programs:
Page 43 of 57
Funding for Housing Programs. The total allocation for housing
programs and the funds released to date are as follows:
HOUSING PROGAM
ALLOCATED(InMillion P)
RELEASED(InMillion P)
UNRELEASED(InMillion P)
Resettlement Program 5,200.00 5,200.000 0.000Medium Rise Public and Private Housing Program, subsidy for land acquisition, construction
3,000.00
1,008.100
1,991.900
Community Mortgage Program
12,780.00 6,575.940 6,204.060
Cost Recoverable Program
2,542.00 467.865 2,074.135
Local Housing Program 3,000.00 639.664 2,360.3
T O T A L 26,522.00
13,891.569
12,630.431
2. Increase in Capitalization of Housing Corporations
The law also increased the capitalization of NHMFC and HGC, with the
corresponding releases to date as shown below:
CORPORATIONAMENDED CAPITALIZATION (P M)
TOTAL RELEASED (P M)
UNRELEASED(P M)
NHMFC 5,500.00 3,870.51 1,629.49HGC 2,500.00 2,500.00 0T O T A L 8,000.00 6,370.51 1,629.49
In addition to the original P500.00 M capital of NHMFC, the government
released P3,370.51 M in several tranches since 1995 for a total Paid In
Capital of P3,870.51 M.
Page 44 of 57
For HGC, its paid up capital prior to CISFA was only P622.35 M out of
the authorized P1,000 M. After enactment of CISFA, the government
released a total of P1,877.65 M to complete the P2,500 M Capitalization.
3. Increase in Abot-Kaya Pabahay Fund
The CISFA law increased the funding for the Abot Kaya Pabahay
Program under R.A. 6846. The table on the allocation and releases for AKPF
is shown as follows:
ABOT-KAYA PABAHAY PROGRAM
ALLOCATION VERSUS RELEASES
(In Million Pesos)
PROGRAM
ORIGINALALLOCATION(R.A. 6846)
AMENDED ALLOCATION(CISFA LAW)
RELEASED
UNRELEASED (BASED ON TOTAL ALLOCATION)
TOTAL
2,500.00
5,500.00
2,265.00
3,235.00
Abot Kaya Pabahay(NHMFC)
1,500.00
1,500.00
1,140.00
360.00
Amortization Support
1,000.00 1,000.00 760.01 239.99
Development Loan
500.00 500.00 379.99 120.01
Cash Flow Guaranty System (HGC)
1,000.00
1,500.00
1,035.00
465.00
Interest Subsidy
2,500.00 90.00
2,410.00
Page 45 of 57
andLiquidity Support(NHMFC)
Housing Regulation
Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
Compliance to 20% Balanced Housing Requirement
Section 18 of RA 7279 or the Urban Development and Housing Act of
1992 requires every developer of subdivision projects to develop an area for
socialized housing equivalent to at least twenty percent (20% of the total
subdivision area within the same city or municipality, whenever feasible or
total subdivision project cost at the option of the developer.
The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) monitors the
compliance of the developers of subdivision projects to the twenty percent
(20%) balanced housing requirement under Republic Act 7279.
The required balanced housing development may also be complied
with by the developers in any of the following modes:
Development of new settlement;
Slum upgrading or renewal of areas for priority development either
through zonal improvement programs and slum improvement and
resettlement programs;
Joint venture projects with either the local government units or any of
the housing agencies;
Participation in the Community Mortgage Program (CMP);
Page 46 of 57
Purchase of housing bonds;
Accrediting housing projects engaged and developed by non-
governmental and non-profit organizations and foundations for the
underprivileged and homeless sector.
Registration and accreditation of housing project in government
resettlement areas, as an additional mode of compliance to balanced
housing.
In support to the increase of production of housing units for the
underprivileged and homeless sector the HLURB initiated and proved the
following policy amendments:
a. Participation in any form in CMP projects as a mode of compliance to
Section 18 of RA 7279;
b. Accreditation of Gawad Kalinga (GK) projects and Habitat for
Humanity Philippines (HHP) projects as compliance to Section 18 of RA 7279;
c. Exemption of GK projects and HHP projects from securing Licenses
to Sell provided that they are not for sale to the general public but rather to
be awarded to the beneficiaries;
For the year 2008, HLURB issued licenses to sell to a total of 2,067
projects or 220,756 units. Of this, 56 projects or 32,503 units were the
compliance of private developers to balanced housing requirement.
Page 47 of 57
Flow of Funds for Government Housing Programs
Page 48 of 57
Page 49 of 57
Housing Finance Issues
The lending activities of the insurance companies, like those of
commercial banks are confined to short end of the maturity spectrum and
support industrial and commercial activity. Lending to households is confined
to policy loans to individual customers and mortgage loans for very
expensive dwelling units. There has been over that period a gradual
reorientation of insurance company assets away from mortgages, real
property and stocks towards bonds and other investments. These other
investments have been predominantly short term in nature, usually money
market placements.
The loans and investments of the private non bank financial
intermediaries are however, dwarfed by those of SSS and GSIS. These two
public agencies are major institutional investors in intermediate-term
government securities and play an important role in housing finance system
as well.
In case of SSS there has been a relative shift of the portfolio toward
government securities. The reason for this reversal is two-fold. On the one
hand, rising interest rates have induced SSS to switch to government
securities; on the other hand, the mortgage amount ceiling imposed by SSS
has made these loans less useful as house prices have escalated and the
demand for mortgage loans has fallen off.
Notwithstanding the current strong underlying demand and
improved fundamentals of Philippine real estate companies,
Page 50 of 57
vulnerabilities in the sector remain and may build up if key sources
of risks are not managed.
First, as a substantial portion of residential buyers are OFWs,
residential sales are exposed to adverse shocks to the global economy.
Industry anecdotes suggest a significant number of defaults since 2009 by
OFWs who are unable to pay their mortgages.9
Second, the low interest rate environment may lead to moral
hazards such as relaxing credit standards and documentary
requirements for household real estate loans.
For instance, some banks have raised the loan-to-value ratio9 from 70
to 80 percent (and as high as 90 percent according to industry analysts) and
have waived several prudential requirements, such as proof of income, to
generate more sales. This latter practice appears to be more prominent
among OFWs who are unable to show proof of income, but are nevertheless
granted loans if they are able to pay the 20 percent down payment.
Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that some developers have
increasingly used their balance sheets to offer in-house financing (i.e., a form
of shadow banking), as opposed to bank financing.10 This added exposure of
developers’ balance sheets has yet to be properly recorded and monitored.
Overall, the unknown magnitude of shadow banking by real estate
developers with possibly weaker credit standards is not reassuring and can
be a significant source of risk.
9 Balloon payments have been attributed to defaults as some buyers are unaware of large lump-sum payments
required after several months of equal installment payment.
Page 51 of 57
10 The loan-to-value ratio refers to the portion of the total contract price of the property that can be financed by the
bank. A very high loan-to-value ratio has the effect of reducing buffers against declines in property prices in the
event of defaults.
Finally, the projected end-user demand for condominiums,
especially at the mid-range to high-end, may be overstated,
especially since only about 10 percent of the total population (20 percent in
Metro Manila) is considered to be middle class and up.54 According to
industry observers, some firms are reported to continue building projects to
preserve their market shares even if end-user demand is slowing down. If
this is any indicator, some investor-buyers are having a hard time renting-
out their units at prices commensurate to their investment. This is
particularly true in areas with an oversupply of projects. Lower rental turnout
may adversely affect investor-buyers who availed of bank or in-house
financing.
To mitigate risks, the BSP has tightened the coverage of bank
exposure to real estate. In August 2012, BSP lifted all exemptions in the
computation of bank exposure to real estate and expanded them to cover
funds channeled into securities of property firms. The new BSP guidelines
provide a more comprehensive measure of banks’ 20 percent cap on real
estate exposure. Previously excluded items which are now included in the
computation are i) mortgage loans, ii) socialized and low cost housing loans,
iii) loans guaranteed by the Home Guarantee Corporation (HGC), and iv)
investments in debt and equity securities issued by real estate companies.
Moreover, banks are now also required to provide additional details on their
Page 52 of 57
exposure to the real estate sector such as i) investments in debt and equity
securities that will be used to fund property developments, as well as, loans
extended to property developers, and ii) ancillary services relating to the
construction and development of real estate projects such as buying, selling,
renting, and managing real estate properties.
In conclusion, the Philippine real estate sector is currently enjoying
high rates of growth, driven by low interest rates, robust OFW
remittances, and the fast-growing BPO sector. It also benefits from
improved bank and real estate sector fundamentals as a result of past and
ongoing reforms. The conservative and pre-emptive stance of the BSP and
major market players, which continues today, has helped to put in place
buffers against major shocks. Overall, the sector remains in good health,
thanks to measures initiated by both the private sector and the government
to address past issues.
However, the sources of growth can also become the sources of
risk. A real estate sector driven by OFW sales and BPO leasing is vulnerable
to shocks in the global economy. The low interest rate regime is also a
source of risk. As lenders and developers compete for higher yields, lending
requirements may be relaxed beyond prudent levels.
Page 53 of 57
Concluding Statements
Housing demand in the Philippines has been mainly dictated by
housing affordability, which refers not only to a household’s ability to pay but
also to the price of housing in the market and the financing schemes
available. Housing affordability is low in the country. This is attributed to
several factors: first, the ratio of unit housing cost to income is rapidly rising.
Housing price appreciation is highest in the Philippines among countries in
Asia and this is mainly due to rising land prices. Second, there are few low-
cost alternatives to homeownership in the formal market. Many households
cannot afford homeownership. Only about 50 percent of households in the
country can afford to buy a home in the formal market. The situation can be
worse in some areas. Moreover, the rental market, specifically low cost rental
housing, is limited, thus, households engage in various informal housing
arrangements (e.g. rent-free occupation, squatting) and multi-occupancy
dwelling has become common. Third, innovative housing finance is limited
and the microfinance schemes available suffer from liquidity problems and
bureaucratic delays.
The above conditions are reflected in the consumption pattern of
households. The path toward acceptable housing has been very slow and
housing adjustments have been confined to home improvements with
minimal changes on tenure. Government has to address the problems of
Page 54 of 57
housing in a broader context. The issues are not only confined in providing
households income transfers through subsidies or in giving access to housing
and security of tenure but also in looking at the larger issue of urban
development. Within the households’ microenvironment, government may
consider the development of the rental housing market, the provision of
alternative financing schemes that takes into account the households’
capacity to pay (e.g. rent to own schemes, “balloon” payment on
amortization, microfinance, etc.), or encourage the development of “cheap”
housing technologies. These actions should, however, be supported by ways
to effectively reduce the high cost of housing in the country. Such move calls
for institutional strengthening specifically in the areas of land management
and administration as well as in local governance.
Moreover, to substantially overcome the backlog on housing
schemes, the following recommendations are provided;
carefully targeted to the most needy;
transparent to the public and policy makers;
funded from budgetary appropriation because the provision of
low cost housing is a public sector policy goal;
avoiding as much as possible distortions in the credit markets;
creating incentives for greater participation by the private sector,
especially the banks, and
encouraging risk sharing on the part of the borrower,
government and the private sector finance
Page 55 of 57
A summary of comparison in mode of acquiring a house is also
provided to give guidance to individuals planning to build their houses. (See
Appendix E)
Page 56 of 57
Referrences
National Statistics Office
Shelter finance strategies for the poor: Philippines Environment
and Urbanization 2007 19: 409, Gilberto M. Llanto,
DOI:10.1177/0956247807082821
http//: Cost of Living in Philippines. Prices in Philippines
The Dynamics of Housing Demand in the Philippines: Income
and Lifecycle Effects, Marife M. Ballesteros, PIDS Research Paper
Series No. 2002-01
A Study of Housing Subsidies in the Philippines ;Gilberto M.
Llanto, Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr., Ma. Teresa C. Sanchez and Marie
Christine G. Tang; PIDS DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 98-42
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC UPDATE :ACCELERATING REFORMS TO
MEET THE JOBS CHALLENGE; May 2013 ;Poverty Reduction and
Economic Management Unit East Asia and Pacific Region
Housing Need; National Framework, Operationalization and
Estimation;Development of Information System
Pampanga Real Estate TV | Pampanga Real Estate Trend, Guide and
Review.All Rights Reserved. CRB Benedict Baluyut, RMT
Page 57 of 57
top related