An Estimation of Three Sets of indicators of Financial Risk Among Multifamily Properties

A lack of information about the financial condition of multifamily properties has hindered the development of a secondary mortgage market in multifamily mortgages and federal policies to finance multifamily housing. The purpose of this paper is to improve our understanding of the financial condition of multifamily properties. The centerpiece of the analysis is the 1991 RFS [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. Three sets of indicators of financial distress are examined in this paper. The first is interest rate related risk. We find that twenty five percent of the properties with mortgages have contract interest rates at least 87 basis points above the average contract rate, which was 10 percent at the time of the survey. This places these properties at a disadvantage in the market place because their costs are above average. On the positive side, many property owners were able to refinance or otherwise renegotiate their contract interest rates during periods of interest rate decline. The second is cash flow risk as measured by the ratio of net operating income to the mortgage payment (DCR). The measured DCR has a mean of 2.9 and a median of 1.36 among properties with a mortgage. A quarter of all properties with some mortgage debt have a DCR below unity. If one assumes our measure overstates the true DCR by 20 percent, then as many as half of the properties have DCRs at or below 1.1, which suggests that a large fraction of the multifamily stock suffers from cash flow problems. The third is risk due to low equity. Investors with little or negative equity in the property are more likely to default than are investors with a substantial equity stake in the property. Such risk is measured by the loan to value ratio (LTV). The average LTV is .43 among all properties; three quarters of all properties have at least one mortgage and the average LTV among properties with some debt is 55 percent. Higher than average LTVs are associated with several other property characteristics: properties owned by partnerships (LTVs about 5 percentage points higher than the omitted category); properties that receive some type of assistance, e.g., Section 8 (LTVs from 2 to 5 percentage points higher than non-assisted properties); and properties with ARMs, balloon mortgages, or multiple mortgages (LTVs about 6 or 7 percentage points higher than others)

Exploring differences in stakeholders' perceptions of illegal bird trapping in Cyprus

Abstract Background Cyprus is recognised as a hotspot for illegal bird trapping in the Mediterranean basin. A consumer demand for the Eurasian blackcap (Sylvia atricapilla) is driving the use of non-selective trapping methods, resulting in the indiscriminate killing of millions of migratory birds. Efforts to tackle the issue have so far been characterised mostly by a top-down approach, focusing on legislation and enforcement. However, trapping levels are not decreasing and conflict between stakeholder groups is intensifying. Methods To understand why efforts to stop illegal bird trapping have not been effective, we used semi-structured interviews to interview 18 local bird trappers and nine representatives from the pertinent environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the governmental agencies responsible for enforcing the legislation. Results We found distinct differences between the views of the local trapping community and the environmental NGOs, particularly on why trapping is occurring and its impact on the avifauna. This disparity has contributed to misrepresentations of both sides and a high degree of conflict, which is potentially proving counterproductive to conservation interventions. In addition, it appears that trappers are a heterogeneous group, likely driven by various motivations besides profit. Conclusion We argue that stakeholders interested in reducing illegal bird trapping need to develop anti-poaching strategies that aim at minimising the disparity in the views, and subsequently the conflict, acknowledging also that trappers are not a homogenous group, as often treated