FIGURE 3.3.2.8(B)
1.50
$1,000
1.40
$800
1.30
$600
1.20
$400
1.10
$200
1.00
$0 For Profit
Median Per Unit Cash Flow
Median DCR
Median DCR and Per Unit Cash Flow by Developer Type
Non Profit
Developer Type
Median Debt Coverage Ratio 2013
Median Debt Coverage Ratio 2014
Median Per Unit Cash Flow 2013
Median Per Unit Cash Flow 2014
While projects operated by non-profit developers were found to have marginally outperformed their for-profit counterparts in terms of physical and economic occupancy, the relationship reversed in the context of DCR and cash flow. CohnReznick data suggests that during 2013 and 2014, projects developed by for-profit developers had above-median DCR and per unit cash flow, while projects operated by non-profit developers generated DCR and per unit cash flow levels that were marginally lower than the national median. Similar to the occupancy comparison between the two types of developers, the differences were relatively immaterial in the case of DCR and cash flow, implying that developer type is likely not a key determinant in a project’s DCR and cash flow performance.
Underperformance — DCR and Per Unit Cash Flow by Developer Type
Figures 3.3.2.8(C)-(D) illustrate DCR and per unit cash flow underperformance by developer type, as measured by percentage of net equity of the stabilized surveyed portfolio.
DCR and Per Unit Cash Flow Underperformance by Developer Type (% of net equity) Debt Coverage Ratio Below 1.00 Developer Type
% of Stabilized Portfolio
2013
2014
FIGURE 3.3.2.8(C)
Per Unit Cash Flow Below $0 2013
2014
For Profit
64.0%
17.2%
16.0%
18.0%
16.6%
Non Profit
36.0%
21.1%
20.8%
21.8%
22.1%
A CohnReznick Report | 215