View in EDS

Who Owns Municipal Housing Bonds? Asset Managers and the Affordable Housing Crisis.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Who Owns Municipal Housing Bonds? Asset Managers and the Affordable Housing Crisis.
Authors: Tapp, Renee1 (AUTHOR) crtapp@unc.edu, Weber, Rachel2 (AUTHOR) rachel_weber@gsd.harvard.edu
Source: Journal of the American Planning Association. 2026, Vol. 92 Issue 2, p193-208. 16p.
Subjects: Asset management, Financialization, Public finance, Local government, Bondholders, Housing, Municipal bonds, Bond market
Abstract: Problem, research strategy, and findings: Planners increasingly turn to municipal housing bonds (munis) to fund the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Although the issuance of muni housing bonds more than doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, little attention has been given to who issues bonds and what happens to the bonds after they are sold. Drawing on financial data sets of local bond issuances and bondholders, we conducted the first national analysis to answer who sells and buys municipal housing bonds and how bondholders use them. Our findings reveal how housing financialization extends to public finance along three axes: the emergence of nongovernmental actors issuing municipal bonds, the consolidation of bond ownership by asset managers, and the growing securitization of bonds to repackage local housing crises into publicly traded instruments. As asset managers stake claims in the muni market, municipal housing bonds may contribute to the affordable housing crisis instead of solving it. Takeaway for practice: When issuing municipal housing bonds, planners should be cognizant that local governments are financially responsible throughout the duration of the bond, often decades after issuance. As such, they should enter deals aware that (a) private issuers increase risk in the market, (b) concentrated bondholding can create instability in the market and skew lending terms that favor investors and underwriters over public issuers, and (c) municipal housing bonds provide tax-free interest payments to retirees with 401(k)s and pension plans. Given that these market dynamics may raise issuance costs and exacerbate the widening gaps between tenants and homeowners, planners should weigh short-term access to capital against longer-term priorities to support renters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of the American Planning Association is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Problem, research strategy, and findings: Planners increasingly turn to municipal housing bonds (munis) to fund the construction, acquisition, and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Although the issuance of muni housing bonds more than doubled during the COVID-19 pandemic, little attention has been given to who issues bonds and what happens to the bonds after they are sold. Drawing on financial data sets of local bond issuances and bondholders, we conducted the first national analysis to answer who sells and buys municipal housing bonds and how bondholders use them. Our findings reveal how housing financialization extends to public finance along three axes: the emergence of nongovernmental actors issuing municipal bonds, the consolidation of bond ownership by asset managers, and the growing securitization of bonds to repackage local housing crises into publicly traded instruments. As asset managers stake claims in the muni market, municipal housing bonds may contribute to the affordable housing crisis instead of solving it. Takeaway for practice: When issuing municipal housing bonds, planners should be cognizant that local governments are financially responsible throughout the duration of the bond, often decades after issuance. As such, they should enter deals aware that (a) private issuers increase risk in the market, (b) concentrated bondholding can create instability in the market and skew lending terms that favor investors and underwriters over public issuers, and (c) municipal housing bonds provide tax-free interest payments to retirees with 401(k)s and pension plans. Given that these market dynamics may raise issuance costs and exacerbate the widening gaps between tenants and homeowners, planners should weigh short-term access to capital against longer-term priorities to support renters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:01944363
DOI:10.1080/01944363.2025.2552205