Note 2 - Investments in and Advances To Local Partnerships

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Notes

Note 2 - Investments in and Advances To Local Partnerships

Note 2 – Investments in and Advances to Local Partnerships

As of September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the Partnership holds limited partnership interests in 5 Local Partnerships, located in two states and Puerto Rico, that own residential low income rental projects consisting of 335 apartment units.  The mortgage loans of these projects are payable to or insured by various governmental agencies.

The Partnership, as a limited partner, does not have a contractual relationship with the Local Partnerships or exercise control over the activities and operations, including refinancing or selling decisions, of the Local Partnerships that would require or allow for consolidation. Accordingly, the Partnership accounts for its investments in the Local Partnerships using the equity method. The Partnership is allocated profits and losses of the Local Partnerships based upon its respective ownership percentage (between 95% and 99%). Distributions of surplus cash from operations from most of the Local Partnerships are restricted by the Local Partnerships’ Regulatory Agreements with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). These restrictions limit the distribution to a portion, generally less than 10%, of the initial invested capital. The excess surplus cash is deposited into a residual receipts reserve, of which the ultimate realization by the Partnership is uncertain as HUD frequently retains it upon sale or dissolution of the Local Partnership. The Partnership is allocated profits and losses and receives distributions from refinancings and sales in accordance with the Local Partnerships’ partnership agreements. These agreements usually limit the Partnership’s distributions to an amount substantially less than its ownership percentage in the Local Partnership.

The individual investments are carried at cost plus the Partnership’s share of the Local Partnership’s profits less the Partnership’s share of the Local Partnership’s losses, distributions and impairment charges. The Partnership is not legally liable for the obligations of the Local Partnerships and is not otherwise committed to provide additional support to them. Therefore, it does not recognize losses once its investment in each of the Local Partnerships reaches zero. Distributions from the Local Partnerships are accounted for as a reduction of the investment balance until the investment balance is reduced to zero. When the investment balance has been reduced to zero, subsequent distributions received are recognized as income in the accompanying statements of operations. 

For those investments where the Partnership has determined that the carrying value of its investments approximates the estimated fair value of those investments, the Partnership’s policy is to recognize equity in income of the Local Partnerships only to the extent of distributions received and amortization of acquisition costs from those Local Partnerships. Therefore, the Partnership limits its recognition of equity earnings to the amount it expects to ultimately realize.

Two Local Partnerships, Santa Maria Limited Dividend Partnership Assoc. (“Santa Maria”) and Marina Del Rey Limited Dividend Partnership Assoc. (“Marina Del Rey”), have been marketing their properties for sale. On October 26, 2011, Santa Maria and Marina Del Rey each entered into separate purchase and sale contracts to sell their respective investment properties to a third party for a gross sales price of $2,600,000 and $2,750,000, respectively. After payment of closing costs and repayment of the notes payable encumbering the properties, the Partnership expects to receive approximately $330,000 and $500,000 from Santa Maria and Marina Del Rey, respectively, for advance repayments and distributions. The sales are expected to close during the first quarter of 2013. The Partnership has no investment balances remaining in these two Local Partnerships at September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011.

At September 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011, the investment balance in all five of the Local Partnerships had been reduced to zero.

In May 2011, the Partnership assigned its limited partnership interest in Village Apartments (“Village”) to an affiliate of the operating general partner of Village. The Partnership believed that Village’s liabilities exceeded the fair value of the property. In addition, Village faced foreclosure as the lender had issued an acceleration notice on Village’s mortgage. The Partnership did not receive any proceeds for the assignment. The Partnership’s investment balance in Village was zero at the date of assignment.

At times, advances are made to the Local Partnerships. Advances made by the Partnership to the individual Local Partnerships are considered part of the Partnership’s investment in the Local Partnerships. Advances to Local Partnerships for which the investment has been reduced to zero are charged to expense. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, the Partnership advanced approximately $37,000 and $69,000, respectively, to two Local Partnerships, Santa Maria and Marina Del Rey, for entity taxes. During the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, the Partnership recognized approximately $37,000 and $69,000 as expense for advances, respectively. While not obligated to make advances to any of the Local Partnerships, the Partnership may make future advances in order to protect its economic investment in the Local Partnerships.

The following are unaudited condensed combined estimated statements of operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 for the Local Partnerships in which the Partnership has invested (in thousands). The 2011 amounts exclude the operations of Village Apartments for which the Partnership assigned its interests in May 2011:

	Three Months Ended September 30, 2012	Three Months Ended September 30, 2011	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2012	Nine Months Ended September 30, 2011
Rental and other income	$   638	$   576	$ 1,690	$ 1,669
Expenses:
Operating expenses	316	263	878	876
Financial expenses	185	190	557	569
Depreciation and     amortization	53	54	161	163
Total expenses	554	507	1,596	1,608
Income from   continuing operations	$    84	$    69	$    94	$    61

In addition to being the Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, NAPICO or one of its affiliates is the local operating general partner for two of the Local Partnerships included above.

The current policy of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) is to not renew the Housing Assistance Payment (“HAP”) Contracts on a long-term basis on the existing terms.  In connection with renewals of the HAP Contracts under current law and policy, the amount of rental assistance payments under renewed HAP Contracts will be based on market rentals instead of above market rentals, which may be the case under existing HAP Contracts.  The payments under the renewed HAP Contracts may not be in an amount that would provide sufficient cash flow to permit owners of properties subject to HAP Contracts to meet the debt service requirements of existing loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration of HUD (“FHA”) unless such mortgage loans are restructured. In order to address the reduction in payments under HAP Contracts as a result of current policy, the Multi- family Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (“MAHRAA”) provides for the restructuring of mortgage loans insured by the FHA with respect to properties subject to the Section 8 program.  Under MAHRAA, an FHA-insured mortgage loan can be restructured into a first mortgage loan which will be amortized on a current basis and a low interest second mortgage loan payable to FHA which will only be payable on maturity of the first mortgage loan.  This restructuring results in a reduction in annual debt service payable to the owner of the FHA-insured mortgage loan and is expected to result in an insurance payment from FHA to the holder of the FHA-insured loan due to the reduction in the principal amount.  MAHRAA also phases out project-based subsidies on selected properties serving families not located in rental markets with limited supply, converting such subsidies to a tenant-based subsidy.

When the HAP Contracts are subject to renewal, there can be no assurance that the Local Partnerships in which the Partnership has an investment will be permitted to restructure their mortgage indebtedness under MAHRAA.  In addition, the economic impact on the Partnership of the combination of the reduced payments under the HAP Contracts and the restructuring of the existing FHA-insured mortgage loans under MAHRAA is uncertain.