The Housing Finance Conference this year felt different.
On the surface, the agenda looked familiar. Funding, treasury, cost pressure, regulatory expectations. The usual pillars. But once you got into the conversations, particularly at roundtable level, it became clear that something is shifting beneath that.
This is no longer just about finance.
What came through consistently is that housing associations are grappling with a much broader question. Not just how to remain financially viable, but how to operate effectively in an environment where pressure is coming from every direction at once.
And increasingly, the finance function is sitting right in the middle of that.
Financial resilience is still front and centre, but the context has changed
There is no getting away from it. Financial pressure remains the dominant theme.
The strong presence of lenders and advisory firms told its own story. Senior finance leaders were spending a significant amount of time focused on funding, borrowing and maintaining resilience. That is still the immediate priority for many organisations.
Alongside that, the cost base continues to move in the wrong direction.
VAT remains a persistent issue, and repairs costs are rising at a pace that is difficult to absorb. These are not new challenges, but the difference now is the cumulative effect. Layered pressures are starting to fundamentally shape how organisations think about their operating model.
There is also a continued push towards scale. Conversations around mergers and consolidation reflect a growing belief that larger, more financially resilient organisations are better placed to meet both regulatory expectations and government delivery targets.
But financial resilience on its own is no longer enough.
Interim leadership as a stabilising force
Where organisations are undergoing change, there has been a noticeable increase in the use of interim leadership.
Whether driven by restructuring, financial pressure or strategic realignment, interim executives are being brought in to provide stability and continuity. Particularly at senior level, this allows organisations to maintain momentum while longer term decisions are made.
This trend is likely to continue.
In a context where leadership pipelines are uncertain and the cost of getting appointments wrong is high, interim solutions offer flexibility and reduced risk.
They are not a substitute for permanent leadership, but they are becoming an increasingly important part of how organisations manage transition.
The CFO role is evolving, but the pipeline is not keeping pace
This shift feeds directly into the wider conversation around the future CFO.
There was a clear recognition across the conference that the CFO of tomorrow looks different to the CFO of the past. The role is becoming more strategic, more outward-facing and more integrated into the core of organisational decision making.
Transformation, performance, service delivery and data are all now part of that remit.
The challenge is that the pipeline of future leaders does not appear to be keeping up.
There remains a strong preference for candidates with social housing experience when senior roles arise. That is understandable. The sector carries a level of complexity and nuance that is difficult to replicate elsewhere.
But it creates a constrained talent pool.
Organisations are therefore relying heavily on developing internal talent, yet there is little consistency in how that is being approached. Apprenticeships and early career pathways are part of the solution, but they are not addressing the immediate need for executive-ready leaders.
At the same time, the market at the very top appears relatively static.
Compared to other functions such as assets or customer services, movement in the number one finance role is noticeably slower. In some cases, finance leaders have been in post longer than the current chief executive.
When those roles do come to market, they attract significant attention across the sector. That creates a dynamic where movement is limited, but highly visible when it does occur.
It also suggests that succession planning in finance may not be as developed as it needs to be.
Transformation is no longer optional, but capability is uneven
If there was one word that came up repeatedly, it was transformation.
There is a broad recognition that current operating models are under strain. Costs are rising, expectations are increasing and services need to evolve. Standing still is not an option.
However, there is a difference between recognising the need for transformation and being able to deliver it.
A growing number of organisations are establishing dedicated transformation functions or directorates. That in itself is a positive step. It signals that change is being taken seriously and resourced appropriately.
But it also raises a more difficult question.
Does having a formal transformation structure actually lead to better outcomes?
More specifically, in the context of increasingly stringent regulatory judgements, will organisations with more mature transformation capability perform better? Or is there a risk that transformation becomes a constant state of activity without delivering sustained improvement?
There is not yet a clear answer.
What is clear is that delivering meaningful change while maintaining day to day performance requires a level of capability that many organisations are still building. Leadership, programme management and operational delivery all need to align.
Without that, transformation risks remaining an ambition rather than an outcome.
Systems, data and the reality of “fix or change”
Linked closely to the transformation discussion is the ongoing issue of legacy systems.
This has been a known challenge in the sector for some time. Ageing housing management and finance systems, fragmented data and limited integration are common themes.
What is changing is the urgency.
Organisations that have begun to move away from legacy systems are positioning themselves to drive greater efficiency and effectiveness. Better data, more connected systems and improved visibility of performance all support stronger decision making.
In contrast, those that continue to operate on older platforms face increasing constraints.
There is a question here that the sector will need to confront.
Is the current mindset of “fix it when it breaks” sustainable? Or is there a tipping point where the cost, risk and inefficiency of legacy systems outweigh the disruption of change?
At some stage, doing nothing becomes the more expensive option.
This is particularly relevant in the context of AI and automation. There was interest in how technology can drive value for money, but the message was clear. Without clean, reliable data, the benefits of AI will be limited.
Technology does not solve poor fundamentals. It amplifies them.
Procurement and the risk of a growing strategic gap
Another theme that is starting to surface more consistently is procurement.
As financial pressure increases, the ability to manage spend effectively becomes more critical. Many organisations recognise this and are looking to strengthen their procurement capability.
However, in practice, procurement is often not represented at a strategic level.
There are strong heads of procurement across the sector, but relatively few organisations have this function sitting at director level. That creates a risk that procurement remains operational rather than strategic.
In an environment where organisations are being asked to do more with less, that feels like a missed opportunity.
The question is whether procurement evolves into a more strategic function over time, or whether it continues to sit just below that level. If it is the latter, the sector may struggle to fully unlock value in this area.
Finance leaders are being pulled into the operational detail
One of the most telling observations from the roundtable discussions was how far the finance role has shifted into operational territory.
This is no longer a finance and treasury function sitting at arm’s length from the business.
Finance leaders are expected to understand, in detail, how the organisation actually operates. Where costs are generated. Where inefficiencies sit. How services are delivered. And crucially, where performance risks exist.
That is a material shift.
Historically, there has been a degree of separation. Finance sets the framework, monitors performance and ensures compliance. Now, that is only part of the role. The expectation is that finance leaders are actively shaping operational decisions, not just reporting on them.
That has two implications.
First, the skill set required at senior finance level is broadening. Technical excellence is still a given, but it is no longer sufficient. Leaders need commercial awareness, operational understanding and the ability to influence across the organisation.
Second, it raises a question about readiness. Not every finance leader has come through a career path that naturally builds that level of operational exposure.
A sector facing into difficult choices
Stepping back, the overall picture is one of a sector at a crossroads.
Financial pressure is not going away. Regulatory expectations are increasing. Operating models are under strain. And the role of leadership is expanding.
At the same time, there are clear gaps. In leadership pipelines. In transformation capability. In systems and data. In strategic functions such as procurement.
There are no easy answers.
What is likely, however, is that the organisations which perform best over the next five years will be those that address these issues in a joined-up way. Not treating finance, operations, transformation and technology as separate conversations, but as parts of the same system.
The finance function has a central role to play in that.
Not just as a control mechanism, but as a driver of strategy, performance and long term resilience.
That is a significant shift from where the sector has historically been.
And it is one that will define what effective leadership in housing looks like going forward.
