All posts by admin

Mann Overboard, Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

Fifth Third Bank Settles False Claims Act Case for $84.9 Million

PHILADELPHIA, PA, October 6, 2015 — The United States Department of Justice announced today that Fifth Third Bank will pay approximately $85 million to the federal government to settle claims under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) relating to the Bank’s practices in connection with loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).  The settlement also resolves a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Kenney & McCafferty in June, 2011 in the Southern District of New York.

Kenney & McCafferty filed the whistleblower complaint on behalf of a former chief appraiser at the Bank, who alleged a broad range of commercial and residential mortgage violations, including fraudulent appraisal practices, which resulted in significant losses to the federal government. The lawsuit was filed under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the False Claims Act.  These provisions permit private parties to sue on behalf of the United States when they believe an individual or company has submitted false claims for government funds.

Fraud on the government’s mortgage programs has become a major source of False Claims Act recoveries in the wake of the mortgage crisis, and the Fifth Third settlement marks another significant victory for both the government and the taxpayers in this line of cases.  According to George Mann, the former Fifth Third employee who blew the whistle, “the culture of the Bank at that time emphasized profits over compliance with federal regulations.  This type of behavior is exactly what led to the financial crisis and, no matter what the outcome, I felt it was my responsibility to speak up and do the right thing.”

“We were fortunate to represent Mr. Mann in this case.  He is honest, ethical, and informed, and was willing to step forward under difficult circumstances,” said Kathryn Schilling, a whistleblower attorney at Kenney & McCafferty.  “Mr. Mann raised concerns about Fifth Third’s compliance issues internally, but no one listened to him.  He is thrilled that the government has recouped significant funds from Fifth Third to restore taxpayer dollars,” Ms. Schilling said.

Mr. Mann and his attorneys expressed great appreciation for the work of the Department of Justice, and the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, particularly Assistant US Attorneys Pierre Armand and Jaimie Nawaday.  Mr. Mann also thanked his family, friends, former colleagues who supported his compliance efforts at Fifth Third, his co-relator John Ferguson, and the law firm of Kenney & McCafferty.

For inquiries, please contact:

Kenney & McCafferty, P.C.

Kathryn Schilling

(215) 367-4333

kschilling@kenneymccafferty.com

 

 

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

Apartment Appliances are FF&E, Not Real Estate!!!

It is 2015 and I continue to encounter appraisers (albeit fewer and fewer thankfully!) who do not value the FF&E in apartment properties.  When I started appraising in 1986 we separately valued the appliances back then.  Since 1990, FIRREA has required this.  This issue should have been settled 25+ years ago.

The most common response I get when I ask an appraiser to separately value the FF&E is ‘In our market these items transfer with the real estate.’  To which a whole list of questions and replies come to mind:

Who cares how the FF&E is transferred – it is still FF&E!

FF&E in hotels transfers with the real estate – how does that differ from an apartment complex?  The same goes for many other property types.

Having been frustrated by this issue for 23+ years as a reviewer, a few years ago I took the opportunity to have this item added to the 14th Edition of The Appraisal of Real Estate.  There is a list of property types with FF&E and that list now includes apartments:)

For bank/credit union appraisals, appraisers need to realize that it is Federal Law that requires LTV (Loan-To-Value) ratios be calculated on the Market Value As Is of REAL ESTATE ONLY.  Examiners have been focusing on this very item for the past 5 years.  It is important that fee appraisers help their clients comply with Federal Law.  Provide a value for the FF&E and be done with it.  And do NOT include the amount in the Market Value ‘As Is’ figure as again it is supposed to be Real Estate Only.

I will agree that in some cases this amount is minimal.  But, Federal Law still requires a separate value.  There are many cases where this amount can be in the millions of dollars – e.g. those high end condo projects that did not sell out before the bubble burst and have been rented as apartments ever since.

Lastly, as one instructor told a class I was in – If I can drop it on my foot, it is FF&E:)

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

Market Value As Is is not always the same as Market Value

August 24, 2015 – I had this email exchange with a review appraiser today.  This is one of the situations where Market Value As Is and Market Value can differ.

=====

George,

I have a question regarding an appraisal that I am reviewing if you have a moment to help me out.  I am overthinking this and now can’t decide which is correct.
Background info:  The property is a large (100,000 SF) multi-tenant industrial building.  The client asked for “as is” and “as stabilized” values in the engagement letter.  The building is currently 30% vacant and the appraisal estimates stabilized to be 15%.  The appraisal also states that the building will achieve stabilization within the year.  Four of the tenants have rent increases within the next 12 months.  The appraisal utilizes the current rent roll at current rent levels, but increases the four tenants to their future rate.  In addition, rent for the vacant space is estimated at market levels.  Using these parameters, PGI is estimated.  Vacancy is set at 15%, expenses are subtracted.  The appraisal then has two below the line expenses for tenant improvements (assuming a 10-year amortization) and leasing commissions.  The resulting figure is capitalized into a value which the appraisal calls “as is”.  The appraisal further states that this is also “as stabilized” because the property will be stabilized within the year.
Here is where I feel that I’m over thinking this.  I know that the Income Approach is based on the principle of anticipation and that future income is to be considered.  So is the “as is” value the rent roll at current rent levels with no consideration toward the rental of the vacant space and no bumps in rates for the 4 tenants?  Or is the application noted above correct give the anticipation of future benefits?
I find it hard to believe that the “as is” and “as stabilized” can be the same value since the property is not currently stabilized.  However, given the principles of the Income Approach I can also see how this could be so.
Sorry for the long email.  I would appreciate any guidance you can give me on this.  I value your input.
On a side note, I have enjoyed reading your website and blog; very informing.
Thanks!
=====
Hi ABC,

Thanks re the blog….appreciate it.
Regarding the As Is Value, the appraiser is wrong.  For a Market Value appraisal (non-Bank client), s/he may be right or wrong.
As Is means just that.  Deductions MUST be made for leasing commissions to go from 30% to 15% vacancy.  TI for that same space.  And lost income during the 12 months the space is leased.  And of course discounted for time.
The December 2010 Interagency Guidance states the following:

Partially Leased Buildings – For proposed and partially leased rental developments, the appraiser must make appropriate deductions and discounts to reflect that the property has not achieved stabilized occupancy. The appraisal analysis also should include consideration of the absorption of the unleased space. Appropriate deductions and discounts should include items such as leasing commission, rent losses, tenant improvements, and entrepreneurial profit, if such profit is not included in the discount rate.

I tell appraisers MV As Is different from Market Value.  In a general MV appraisal, MAYBE (only maybe) might the market not make deductions if they think all will be fine within a year.  Personally I would make deductions if buying your subject property, but optimistic investors may not.
However, for As Is appraisals the deductions MUST be made.
I think it would be fun for you to ask the appraiser for a list of names and numbers of people s/he talked to that said in a case like this they would not make any deductions for LC, TI, and rent loss.  Simply say you would like to talk to market investors and better understand their viewpoint:)  I seriously doubt you will be provided with a list of such contacts.
I hope this helps.
George
Mann Overboard

Adding value to the appraisal of the future – by Ed Pinto

August 24, 2015 – Ed Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute was a closing speaker at the Appraisal Institute’s national conference in Dallas a few weeks ago.  One of the new items he presented is summarized below.  As the title suggests, the idea is to make the appraisal of the future value-added – instead of simply providing Market Price as has been the case for the past 80 years.  The primary focus of Ed’s comments is residential appraising.

His ideas follow.  I will not add any commentary.  Just sharing the perspective from an independent party that is in contact with FHA, FNMA, Freddie Mac, etc – Ed was a prominent FNMA employee in the 1980s.

Determine (methodology):

–Market cycle history*

  • Create and review 10-year nominal and real home price trend to determine current position in market cycle relative to equilibrium
  • If the real price trend currently at equilibrium, robust comparable sales approach is likely appropriate.
  • If the real price trend currently elevated or depressed, the lesser of investment and replacement cost approaches is likely appropriate.

–History of buyer’s (>6 mo.) and or seller’s market (<=6 mo.) for existing homes**

  • Determine whether a buyer’s or seller’s market based on months of home inventory divided by listings/sales rate; determine whether a buyer’s or seller’s market
  • If real prices are increasing, it is almost certain that a seller’s market is present
  • Market disequilibrium more likely the longer an uninterrupted seller’s market continues

–Buying power due to change in power leverage**

  • AEI’s Center on Housing Risk plans to incorporate into its Mortgage Risk Index by year end

–Land value and change in land share trends**

  • Calculate land value by extraction using exchange value minus replacement cost

–Whether real price change due to leverage growth or improving utility or a mix

  • Evaluate role played by income leverage vs. fundamentals (i.e. job & real income growth)

*For the MSA, the subject property’s market area and price tier,(zip code or below), and the subject property

**For the MSA and the subject property’s market area and price tier (zip code or below)

 

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

It Has ALWAYS Been Leased Fee Interest

Following is a recent conversation between a bank review appraiser and a fee appraiser:

Dear Fee Appraiser,

A review has been completed on your appraisal of the Apartment located at XYZ in City, ST and am wondering if you could provide some clarity in the following area:

I am wondering how the property rights appraised can be Fee Simple, when the subject apartment building is not vacant.

Thank you for addressing this item. Please make any necessary revisions and return a revised report to me at your earliest convenience.

Thanks.

Review Appraiser

—————————————————————–

Mr. Review Appraiser,

The subject property has current contract rents on a very short-term basis (most are month-to-month), and the rental rates at completion are based on market rental rates.  In both analyses, market rental rates are utilized (see Page 78).  Therefore, the market value opinion is fee simple.  If contract rental rates are market rental rates, the fee simple and leased fee values are essentially equivalent.

The report date has been changed to the current date to comply with USPAP.  Thank you for your input.

Sincerely,

Fee Appraiser

———————————————————

Mr. Fee Appraiser,

Your prompt response has been greatly appreciated.

Please refer to an explanation regarding the leased fee interest on Page 114 of the Appraisal of Real Estate (13th edition) as follows:

“The lessor’s interest in a property is  considered a leased fee interest regardless of the duration of the lease, the specified rent, the parties to the lease, or any of the terms in the lease contract. A leased property, even one with rent that is consistent with market rent, is appraised as a leased fee interest, not as a fee simple interest  ……”

If the contract rent is the same as the market rent, the leased fee value becomes equivalent to the fee simple value, not the other way around.

Thank you in advance for your quick follow up on our request.

Thanks.

Review Appraiser

—————————————————————

MANN’S COMMENTS

Geez, for almost my entire 29+ year career I have had to deal with this error made by many appraisers.  Thankfully, over the years, fewer and fewer appraisers think lease terms have anything to do with the property interest appraised.  OCCUPANCY is essentially all that matters in this determination.

The quote the reviewer presents from the 13th Edition is 100% on target.  In fact, it sounds exactly like my response over the past 20+ years….since I contribute to the each edition of The Appraisal of Real Estate and this is a pet peeve, the odds are those are words I wrote.  Obviously, I like them:) lol

I have had exactly ONE existing apartment complex appraised as Fee Simple Estate.  It was a 200-unit apartment project in Orlando in 2007 that had been vacated for condo conversion and the market crashed and that did not happen.  In that case, the owner could immediately occupy all 200 units, if they so desired.

Another item the above fee appraiser assumed, that is likely in error, is that the subject contract rents were all at market.  Once an existing apartment property is a few years old, it is near impossible that all of the contract rents are at market.  My experience is actual income from contract rents is typically 5% to 25% (!) below the hypothetical market rent at 100% occupancy – this is often termed Economic Vacancy….and often not accounted for by many appraisers.

I encourage all appraisers to simply read the definitions of Fee Simple Estate and Leased Fee Interest.  It is clear as day that lease terms are not mentioned.  Also, note this nitpicky item – only Fee Simple is an ‘Estate’ – everything else is an ‘Interest.’  Why?  I don’t know.  I just had this pointed out to me while on The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal committee.

This is a long first post….but, I want to thank the Chief Appraiser who shared this item with me and allowed me to redact the emails and post the conversation above.  I look forward to doing this on an ongoing basis.  My hope is all of us can learn from these situations – fee appraisers, review appraisers, newbie fee and review appraisers, bank credit employees, et al.