Tag Archives: appraiser

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION ABOUT CORONAVIRUS

MARCH 16TH – I am seeing appraisal reports that have added an Extraordinary Assumption about the coronavirus.  I was asked today by an appraiser if he should add such to his reports.  My answer is Yes.

I won’t cut and paste what I have seen in reports.  That wouldn’t be cool – and not ethical really.  You can come up with something quickly.  I would add this immediately.

The Mann

LIMITING CONDITIONS. WHO NEEDS LIMITING CONDITIONS.

February 2, 2020 – Recently, I was asked what I thought about appraisal reports that contain a limiting condition that says the appraiser’s liability is limited to the appraisal fee.   When I first saw this in a report several decades ago my first reaction was to laugh.  As they say, nice try, but no cigars.

I have seen financial institutions deal with this in two different ways.  Some banks prohibit appraisers from including this condition in reports done for them.  Appraisers then have the choice of complying or not doing work for that bank or credit union.

I went the second route and just ignored the condition.  i.e. I let appraisers put it in reports done for the banks I worked at.  I knew that it would not hold up in court, so it is a non-issue.

Another bank that contacted me about this issue is working on wording to place in their engagement letter to prohibit use of this condition.  They are running it by their counsel.  If they are willing to share it with me, I will update this post and include it here.

As an aside, I recently had one of my appraisal reports reviewed by a client I must keep confidential.  They flat out said that no limiting conditions are needed and for me to take out all of the general assumptions and limiting conditions.  After picking my jaw up off the floor, I mulled it over for a day and came to the conclusion that I am fine writing reports without these items.  At least for this client.  I am still mulling it over for other clients.

Limiting conditions.  Who needs limiting conditions:)

The Mann

NEW INTERAGENCY GUIDANCE ISSUED

October 16, 2018 – The Federal Agencies have issued an updated guidance titled ‘Frequently Asked Questions on the Appraisal Regulations and the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.’  This rescinds a similar document issued in 2005.

You can download this 14-page document at the following URL:

https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/financial/2018/fil18062a.pdf

Please pass this document along to your in-house appraisal staff and other bankers.

Reportedly, there are no significant changes.  Simply, an update of a 13-year old document with some needed clarification.

LEASE-UP FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDINGS – A DEBATE YET TO BE SETTLED

August 9, 2018 – Over my 30+ year career, this question has come up every few years.  When performing the Income Approach for a vacant or owner-occupied building (same thing), should there be discounting for the time and cost to lease it up?

My short answer is – Yes.  However, I would say 99% of appraisers do not make such a deduction.  Why not?

A few notes before I summarize a great response from an appraiser who does make the deduction.

First, America’s definition of Market Value assumes a sale occurs.  Therefore, an owner-occupied property is vacant when it sells.  That occupant moves out so either a new owner occupant can move in or third-party tenants can move in.  I have long argued that EVERY house/condo in America sells vacant – regardless if the owner occupies it right up to closing or it is physically vacant beforehand.  Of course, rental properties are the exception.

Second, the Income Approach assumes an investor owns the property and will lease it up to stabilization to third-party tenants.  The Income Approach does not assume owner occupancy!

Therefore, a vacant or owner-occupied property has to be leased up to obtain stabilization that is assumed in the direct cap method of the Income Approach.  Lease-up is not free and instantaneous that often.  Below is the summarized response that was shared with me.

As always, I welcome your thoughts.  Unlike our cultural and political world, differing opinions are welcome and will not be called ‘tone deaf’ or racist or some kind of phobic and so on:)  If I get enough comments, I will do a follow up post.

(Oh, let me add that the Sales Comparison Approach will depend on what sales are used.  If the comps were 100% vacant and/or owner-occupied, then the SCA already reflects such discounting for lease-up.  If the comps were partially or 100% leased, then….hmmmmm….)

(Second oh….all of this is needed to determine one of the 3 highest & best use conclusion items – type of occupancy.  Sometimes it is Owner Occupancy and other times it is Third-Party Tenants via an Investor owning the property.)

OK, finally to the Anonymous Appraiser Reply:

  1.  For the purpose of our analysis, owner-occupied space is presumed vacant and subject to deductions to reach stabilized occupancy in the “As Is” Market Value.
  2. FIRREA requires appraisers to “Analyze and report appropriate deductions and discounts for proposed construction or renovation, partially leased buildings, non-market lease terms, and tract developments with unsold units.”
  3. The present value of all costs necessary to achieve stabilized occupancy (including rent loss, leasing commissions, concessions, tenant improvements, rehabilitation costs, and/or profit loss) incurred during the lease-up period must be considered in developing the “As Is” Market Value conclusion.
  4. ((In this particular appraisal, )) The sales utilized in the Sales Comparison Approach were all vacant or owner-occupied; therefore, no lease-up adjustment was applied to the Sales Comparison Approach.

I agree with this logic.  Even for non-FIRREA appraisals.

What does the market do?  Well, that is answered in the Sales Comparison Approach as prices for vacant and/or owner-occupied properties reflect how an owner values the property or an investor values it knowing s/he has to find a tenant(s).

Thoughts….

The Mann

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