Tag Archives: FIRREA

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

APPRAISER SELECTION PROCESS

NOVEMBER 26, 2023 – I received the following question from a staff appraiser with a bank. My answer follows his email.
=================================
I am looking for direction/clarification on the regulations that discuss how an appraiser should be selected (specifically for commercial FRT’s). I work in the appraisal department of a bank and I need to prepare some internal policies/procedures/discussions on selecting an appraiser to engage. Many lenders feel they should be provided three choices and allow them or their customers to select the appraiser based on the lowest fee or the quickest turn time for the appraisal. They think that all that should be done is to not disclose the appraiser names and everything will be okay. However, my interpretation is that the appraiser should be selected based on their experience with the property type and the location in which the property is located. The regulations never appear to be direct enough, or all in one document to show how allowing lenders or borrower to participate in the selection would be viewed by bank examiners and regulatory agencies.
=================================

We start with the following requirement from the 2010 Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (IAEG):

An institution’s selection process should ensure that a qualified, competent and
independent person is selected to perform a valuation assignment. An institution should
maintain documentation to demonstrate that the appraiser or person performing an evaluation is competent, independent, and has the relevant experience and knowledge for the market, location, and type of real property being valued. Further, the person who selects or oversees the selection of appraisers or persons providing evaluation services should be independent from the loan production area.

The other pertinent quote follows:

Moreover, the Guidelines stress that an institution should not select a valuation method or tool solely because it provides the highest value, the lowest cost, or the fastest response or
turnaround time.

Besides independence, the next most important item is to select an appraiser (or evaluator) that is competent in regard to the property type and subject market. That much is a given. There is no gray area.

So, the question becomes how can we BOTH select a competent appraiser AND allow the loan officer (and usually the borrower) to select from among several fee quotes?

Financial institutions accomplish this by bidding assignments to a group of competent appraisers. For example, the subject is a basic 5,000 SF, owner-occupied warehouse in a city of 100,000 people. It is likely the financial institution has 3 or 5 or more appraisers on their approved list that are competent to appraise this property in this market. So, we send out an RFP to three appraisers. All are equally competent to perform this assignment. We get the following bids:

Appraiser A – $2,500 / 3 Weeks

Appraiser B – $3,000 / 2 Weeks

Appraiser C – $2,000 / 4 Weeks

Over the past 3 decades, 95%+ of the banks and credit unions I have worked with forward the quotes exactly as shown above to the loan officer. The key is to not disclose the appraiser names. Borrowers and loan officers cannot suggest appraisers to use or not use. But, examiners and regulators are ok with them choosing from the anonymous quotes shown above.

Have we met the requirement of engaging a competent appraiser? Yes.

Have we helped the loan officer (and borrower) have enough information to make a time and price decision? Yes.

Are the examiners and regulators ok with this process? In my 30+ years of being involved in the appraisal process with financial institutions, I have not heard of a single objection.

There are two keys to making this acceptable:

  1. You can show that you only bid the assignment to competent appraisers; and,
  2. You do not disclose the appraiser names when sharing the bid information with the loan officer.

Maybe you are asking what the other 5% of financial institutions do. It may be less than that actually. This small group includes how I did things when I was Chief Appraiser. The appraisal department selected the best bid to go with. When requesting an appraisal to be ordered, the loan officer would let us know if time or cost was more important. This method speeds up the process and also allows us to spread the work around to the approved appraisers. The appraisal time is delayed when the loan officer/borrower make the selection. I have seen delays of weeks or longer. Also, through the blind selection process one appraiser may get too many assignments at once. Some appraisers have a habit of always bidding low and quick, even when swamped with work and knowing they cannot meet their deadlines.

As usual, feel free to send me follow-up questions. Or suggestions to add to this post or clarify something I said. My email is GeorgeRMann@Aol.Com.

The Mann


Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

STATE OF WASHINGTON ALLOWS NON-USPAP EVALUATIONS

JULY 2023 – The following is from the Appraisal Institute’s ‘Washington Report & State News.’ A big welcome to appraisers in Washington finally being able to perform non-USPAP Evaluations.
“Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on May 15 signed HB 1797, legislation that allows real estate appraisers to complete evaluations for federally regulated financial institutions. It was amended to include a “trigger” mechanism whereby the bill will not take effect until the state adopts administrative rules related to fair housing and valuation bias established by the Department of Licensing that require appraisers and appraiser trainees to complete nondiscrimination and fair housing training as dictated by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. “

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

APPRAISAL REVIEW QUESTION

FEBRUARY 22, 2022 – I received the following question:
Q: If I as a bank appraiser chose to do an in-house appraisal, will it need to be reviewed? If so, what is the benefit and why not just use one of my vendors?
As appraisals are rarely done in-house, I have never thought about this situation. I contacted the Regulators and received the following answer.
A: When the residential threshold was increased it also amended the agencies’ appraisal regulations to require regulated institutions to subject appraisals for federally related transactions to appropriate review for
compliance with USPAP. This became effective January 1, 2020 and is now part of the regulation. As such, a bank can be cited for a violation of law if the review is not completed.
We do not dictate who performs the review only that the reviewer is competent and independent of the transaction; the reviewer can be from the same appraisal department as the individual who performed the appraisal. The bank may perform the review internally or out-source the review.

Now we all know. As always, feel free to ask me any question regarding FIRREA. If I don’t know the answer, I will find it out.

Stay well and safe out there,
The Mann

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

CAN LOAN OFFICERS TALK WITH FEE APPRAISERS? YES, BUT…..

April 30 – In the past 30 years, my wife and I have worked at 4 large banks ranging in size from $150 Billion to over $1 Trillion.  At all of these banks loan officers were allowed to talk directly with fee appraisers about the subject collateral.  Obviously, there were important restrictions on what could not be discussed – e.g. value.

As many banks do not allow loan officers to talk with appraisers at all, I took a survey of some Chief Appraisers and Chief Credit Officers to get their viewpoints.  Their anonymous responses are below.

First, I talked with the Federal Regulators that write and interpret FIRREA guidance.  It is not against any law or guidance to allow loan officers to talk with fee appraisers directly.  Each financial institution can decide how they want to handle this issue.  Those institutions that allow such contact should provide training to their loan officers and also make it clear to their fee appraisers what is permitted to be discussed.  ((NOTE: I promise the Regulators I will not publish any written responses they provide.  Therefore, I cannot provide their exact reply.  Feel free to call them if you doubt the above is their response.))

I always like to present both sides of an issue.  Then you can decide which side you prefer and have information to defend your stance.  The responses follow in no particular order.  Editing is minimal and mostly limited to getting rid of the use of my name or any personal discussion or anything that would identify the author.  Again both sides are represented, so there is no attempt to influence you to go one way or another.  It is you and your financial institution’s decision.

Stay safe.

The Mann

If there is information that is pertinent to the appraisal, then yes, the LOs or property contact can provide property specific information during the appraisal process. It helps in the exchange of information to the appraiser. However, many times, they would rather communicate through us, but it just depends. They know they cannot discuss value, fees or changing delivery dates.

===============================================
We require any and all info to go through the appraisal department, however if there are complex issues regarding the assignment and the loan officer has an extensive knowledge of the property we may refer the appraiser to them if it is necessary for credible assignment results.

===============================================

We recently provided training on AI rules, prohibited topics, and provided examples of various influence e.g. bribery, coercion, etc.  Once a lender has undertaken training he may speak to an appraiser after engaged, but only in response to inquiries regarding property.  I prefer all conversations are monitored by my team.  Lenders are not allowed to initiate dialogue with an appraiser at any time or discuss appraisal after receipt of report.

===============================================

during the assignment, the appraisal department must be aware in advance of all communication between the loan officer and the appraiser.  This allows the department to monitor any potential change in scope of the appraisal and oversee appraiser independence.

The reality is that some loan officers can be trusted not to “cross the line” in their conversations with appraisers, and others, maybe not so much.  Our policy allows the appraisal department access to those conversations.  The bias of the borrower is obvious and expected by appraisers.  However, since the appraiser’s client is the bank, and loan officers are representatives of the bank, their influence on the appraiser can be significant.  Independent oversight is therefore important.

================================================

after the assignment is awarded, we do not categorically restrict all communications between the LOB and the appraiser but do ask that all communications concerning needed information and clarification go through the appraisal department so that we can keep track of the status of the assignment and to facilitate the flow of information. We prefer to keep copies of any data shared with the appraiser so we can understand what is going on. However, sometimes direct officer contact is not possible to prevent. If the issue is needed information, we are more lenient,  but if the officer oversteps their role and starts raising value or timing issues, then they likely will be contacted by the job manager. Direct contact has not been a major problem in many years and on the rare occasions it does occur, it’s typically a new officer hire!

================================================

I think it depends on the size of the organization. In our case, we do not have an “appraisal department” so the Lenders do issue the Appraisal Engagement letters, send copies of leases, tax cards, the contact number of the Borrower, etc. While not prohibited, once the appraiser is engaged and the name and contact number of the Borrower is provided, the appraiser usually does not have any more contact with the lender unless there is a need for some type of clarification, until the final report is delivered.  The lenders do not pick the appraiser, we have a process in which they go to a single person that gives the name of the next appraiser on the list, or in limited cases they give a couple of names for an expensive appraisal to make sure the fees charged are fair. In that case a couple of appraisers would be asked to give their bid for cost and delivery date. Without naming the appraiser, the Lender may have a situation in which one has lower price but a longer delivery time frame so the lender would ask the Borrower (without naming the appraiser) which is more important, price or delivery date to determine the appraiser. Once the appraisal is received by the lender, if there are any issues that need to be addressed (after your review) the Lender makes contact with  Appraiser to point out those issues and requests a re-submission/correction, etc.

 So in summary that is what we do, understanding our Bank size does not afford us the luxury of having an appraisal department. I think our process maintains the integrity of keeping the appraisal assignment away from the Lender, but, it would be too cumbersome to keep the exchange of initial information regarding the assignment (leases, tax cards, addresses, surveys, etc.) away from the lender. And, as you know,  we could not just assign such a task to just anyone, so the instructions for the appraiser need to come from someone that has some understanding of appraisals and the subject property.

 Finally, our lenders do not question the appraiser on a final value unless the Review results in a questionable value. And, our lenders do  not discuss “where the value needs to be to make the deal work” or any such discussions during the appraisal process. And, of course we have an approved list of appraisers that we use, divided by residential and commercial designations.

================================================

we do not allow the line of business to communicate with the appraiser. All information from the line runs thru the appraisal group.  If the line is involved in any way having contact with the appraiser the appraiser always shows some allegiance to the line of business blurring the true client in the assignment which is the appraisal group. It so pure allowing no contact.   on occasion when we allowed the line to direct info or other communications directly to the appraiser, the appraiser even copied the line on the completed appraisal and all other communications making our job much harder
 Bottom line if it’s absolutely necessary to involve the line in having contact with the appraiser only due to complex assignments, we will but put in hard stops with the appraiser
=================================================

We allow the loan officer to have very limited contact, but they are allowed to discuss factual information about the property and coordinate site visits with the appraiser if they need to see the property and it is too disruptive to have multiple inspections. The appraisers and account officers are cautioned to not discuss anything related to value, whether that be the actual value, investment parameters, rents, etc.

If there is any question as to whether an account officer might cross the line, we require that someone from appraisal be on the call.

We actually have “relationship managers” and “account officers”. The RMs are more salesmen, are closer to the borrower, and have more to gain by trying to influence an appraiser. We try to limit their access to the appraiser to none if possible. There have been a few that consistently try to cross the line (usually only the smaller loans and SBA loans as far as I know). The institutional property group RMs are rarely a problem, although when learning they might make a mistake. They learn quickly though. The account officers are in a different role and are in general much more professional and aware of the consequences. They will generally ask permission first if they want to talk to the appraiser, or will send comments / concerns to me and I filter and pass along to the appraiser.

=================================================

We eliminate any loan officer communication with appraiser. Safe full proof approach. Unfortunately I’m heavily involved in all aspects of the appraisal process but necessary due to loan policy. Have a great weekend.

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

Facilitating Real Estate-Related Transactions Affected by COVID-19

Summary

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (collectively, the agencies) issued an interim final rule (IFR) that allows institutions supervised by the agencies to defer obtaining an appraisal or evaluation for up to 120 days after the closing of certain residential and commercial real estate loans. The agencies, with the National Credit Union Administration and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in consultation with the state financial regulators, also issued an Interagency Statement on Appraisals and Evaluations for Real Estate Related Financial Transactions Affected by the Coronavirus (Statement). The Statement outlines existing flexibilities provided by industry appraisal standards and the agencies’ appraisal regulations and highlights temporary changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appraisal standards to facilitate real estate transactions.

Statement of Applicability to Institutions under $1 Billion in Total Assets:

This Financial Institution Letter (FIL) applies to all FDIC-supervised institutions.

Suggested Distribution

FDIC-Supervised Banks

Highlights:

The agencies recognize that the National Emergency declared in connection with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents challenges for individuals performing appraisals and evaluations to perform inspections and complete valuation assignments in a timely manner.

  • The IFR:
    • Defers the requirement to obtain an appraisal or evaluation for up to 120 days following the closing of a transaction for certain residential and commercial real estate transactions, excluding transactions for acquisition, development, and construction of real estate
    • States that the agencies are providing this relief to allow regulated institutions to expeditiously extend liquidity to creditworthy households and businesses in light of recent strains on the U.S. economy as a result of COVID-19.
    • Indicates regulated institutions should make best efforts to obtain a credible valuation of real property collateral before the loan closing, and otherwise underwrite loans consistent with the principles in the agencies’ Standards for Safety and Soundness and Real Estate Lending Standards.
    • States that this temporary change to the appraisal rules expires on December 31, 2020.
  • The Statement:
    • Outlines existing flexibilities in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice and the agencies’ appraisal regulations.
    • Advises that there are temporary changes to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac appraisal standards that can assist lenders during this challenging time.

 

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

MARKET VALUE ‘AS IS’ MUST CONSIDER EXISTING LEASES

February 21, 2019 – Every once in awhile the same question arises from several people in different parts of the country.  I wonder if people attended the same seminar and were told the same (erroneous) information.  Or just plain coincidence.

The topic du jour is bank/credit union clients asking appraisers to ignore existing subject leases and appraise Fee Simple Estate only.  There are two main scenarios to deal with – one where such a request is not acceptable and one where it is.

Scenario #1 – The subject has one or more arm’s-length leases in place that are not all month-to-month or say expire within a month.  I just use one month as technically the appraisal will be done by then and the tenants could be removed in that time period (assuming such is legal).  In this case, Market Value ‘As Is’ MUST be of the Leased Fee Interest.  The subject must be appraised as it legally and physically stands today.  If the bank/credit union would also like to know the Fee Simple Estate value, then this can be provided IN ADDITION TO Market Value ‘As Is’ of the Leased Fee Interest.  I would call this additional value Hypothetical Value of Fee Simple Estate.  A Hypothetical Condition is needed as this value assumes the existing leases are not in place.  Now, if the subject is leased to a single tenant and that tenant is purchasing the property…we go to…

Scenario #2 – The subject is leased to a single tenant who is purchasing the property.  Obviously, when the purchase occurs the lease goes away.  Or at least for us appraisers, it is ignored because now it is no longer arm’s-length.  The bank/credit union’s request for Fee Simple Estate only is now acceptable.  With a bit of a twist though….Market Value ‘As Is’ would still be of Leased Fee Interest.  However, this value is not needed.  Why?  Because the loan is not being made until the property is purchased.  Therefore, the appraiser provides a Prospective Value as of say a month or two in the future (whenever a closing is projected to occur).  An Extraordinary Assumption is needed to say that we assume the purchase will occur and the lease will be extinguished in the stated timeframe.  What about the requisite Market Value ‘As Is’ that FIRREA requires?  Well, on the day the property is purchased and the loan is closed, the appraiser’s Prospective Value is now Market Value ‘As Is.’  And now FIRREA is satisfied and all is good in Appraisal Land:)

((As an aside, Scenario #2 is useful when a zoning change is in process.  Until it occurs, Market Value ‘As Is’ must consider the subject as currently zoned.  I encourage banks not to make the loan until the zoning change occurs.  This way an appraiser can provide a Prospective Value ‘Upon Zoning Change’ with a future date and not have to deal with Market Value ‘As Is.’  But, if the loan is being made today, then two difference scenarios must be valued.  Once again, the value difference might not be that much.))

There are likely some other less common scenarios that arise.  But, the above two seem to take care of the vast majority of transactions.

I will quickly mention one scenario that provides an example of why Market Value and Market Value ‘As Is’ are not always the same.

The subject is leased to a single tenant with say 3 or 6 months left on the lease.  The owner or a buyer is going to occupy the property once the lease expires and the tenant has moved out.

In non-bank/cu appraisals, Market Value could likely just ignore the existing lease.  We could argue that market participants don’t care about the next 3-6 months of the tenant being in place.  They know they will occupy the property very soon.  This is ok for Market Value.

However, for a bank appraisal under FIRREA, this is not acceptable.  The lease is in place and Market Value ‘As Is’ is of Leased Fee Interest and the lease must be part of the value.  Obviously, if the rental rate happens to be at market, then there is no difference in value between the Leased Fee Interest today and the hypothetical Fee Simple Estate today.  If contract rent is above or below market, then there is a difference in these two values.  Admittedly, it is likely to be a small amount.  But, it MUST be included in the Market Value ‘As Is’ conclusion.  In this case, Market Value and Market Value ‘As Is’ differ.  And this is one of several examples where USPAP and FIRREA differ.

As with FF&E, please do not pull the ol’ ‘this is absorbed in rounding and thus is not added or deducted’ routine.  Make the addition or deduction to get to Market Value ‘As Is’ and move on.

Please contact me if you have any questions.  Any other scenarios worth me addressing.  et al.  Thanks for taking the time to read my blog:)

The Mann

 

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

Re-Posted – Apartment Appliances are FF&E!!!!!!!! Not Real Property!!!!!!

February 2019 – This item was originally posted in 2015.  Four years later I still hear that an appraiser or reviewer wants to say that kitchen and laundry appliances are real property.  NOT!  Geez folks, get over this already.  Appliances are appliances are equipment and not real property.  This is basic knowledge.

I will add one suggestion (from my wife when she was a reviewer) for those dealing with this issue.  My wife would tell the appraiser that all they had to do is provide rent comparables of units with no appliances and rent comparables of units with appliances and if the rents were the same, then the FF&E does not contribute to value.  That simple and it would be market evidence.

In our combined 50+ years of reviewing appraisals we have not seen this analysis done.  I have seen many appraisals where a rent adjustment IS made for comps with only washer/dryer hookups versus ones with washer/dryer units.  That has been an adjustment greater than $0 in 100% of the cases I have seen.  Definitive proof that FF&E has a positive value in apartments.

I have not seen any rent comparables that lacked kitchen appliances, so no evidence there that I know of.  In foreign countries this exists.  In some markets tenants actually move their refrigerator and such from apartment to apartment:)

When I started appraising in 1986 in South Florida, my first apartment complex appraisal I separated out FF&E.  It wasn’t a requirement (that I can recall).  It was just obvious.  Common sense.

I do want to commend those appraisers that I review that always value the FF&E separately.  Some go so far as to provide a value even if there is only one or two apartment units in a property (e.g. retail first floor, 2 apartments on 2nd floor).  Might be only $400 in FF&E, but FIRREA doesn’t care about the amount.  Just that it is excluded from Market Value ‘As Is.’

Also, please do not pull the ol’ ‘this is absorbed in rounding and thus is not added or deducted’ routine.  Make the addition or deduction to get to Market Value ‘As Is’ and move on.

Please contact me if you have any questions.  Any other topics for me to blog about.  et al.  Thanks for taking the time to read my blog:)

The original post follows.

=================================================

It is 2015 and I continue to encounter appraisers (albeit fewer and fewer thankfully!) who do not value the FF&E in apartment properties.   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:)

The Mann

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL THRESHOLD INCREASE – MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

February 1, 2019 – The Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency proposed raising the residential appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $400,000.

The Appraisal Institute and numerous other groups are opposing this increase.  That is understandable.  But, the hyperbole that these organizations and appraisers put out there is no different than the Fake News problem.

Based on my experience of over 25+ years in banking, I estimate that less than one-hundredth of 1% of residential appraisals will be affected.  Probably less than that.

GSEs are responsible for 90%-95% of residential loans and, thus, residential appraisals.  All such loans are exempt from FIRREA.  So, the Federal Agencies can increase the residential threshold from $250,000 to $1 Trillion and it wouldn’t be noticed by 99%+ of   residential appraisers!  Also, it will have no effect on the national economy.

For the most part, the only residential properties that stay under FIRREA are second/vacation homes, model homes in subdivisions, and rental homes (e.g. an investor rents 20 houses around a city).   Some ‘regular’ house loans remain under FIRREA – this is when the bank does not sell the loans to the secondary market.  Banks typically don’t keep many of these loans on their books.  But, yes, they do keep some.

Appraisers just need to keep an eye on the GSEs.  They are the ones who make decisions that affect the entire residential appraisal industry in a significant way.  Don’t worry about the FIRREA issue at hand.  As they say, it is a nothing burger:)

The Mann

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

A REAL-WORLD SCENARIO AND HOW FIRREA ADDRESSES IT

August 2, 2018 – First, thanks to a bank client for sharing some real-world situations with me and allowing me to post them to my blog.  Also, thanks to the regulators for providing anonymous explanations of how FIRREA applies.

SCENARIO – Any City USA – We financed one 4-plex (units cannot be sold individually) and eventually there may be more than four 4-plex properties.  At what point do we consider this tract development, therefore would need discounted cash flow analysis completed?

Assumption – Ignore any land for future development

Assumption – All development occurs in same development

FIRREA Application Under Several Situations:

First 4-Plex – This is a SINGLE 1-4  Family residential property.  Therefore, the $250,000 threshold applies and an evaluation is required if the loan amount is $250,000 or lower.  As always, the bank can choose to order an appraisal.  If the loan amount is above $250,000 then an appraisal is required.

Two 4-Plexes at once – This falls under Commercial Real Estate Transaction and the new $500,000 threshold.  A loan amount at or below the threshold requires an evaluation and above the threshold requires an appraisal.

Five or more 4-Plexes – This meets the definition of Tract Development and  would need a discounted cash flow analysis completed.  Some exceptions are possible, but generally a DCF analysis is performed.  The $500,000 threshold applies as to whether the DCF is done in an evaluation or appraisal.

With the new definition of Commercial Real Estate Transaction and the new threshold of $500,000, the above project shows the realm of possibilities.

As always, please contact me if you want  to discuss this.

Also, as always, I encourage you to contact the authors of the 2018 interagency bulletin that introduced the new definition and threshold.  They can give an ‘official’ opinion on how to handle your particular situation.  You do not need to provide a borrower’s name or such.  They simply want to help you follow FIRREA correctly.

I will be posting a few more scenarios over the next few weeks….check back often:)

The Mann

 

Mann Overboard, Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

REVISIONS MADE TO TITLE XI OF FIRREA

April 2, 2018 (UPDATED) – The Agencies have finally released ‘The Final Rule’ for updates to FIRREA.  A copy of the document can be found at:

https://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2018/2018-03-20-notice-sum-c-fr.pdf

The main change is increasing the de minimus level for commercial real estate transactions from $250,000 to $500,000.  Although this might seem significant, it is basically an adjustment for inflation from the last change to $250,000 in 1994.

Also, the definition of ‘commercial real estate transaction’ has been updated.

The changes are not in effect until published in the Federal Register,  I will update this post when this occurs.  UPDATE – This document is now live as it is in the Federal Register.

Financial institutions should update their appraisal/evaluation policies accordingly.

The Mann