Tag Archives: IAEG

DATE OF VALUE DIFFERS FOR APPRAISALS AND EVALUATIONS

JANUARY 8, 2021 – It only took the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (IAEG) document being out for a full 10 years for me to be made aware of the difference in Date of Value for Appraisals versus Evaluations.  As they say, you learn something every day!

For Appraisals, the IAEG states:

The estimate of market value should consider the real property’s actual physical condition, use, and zoning as of the effective date of the appraiser’s opinion of value.  (emphasis added)

In my 35 years of doing appraisals and appraisal reviews, the ‘Date of Value’ has always been the last date the appraiser(s) inspected the subject.  Usually, there is only one inspection and that is the Date of Value.  Of course, this is for Market Value and Market Value ‘As Is.’  We are not talking about prospective values.

For Evaluations, the IAEG states:

Provide an estimate of the property’s market value in its actual physical condition, use and zoning designation as of the effective date of the evaluation (that is, the date that the analysis was completed), with any limiting conditions.  (emphasis added)

‘The date that the analysis was completed’ is what us valuers call the Date of Report.  The Date of Report can be the same as the Date of Value, but that rarely occurs.  For appraisals, nearly 100% of the time the Date of Report comes after the Date of Value.

In conclusion, the IAEG wording indicates that the Date of Value for an Appraisal is what it has always been.  However, the Date of Value for an Evaluation is the Date of Report.

For Evaluations, I have always assumed the Date of Report was also my Date of Value.  I am not sure why.  I just felt that my analysis did indeed go thru the day I was finishing the Evaluation.  So, that was my Date of Value.  Blind luck I guess.

As an aside, it has been suggested that Evaluators add an Extraordinary Assumption to their Evaluation Report that assumes no material changes have occurred between the date the subject was inspected and the Date of Report.  Probably not a bad idea.  I won’t digress into my rant that I don’t like including Appraisal/USPAP items (e.g. Certification, Hypothetical Conditions, Extraordinary Assumptions, et al) in Evaluations.  It’s your Evaluation, do what you want to CYA.

Lastly, I have checked with the Regulators and sure enough this is a difference that was overlooked.  Hopefully, in the next revision this will be addressed.

Happy New Year!

The Mann

 

GEORGIA CLARIFIES LAW ON EVALUATIONS

SEPTEMBER 26, 2020 – The following is from the Appraisal Institute’s Washington Report:

The Georgia Real Estate Commission & Appraisers Board on July 30 adopted a rule change that “eliminates language that has caused confusion in the industry concerning when Georgia appraisers can conduct evaluations.” The change addresses the reporting format for evaluations that are prepared by appraisers for financial institutions that are not regulated by a federal financial institution’s regulatory agency.
The previous rule stated that evaluations are allowed to be “prepared in any reporting format, such as, but not limited to, a self-contained appraisal report, a summary appraisal report and a restricted use appraisal report if the reporting format meets the requirements of the nonfederal financial institution.”
The updated rule, which took effect Aug. 19, removes specific references to the transactions for which an appraiser may provide an evaluation, stating instead that appraisers can provide evaluations “for any transaction that qualifies to be performed as an evaluation under the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.”
The rule also eliminates enumeration of an evaluation’s required content in favor of language that states, “at a minimum, the development and content of an Evaluation Appraisal shall comply with the guidelines set forth in the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.”

VALIDATIONS

MAY 29, 2020 – Validations are the little known and little used product that get overlooked in the world of Appraisals and Evaluations.  The December 2010 Interagency Appraisals and Evaluations Guidelines (IAEG) document has the following section that addresses Validations:

XIV. Validity of Appraisals and Evaluations
The Agencies allow an institution to use an existing appraisal or evaluation to support a subsequent transaction in certain circumstances. Therefore, an institution should establish criteria for assessing whether an existing appraisal or evaluation continues to reflect the market value of the property (that is, remains valid). Such criteria will vary depending upon the condition of the property and the marketplace, and the nature of the transaction. The documentation in the credit file should provide the facts and analysis to support the institution’s conclusion that the existing appraisal or evaluation may be used in the subsequent transaction. A new appraisal or evaluation is necessary if the originally reported market value has changed due to factors such as:
 Passage of time.
 Volatility of the local market.
 Changes in terms and availability of financing.
 Natural disasters.
 Limited or over supply of competing properties.
 Improvements to the subject property or competing properties.
 Lack of maintenance of the subject or competing properties.
 Changes in underlying economic and market assumptions, such as capitalization rates and lease terms.
 Changes in zoning, building materials, or technology.
 Environmental contamination.

Validations answer one simple question – is the value of the real estate collateral equal to or greater than the value in a prior Appraisal or Evaluation?  If so, then that value can be brought up to today.  If not, then a new Appraisal or Evaluation is needed.

Validations are useful in level to rising markets.  They are not very useful in the current market conditions.

However, not all property types have experienced a value decline this year.  In general, industrial properties and national tenant leased properties where the tenant has a bond rating A and above, are still candidates for Validations.  Apartments might be depending on the age of the prior Appraisal or Evaluation and the property location.

I have updated the Validation Report that I originally developed in 1994.  This report is intended to be used by internal bank employees.  It is not for use by fee appraisers, as it does not comply with USPAP.  If you are a bank employee and want a copy of my report template, just email me at GeorgeRMann@Aol.Com.  I will send it to you for free:)

It took me 25 years to finally get Evaluations to be mainstream.  Validations are next.  They are under utilized.  Albeit, today’s market is not ideal for them.  But, we will get back to market conditions where they are useful again.  My plan is to design a Restricted Appraisal Report (RAR) specific to the Validations need for fee appraisers to use.  But, at this time, this is not needed for the most part.

Again, bank staff please contact me if you want a copy of my template.

Everyone stay safe.

The Mann

FRTs – Federally Related Transactions

February 25, 2020 – Most of us know which loans are classified as FRTs.  The loans that have caused confusion are those that are under the various threshold levels.  Are those FRTs or non-FRTs?  So, here is a short explanation that will hopefully be of assistance.

We start out with everything being a FRT.

Then we see if any of the 12 or 13 exemptions apply.  Here we fork in two directions.

1.  For the 9 exemptions where neither an appraisal nor an evaluation are needed (e.g. Abundance of Caution, Unsecured loans, loans sold to FNMA/Freddie et al), those transactions are outside of FIRREA entirely and thus are not FRTs.

2.  For the 3 or 4 exemptions that do not require an appraisal, but require an evaluation, these loans also are NOT FRTs.  However, federal regulations still apply as they cover what is needed in the evaluation realm.

The federal regulators only care about evaluations being done by a competent person and providing safety and soundness to banks/CUs.  The December 2010 IAEG is NOT law and, thus, although it addresses who can perform evaluations, the content of evaluations, et al, none of that matters to the bank examiners.  The only requirements in the law itself is that someone competent perform these (can be a licensed appraiser or not a licensed appraiser) and the resulting report provides what is needed for safety and soundness to be met.

So, it is left to the courts to decide debates on whether states can require that only licensed appraisers can perform evaluations.  Although federal regulators believe states have this right, they recognize that the preemption argument can be made and judges might see it that way.
It obviously would be nice if things were not left to various judges to give different rulings.  However, that is not the situation we have to live with.
The Mann 

MY COMMENTS TO THE ASB ABOUT THEIR EVALUATIONS CONCEPT PAPER

October 9, 2019 – Since comments sent to the ASB are made public, I will share my comments here.  Below is what I sent.  I hope everyone will send comments by the October 11th deadline.  The Concept Paper can be found at:

https://appraisalfoundation.sharefile.com/share/view/s6db453b85544d3ea

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

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to The Appraisal Foundation’s request for input on its “Concept Paper – Evaluation Standards for USPAP” dated September 3, 2019. I offer my perspective as a client, preparer of, and reviewer of Evaluations on a nationwide basis since 1992.  I have ordered and reviewed thousands of commercial and residential evaluations prepared by both licensed/certified appraisers and non-appraisers.  My comments are based on 27+ years of real-world experience with IAEG-compliant Evaluations and USPAP-compliant Restricted Appraisal Reports.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Before I respond to the questions asked on Page 5 of the Concept Paper, I want to comment on some statements on Pages 1 through 4 that I believe do not reflect the real-world.
On Page 1 are the statements “One change is the increase in the market’s demand for evaluations.” and “Beginning in 2010 the use of evaluations began to noticeably increase.”  These statements are not consistent with my nationwide experience since 1992, nor with exemptions to FIRREA since 1994.  My research along with some Chief Appraisers at various banks shows that there has always been the need for about 4 to 6 times as many Evaluations as Appraisals.  The need for Evaluations did not suddenly increase after 2010, nor at any period since the major changes to FIRREA that occurred in 1994.  Mathematically the percentage of loans needing Appraisals versus the percentage of loans needing Evaluations increased in favor of Appraisals (i.e. fewer Evaluations were needed) from 1994 to 2018/2019.  The simple reason is that the thresholds set in 1994 did not increase while real estate prices about doubled in that 25-year period.  The threshold exemptions in 2018/2019 either caught the dollar amounts up with price appreciation (e.g. the commercial increase from $250,000 to $500,000) or did not quite keep up with price appreciation (e.g. the residential increase to $400,000).  In fact, the most significant threshold for Evaluations has not increased since 1994 – i.e. the $1,000,000 Business Loan exemption.  Therefore, in relation to the need for Appraisals, the need for Evaluations declined between 1994 and 2019.  Also, this relationship will increase in favor of Appraisals every year that real estate prices appreciate and the thresholds are not increased.  Any decline in property values like occurred in 2006-2010 leads to appraisals being required almost 100% of the time.  Therefore, the trend for Evaluations will continue to be downward in relationship to the need for Appraisals.
As to the ‘controversy and confusion’ mentioned on Page 2, this can be directly attributable to The Appraisal Foundation.  The financial industry is not confused and never has been!  Since the first detailed discussion of Evaluations came out in 1992, banks and credit unions have known exactly when they can order Appraisals and when they can order Evaluations.  The thresholds are black and white.  Also, the content difference between the two products has been clear and known by all since 1992 and especially since 1994 when the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines (IAEG) detailed Evaluation requirements.  Any confusion on the part of appraisers occurred when the ASB started answering the question of whether appraisers could perform Evaluations with a ‘Yes.’  The answer has been ‘No’ in general with 10 States currently permitting licensed/certified appraisers to perform non-USPAP Evaluations.  Saying that appraisers can do Evaluations by preparing at least Restricted Appraisal Reports was always the wrong answer to promote and has resulted in any confusion on the part of appraisers.  But, financial institutions have never been confused about Evaluations.  Once again, The Appraisal Foundation has the opportunity to simply say that Evaluations as defined by the IAEG are outside the realm of TAF and are not Appraisals and thus users and Evaluators need to refer to the most recent IAEG.  That simple.  It has been that simple for almost 30 years now.  Appraisals and Evaluations have some things in common, but they have many differences, too.  They are simply two different products.
These statements that start on Page 3 are somewhat to entirely misleading:
“To complicate matters further, the Guidelines are written to provide guidance to federally regulated financial institutions and examiners – they are not written for appraisers or others completing evaluations. It is also important to note that recent rulings have determined that federal guidance, such as the Guidelines, is merely guidance and is therefore not enforceable. This underscores the fact that there are no true standards for the performance of evaluations. Furthermore, when evaluations are performed by individuals who are not credentialed (or are exempted from oversight by state laws), there is no publicly accountable entity to turn to if the evaluation is not completed competently, and if the results are called into question by the institution or by an institution’s customers.”
Saying that the IAEGs (which explain FIRREA) do not apply to appraisers is not logical.  That is like saying FIRREA itself is for financial institutions to follow, but not appraisers.  That is obviously 100% wrong.  FIRREA and the IAEGs are meant for financial institutions, appraisers, and evaluators.  All parties need to abide by both the law and the bulletins.  Yes, in a court of law, the IAEGs can be compared to the Advisory Opinions, Statements, and FAQs contained in the USPAP books.  However, in the real world when appraisers are required to do what their peers would do and what their clients expect to see, we know that clients and appraisers do what is said in the Advisory Opinions, Statements, and FAQs.  It is the same for IAEGs – all parties do exactly what they say.  Also, Evaluations have ONE set of guidelines.  Appraisals have numerous – IVS, SVP, UASFLA, USPAP, and others.  All clients and evaluators know they can go to a single document to know exactly what to do – i.e. the most recent IAEG.
COMMENTS ON SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
Q:  Should the ASB investigate whether it would help foster public trust in valuations if they set minimum standards for evaluations? None of the USPAP Rules or development and reporting standards currently exist for non-appraisers who perform evaluations, because the Guidelines provide only broad guidance. Would it be beneficial to give everyone performing an evaluation a clear set of standards to follow including, for example, rules related to ethics and competency?
COMMENT:  No, ASB’s involvement will only result in confusion.  It is misleading to say that the Guidelines ‘provide only broad guidance.’  The Guidelines provide specifics as to the development and reporting of Evaluation Reports.  Also, unlike USPAP which is not required in about a dozen states (!), Evaluation Guidelines apply nationwide.  Unlike Appraisals that have numerous sets of standards, Evaluations have one set of guidelines.  Also, Evaluation requirements apply to BOTH licensed/certified Appraisers and non-Appraisers!  Appraisal requirements only apply to licensed/certified Appraisers.

Q: What specific Rules or Standards Rules (in STANDARDS 1 and 2) would need to be modified or eliminated if the ASB were to develop specific standards for evaluations?
COMMENT:  I have nothing to say here as I recommend the ASB just keep to the ‘A’ that is in ASB and USPAP – Appraisals.  Evaluations are not Appraisals and should not be discussed at all (including the Advisory Opinions, Statements, and FAQs!) in the USPAP book.  Some  people believe the ASB should briefly address Evaluations in Standards 1 and/or 2 by simply referring to the IAEG for Evaluations guidelines.  This is unnecessary as all has been fine for 30 years and nothing is needed from USPAP in regard to Evaluations.  Also, this would lead to confusion since USPAP is not required by all States.

Q: If the ASB develops standards for evaluations, how would that impact Advisory Opinion 13, Performing Evaluations of Real Property Collateral to Conform with USPAP? If the ASB does not develop standards for evaluations, should the guidance in AO-13 be modified?
COMMENT:  Per above, ALL discussion of Evaluations needs to be removed from the ENTIRE USPAP book.  One straightforward FAQ answering whether appraisers can do Evaluations should simply say this is a topic outside of TAF and USPAP and the reader should refer to the IAEGs.

Q: Are USPAP Rules and Standards still the minimums required to protect public trust in the appraisal profession? If not, then are there any Rules or Standards Rules that should be considered for significant revision or elimination? Or, is USPAP a “safety code” that is best left in place despite pressure to reduce the requirements?
COMMENT: USPAP is fine for Appraisals.  The ASB addresses changing conditions in their bi-annual updates.  I see nothing that needs to be changed here – other than maybe only making changes every 5 years or such.  The major critique I hear from appraisers and clients is about USPAP changing every 2 years.  Questions are asked like are they admitting they got it wrong all along?

Q: Should the ASB modify the DEFINITION of appraisal to differentiate it from an evaluation? If evaluations were included as a separate category in USPAP, what would be the regulatory implications?
COMMENT: Probably no need to have a definition for Evaluation in an Appraisal document.  Again, they are just apples and oranges.

Q: How might the ASB help resolve the nomenclature issue so appraisers can prepare evaluation reports that comply with USPAP without the use of contradictory or confusing labels?
COMMENT: Again, appraisers in states that require them to follow USPAP cannot do Evaluations.  It is that simple.  The appraisers in those 40 States plus DC and the 5 Territories know they must meet USPAP for ALL assignments and thus perform an Appraisal.  This is known by all.  No confusion.  Telling appraisers in those areas they can do Evaluations is what causes confusion.  That needs to stop and the confusion will go away.
Q: How might USPAP reporting standards be changed and/or how might the ASB more effectively communicate the flexibility of USPAP to appraisers, regulators, clients, and policy makers?


o Veteran appraisers understand the SCOPE OF WORK RULE and think that USPAP reporting requirements provide all the flexibility that is needed for appraisers to write evaluations or offer other services. Indeed, one of the first lines of STANDARD 2: Real Property Appraisal, Reporting states: “STANDARD 2 does not dictate the form, format, or style of real property appraisal reports.”
o But not all understand or agree. For example, the Guidelines state: “Unlike an appraisal report that must be written in conformity with the requirements of USPAP, there is no standard format for documenting the information and analysis performed to reach a market value conclusion in an evaluation.” In March 2016, the Director of the Division of Banking Supervision and Regulation reiterated that there is no “standard format” for an evaluation “in contrast with the requirements of USPAP.”
COMMENT:  To clarify, and I believe TAF would agree, there is no “standard format” for appraisals either.  The ASB purposely keeps reporting format, valuation techniques, and some other items out of USPAP.  Like appraisal reports, evaluation reports must be written in conformity with the requirements of the IAEG.  Appraisal reports must meet the IAEG, which then requires compliance with USPAP, too.  Evaluations have the same requirements, except for the USPAP item.
Thanks for the time and consideration of the above.
Sincerely,
The Mann
George R. Mann, CRE, FRICS, MAI

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.

THE ‘ERROR’ IN THE 2010 INTERAGENCY APPRAISAL GUIDELINES

July 30, 2018 – The following wording from the December 2010 IAEG suggests that property value be used to determine if an appraisal or evaluation is needed.  Obviously, this is not possible since property value is not known at the time a decision is made.

The text appears next followed by a reply from G. Kevin Lawton with the OCC.  Mr. Lawton was kind enough to provide the response and allow it to be credited to him.

Text from Item 1 in Appendix A:

1. Appraisal Threshold
For transactions with a transaction value equal to or less than $250,000, the Agencies’ appraisal regulations, at a minimum, require an evaluation consistent with safe and sound banking practices.54 If an institution enters into a transaction that is secured by several individual properties that are not part of a tract development, the estimate of value of each individual property should determine whether an appraisal or evaluation would be required for that property. For example, an institution makes a loan secured by seven commercial properties in different markets with two properties valued in excess of the appraisal threshold and five properties valued less than the appraisal threshold. An institution would need to obtain an appraisal on the two properties valued in excess of the appraisal threshold and evaluations on the five properties below the appraisal threshold, even though the aggregate loan commitment exceeds the appraisal threshold.

Mr. Lawton’s response:

This is one of those areas in the Guidelines where the wording, which mixes the concept of “value” and “transaction value,” can create a problem that is confusing and not consistent with the regulation, and I have had banks and examiners complain about the inconsistency.

The solution is to have banks allocate “transaction value” among the individual properties rather than “property value.”  The bank should allocate the entire aggregate commitment among properties.  Doing this allocation of “transaction value” rather than expected “property value,” sticks to the spirit of the regulation itself.  There is another, bigger advantage of using transaction value as the driver: it avoids the Catch‐22 problem that some banks have brought up: “what if I allocate property value to one property of $200,000, obtain an evaluation, and the evaluation result shows a market value (property value) of $260,000, do I then need to go get an appraisal?”  In other words, “I estimated the property value to be $200,000 and I was wrong. The property value is $260,000 and since, using the “property value” as the driver for what is needed, I now need an appraisal because the property value is above the threshold. This, in itself, is an area where the Guidelines are not consistent with the regulation, since the Guidelines talk about property values “less than the appraisal threshold” (Appendix A, Section 1). That sentence, and the following sentence in the Guidelines mix the concept of “property value” and “transaction value” (last two sentences in Section 1).

The “appraisal threshold” deals with transaction value, not property value.  So, back to the example above, if the banker estimates (allocates) $200,000 of the transaction value to the property (rather than “guessing” a $200,000 property value) then an evaluation is allowable and if the evaluation result shows a property value of $260,000 there is no Catch‐22.  It does not matter what the property value result is because property value does not drive what is needed.  So when a bank addresses “property value” as the driver of what product (appraisal or evaluation) is the minimum product required under the regulation they may need an evaluation (based on a guess of property value of $200,000) followed by an appraisal (because the evaluation shows a property value of $260,000). This is not what the Guidelines intended.

One could probably argue this several ways, but the “allocation of transaction value” among the individual properties, accomplishes the following:  1) it is consistent with the intent of the regulation, 2) doesn’t jumble the concepts of property value and transaction value, 3) avoids the “what if’s” when property value is the driver, 4) is understandable, and, 5) is a practical solution for our bankers.

Hope this provides some clarity to this issue.

The Mann

UP TO 6 STATES NOW, WELCOME TO THE CLUB FLORIDA

May 25, 2017 – Six states now permit licensed appraisers to perform non-USPAP Evaluations.  In those six states, licensed appraisers are finally on a level playing field.  44 states to go.  We might already have another state in the group, but some legal confirmation is needed.  And Virginia is actually delayed a year as they need to change the definition of Evaluation.  But, we are headed in the right direction.  The following is from the Appraisal Institute (but, it omits Indiana which does have this law):

Florida Makes Significant Changes to Appraiser Licensing Law

Florida Gov. Rick Scott on May 23 signed HB 927, legislation that makes significant changes to the state’s appraiser licensing law and requires appraisal management companies to comply with federal minimum requirements for registration and oversight. The law takes effect Oct. 1.

The Appraisal Institute and the Region X Government Relations Committee advocated for two key improvements to the state’s appraiser licensing law, and those provisions were incorporated into the bill.

The first provision defines an “evaluation” as a “valuation permitted by any federal financial institutions regulatory agency for transactions that do not require an appraisal” and clarifies that a state-licensed appraiser may perform an evaluation. Currently, appraisers in Florida are prevented from providing evaluations that are not in full compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice even though federal requirements only call for compliance with the Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines.

Evaluation services in the state have been provided by non-appraisers, such as brokers and salespersons, accountants, architects, financial analysts and data providers, all of whom do not have to meet the same licensing and standards compliance requirements as appraisers. State-licensed appraisers will now be able to perform services on these same terms in compliance with federal requirements. Florida joins Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee and Virginia in allowing appraisers to perform evaluations.

The second provision clarifies that the Florida Real Estate Appraiser Board has the authority to adopt rules allowing for the use of standards of professional practice other than USPAP for “nonfederally related transactions.” Such transactions include appraisal assignments for portfolio monitoring, financial reporting, litigation, tax and consulting, among other areas. The law requires appraisers using development and reporting standards other than those contained in USPAP to comply with USPAP Ethics and Competency Rules and other requirements adopted by the Board by rule. The law clarifies that any valuation work performed per standards other than USPAP cannot be used to satisfy the experience requirements for any Florida appraiser credential.

In 2015 and 2016, the FREAB undertook a rulemaking proceeding that would have allowed the use of standards other than USPAP if additional standards “meet or exceed” USPAP. The provisions in HB 927 remove that arbitrary threshold and grant much broader authority to FREAB to consider standards other than USPAP. Further rulemaking proceedings will need to be undertaken by FREAB to fully implement this new provision.

The Region X Government Relations Committee, under the leadership of Chair Wesley Sanders, MAI, advocated for this legislation, meeting with the state’s Department of Business and Professional Regulation about these two provisions. Additionally, AI professionals in Florida participated in Region X’s ValuEvent on Feb. 14 in Tallahassee, meeting with many legislators to urge support for the provisions.

View a copy of HB 927.

The Mann

CORRECTING THE APPRAISAL FOUNDATION’S FAKE NEWS

May 18, 2017 – Today The Appraisal Foundation (TAF) gave a webinar on using Restricted Appraisal Reports (RARs) to meet the need of Evaluations.  As TAF is no longer an unbiased entity, I will correct the Fake News they put out today.  My perspective is based on 23+ years of writing true Evaluations (i.e. non-USPAP) and 23 years of ordering RARs.  I have seen both type of reports all across the nation.  So, here goes…

  1.  FAKE NEWS – Evaluation requirements are more than Appraisal requirements.  Misleading.  TAF listed the 5 appraisal requirements listed in FIRREA.  Then compared that to the 14 bullet points for Evaluations listed in the IAEG.  Of course, one of the 5 appraisal requirements is mandatory compliance with USPAP – which has 12 bullet points in SR 2-2.  A few of those requirements require multiple items.  FACT – As I will explain below, A RESTRICTED APPRAISAL REPORT MUST ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE INFO THAN AN EVALUATION!

2.  Remember USPAP has NOTHING to do with Evaluations.  Only the December 2010 IAEG applies to Evaluations.  Thus, this webinar and the next webinar about writing an USPAP Evaluation (an oxymoron – USPAP has an A for Appraisal in it, not an E for Evaluation! Evaluation requirements are in the IAEG) are not relevant.

3.  IMPORTANT EXPLANATION FROM GEORGE MANN:

A.  Evaluations CAN omit many items that are required and/or reported in the typical appraisal report (I will list many below).

B.  RARs CANNOT omit any items required by the IAEG for Evaluations.

C.  Therefore, RARs MUST ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE INFO THAN AN EVALUATION!

4.  FAKE NEWS – It was insinuated in the webinar that a RAR could have less content than an Evaluation.  A single statement near the end said RARs do need to be beefed up and that will be explained in the next webinar.  That should have been emphasized more.  The sample RAR presented would NOT meet Evaluation requirements.  The IAEG says ‘sufficient information’ is needed.  Simply stating a value is not sufficient information.

5.  Here is a list of items that are typically included in a RAR, but are NOT included in an Evaluation:

2 very important items are Evaluations do NOT require the SR 2-3 Certification, nor do you have a work file requirement.  Those are yuge and bigly!

Reporting-wise Evaluations typically will NOT contain an executive summary, limiting conditions, extraordinary assumptions and hypothetical conditions, intended use, intended user, zoning, tax assessment info, flood zone, detailed property descriptions, prominent use restriction statement (RARs), or listing and sales history.  That is not to say every RAR needs all of those items (many are mandatory though) nor that every Evaluation will omit all of those items (most of them will be omitted though).  Therefore, it is FAKE NEWS for anyone to ever say or insinuate that a RAR contains less or equal detail to an Evaluation.

Remember, Mann’s Law of Evaluations – A RESTRICTED APPRAISAL REPORT MUST ALWAYS CONTAIN MORE INFO THAN AN EVALUATION!

Lastly, not that TAF suggested a bank would use an Evaluation on a $34 Million property, the IAEG makes it clear that as the loan and/or property become more complex, banks need to move towards appraisals.  Nearly all Evaluations will be on properties valued around $1 Million or less.  Some exceptions will exist, especially for the largest banks.  But, not too often will a bank use an Evaluation on properties over $1 Million.  Yes, technically, they make their decision based on loan amount.  But, us appraisers deal with property value.

TAF made a great point that an RAR can be done on any size property.  The amount of work doesn’t change between a RAR and an Appraisal Report.  But, the amount of reporting is less (in a RAR) and that saves a little bit of writing time.