Tag Archives: IAEG

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.

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.

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.