Tag Archives: Market Value As Is

Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

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

 

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

FF&E – FIRREA vs. USPAP

January 7, 2016 – Below is a question I received followed by my reply.  Happy New Year to all.

George – Hope your holidays were great and 2015 is finishing off strong.  I was hoping to get your opinion on an item below.

It’s just how non-realty items are reported in the appraisal report. No change at all in the new USPAP – I’ve just been inconsistent in how I treat it. Sometimes I show a $ allocation, sometimes I don’t and just say it is included in the value and has a positive effect on value. Either way, I’m always clear on whether non-real property items are in the value or not.

So just trying to nail down exactly what is right or what USPAP expects. I’ve seen personal property treated many different ways and some appraisers still don’t say anything about it… USPAP doesn’t say much on the topic.

Thanks for any input!

As stated in Standards Rule 1-4, part (G): When personal property, trade fixtures, or intangible items are included in the appraisal, the appraiser must analyze the effect on value of such non-real property items.

My question is what is the extent of “analyzing the effect on value?” For instance, in a multifamily property with appliances necessary for continued operation, do we need to actually state the estimated amount that the appliances contribute to value or is it sufficient to note that the market value includes all personal property items which contribute to the market value?  If the value needs to be broken down and allocated between real property and non-real property items – can the allocation be stated once near the beginning of the appraisal report or does the allocation have to be every place where there is a market value stated?

Just curious because I have heard several versions and I didn’t really see any Advisory Opinions on the topic.

============  MY REPLY ============================

Your question only exists because the ASB and AI and others won’t specifically address the various differences between USPAP and FIRREA.
The bottomline is USPAP does NOT require a value on the FF&E.  Albeit, it would probably help all clients to know such.  More info cannot hurt.
However, FIRREA DOES require values be allocated to FF&E and Business/Intangible Assets so that the appraiser provides the ONLY required value per FIRREA – Market Value As Is of REAL ESTATE ONLY.
So, when doing an appraisal for a Federally-Related Transaction, you MUST provide a value for the non-realty items.  It has been that way since 1990/1991.
Where you place it….well that is up to you.  But, technically, when you state Market Value As Is (as well as Upon Completion and Upon Stabilization) it should just be the Real Estate Only number.
However, 99%+ of appraisers state Market Value INCLUSIVE of FF&E and Biz Value and then have some kind of footnote or wording in parentheses saying ‘the above includes $1,400 of FF&E’. Something like that.  They let the Bank do the math to get to the real estate only number.
So, you can do it that way and you will be in line with your peers.  As I always tell appraisers though, if you want to stand out from the crowd provide what your client really needs, and in this case, state MV without the FF&E and Biz Value and then let the footnote say how much the FF&E and Biz Values are worth.

The reason banks need the Real Estate Only number is it is Federal law (FDICIA of 1991) that LTV must (!) be calculated on this number only.  Any MV number that includes FF&E and/or Biz Value is worthless to a bank!

Now, for non-Bank clients you can forget all of the above.  However, I still recommend providing the separate values.
I hope this helps.
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