Category Archives: Reviewer Thoughts & Tips

The main attempt of this blog is for me to give back to the real property valuation industry. I can’t take my knowledge with me when I leave this world. So, my goal is to share everything I know through writing articles, teaching classes and seminars, and this blog.

I usually receive several questions a week from fee appraisers, appraisal reviewers, and chief appraisers regarding appraisal reports, FIRREA, or USPAP. Hopefully, these will provide most of the content for this blog. In this way, we can all learn from the same issue under discussion. Obviously, items will be redacted as needed to maintain confidentiality.

If I hit a lull in inquiries, I have a huge treasure trove of topics to draw on. I will try to discuss interesting topics I have encountered in international reports. It is a neat world out there and us American valuers should be amazed at how the rest of the world handles various items.

Yes, I will give my interpretation of FIRREA and USPAP. Everyone knows I am not shy. However, to CYA, I need to give the standard verbiage that my interpretations are not legal interpretations….they have not and cannot be approved by examiners and regulators. Each Bank should contact their specific examiner and/or the appropriate regulator in Washington DC that interprets FIRREA.

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

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.

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.

 

THIRD PARTY INSPECTORS & USPAP

MARCH 24 –  I wanted to share with everyone an excellent post about the above topic.  The Appraiser Coach has given me permission to re-post his article on my blog.  I am thankful for that.

Their website is https://theappraisercoach.com

Instead of cutting and pasting the entire article, the link is https://theappraisercoach.com/do-third-party-inspectors-violate-uspap/

I hope you enjoy the article and their website.

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

My quick opinion on the matter excluding the USPAP issue (no doubt USPAP allows 3rd party inspectors, in my opinion).

Since 1993, I have NOT inspected any property I have performed an Appraisal Review (where I opine to value by either agreeing with the appraiser or coming up with my own value) or Evaluation on.

For Appraisals, the appraiser has already done that inspection and provided all the description I need to see.

For Evaluations, the past 10 years we have used a national firm to provide inspections.  They do a far better job than any appraiser I know of.  Clients love the inspection report we include in Evaluations.

The point is this has been going on for 25+ years.  More and more appraisers realize it is not good use of their time to be doing the inspection.  They serve their clients better by concentrating on the valuation analysis.

Lastly, the common concern I see regarding hybrid appraisals (again, maybe new to residential appraisers, but 25+ years in existence for commercial appraisers) is the quality of the inspection.  As I note above, the inspection report we have obtained is done by people more qualified to do such than most appraisers.  I agree, the level of competence of the 3rd Party Inspector must be addressed in order to avoid problems.  It can be addressed.  The GSEs just need to do it in advance.  Not after problems occur.

Stay safe.  Enjoy time with your family.

The Mann

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION ABOUT CORONAVIRUS

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

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

The Mann

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 

ABOVE MARKET LEASES CANNOT INCREASE REAL PROPERTY VALUE

January 17, 2020 – I addressed this issue in a June 29, 2016 post.  It is sad that almost 4 years later appraisers still do not separate the value of national tenant leases (almost always significantly above market) between Real Property Value and Intangible Value.

Recent examples I have encountered have been extreme.  A proposed c-store ground lease had the land valued at $1,000,000 (based on numerous nearby land sales) and the lease valued at $4,300,000.  Therefore, Prospective Value ‘Upon Completion’ (of the sitework) was $1,000,000 and Intangible Value was $3,300,000.  Several ground leases to fast food restaurants weren’t as extreme.  But, still the Intangible Value was over 100% of the Real Property Value.

Although I care less what the market does (See Mann’s Axiom), it is a common argument appraisers like to make when they are arguing that FF&E in Apartments aren’t separately valued by market participants (find me a Balance Sheet that does not have a Short-Lived Assets category…recent purchase contract I reviewed had FF&E separately discussed and one even placed a value on these items!) or national tenant leases sell based on the contract rent, et al.  However, I came across the following standard wording in annual reports of several REITs:

Purchase Price Allocation
When we acquire real estate, we allocate the purchase price to: (i) the tangible assets acquired and liabilities assumed, consisting primarily of land, improvements (including irrigation and drainage systems), buildings, horticulture, and long-term debt, and, if applicable, (ii) any identifiable intangible assets and liabilities, which primarily consist of the values of above- and below-market leases, in-place lease values, lease origination costs, and tenant relationships, based in each case on their fair values.

 

So, that eliminates that argument:)  In fact, the market does allocate value to above market rent to intangible assets.  Case closed on this issue.

What was surprising to me was they also allocate the amount of value due to below market rent to (I assume) liabilities.  That is interesting.

My post from 2016 is below.

Happy New Year to all.  May 2020 be a great year for you.

The Mann

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

Another item I have been shouting about for almost 25 years is the appraisal of drug stores, big box retailers, and other buildings leased to national tenants.  Capitalizing these leases does NOT yield Market Value of real estate only.  I may have been the only Chief Appraiser that required that the Market Value of Real Estate not exceed the Cost Approach indication with the additional value reflected by the Income and Sales Comparison Approaches having to be identified as an Intangible Asset.  I admit that even allowing the Cost Approach indication to represent real estate value is being way too generous.  These companies usually pay way above market for the land and the cost to build the improvements is absurd – I have seen costs for these basically shell buildings be more than medical office!

FIRREA and FDICIA require that 1) Market Value be of real estate only, and 2) LTV be calculated on Market Value of real estate only.  We all know a shell retail building is not worth $300 or $400/sf as most drug stores have appraised at for 20+ years.  Excluding the inflated land purchase price and using the real value of the land, these properties are lucky to be worth $100/sf in most markets.  Yet, I am sure the vast majority of financial institutions have used the incorrectly stated Market Value provided by appraisers to calculate LTV and base their loan on.  This is similar to those institutions that used, or may still use, Going Concern Value to calculate LTV.

Can we say violation of numerous federal regulations….but I digress.

All of this leads me to two recent articles that I believe finally end this absurd debate.  I highly recommend you find the following articles:

David Charles Lennhoff, CRE, MAI, ‘Valuation of Big-Box Retail for Assessment Purposes: Right Answer to the Wrong Question,’ Real Estate Issues (Volume 39, Number 3, 2014): 21-32.

Stephen D. Roach, MAI, SRA, AI-GRS, ‘Is Excess Rent Intangible?’ The Appraisal Journal (Spring 2016): 121-131.

In my opinion, both authors prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the excess rent present in almost all drug store, and similar leases, is not indicative of the market value of real estate.  They use both theory and real data to prove their points.  Mr. Roach sums up the logic better than I have ever seen (from page 125 of his article):

  • “By definition, the real estate (a property) can produce market rent, but no more.
  • By definition, excess rent exceeds market rent.
  • By definition, excess rent is created by the contract, not the real estate.
  • By definition, a contract is an intangible asset; it’s not real estate.
  • Therefore, excess rent is intangible.

Each step in the argument is based on long-accepted definitions and concepts of the terminology.”

I challenge all of the Chief Appraisers in the country to step up and require appraisals of these properties to appropriately indicate the Market Value of REAL ESTATE ONLY with the huge additional amount above this figure being termed Intangible Value (or something similar).  It is time both appraisers and lending institutions provide the correct value and LTV.

Plus, this will make the lives of us reviewers easier – it has been frustrating to lower the values 50%-75%+ all of these years!  Of course, we could simply order these appraisals from the two authors above and have slam dunk reviews forever:)

 

NCUA RAISED DE MINIMUS TO $1,000,000

July 19, 2019 – See the link below for more info about the NCUA’s decision to one up banks and raise the commercial appraisal threshold from $250,000 to $1,000,000.  Banks recently had their threshold for this loan category raised to $500,000.  The obvious question is will banks be able to get their regulators to follow what the NCUA did….we shall see.

For those who are jumping on my Evaluation bandwagon after 25+ years, this only means more work for you.  If your State does not allow licensed/certified appraisers to perform non-USPAP Evaluations, you need to get them moving on this.  Can you hear me North and South Carolina:)

The Mann

https://www.ncua.gov/newsroom/press-release/2019/appraisal-rule-will-help-boost-economic-activity-job-creation-communities