Tag Archives: appraisal

AEI’s THOUGHTS ON THE PAVE REPORT

MARCH 25, 2022 – Below is the American Enterprise Institute’s thoughts on the blatantly racist PAVE Report that came out this week. AEI says it better than I ever could. So, I have no comments to add. Well, I did send them thanks for spelling White with a W. Finally, someone with integrity to avoid race baiting.
Shalom,
The Mann
=================================

Comments on PAVE’s “Action Plan to Advance Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap by Addressing Mis-valuations for Families and Communities of Color”
Reprinted below is a response from the AEI Housing Center to yesterday’s release of the PAVE report on appraiser bias:
On March 23rd, the Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE), composed of thirteen federal agencies and offices, released its report entitled “Action Plan to Advance Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap by Addressing Mis-valuations for Families and Communities of Color.”
Commentary on PAVE’s conclusion:
PAVE concluded that “Homeownership is often hindered by inequities within current home lending and appraisal processes, which research shows disproportionately impact people in communities of color.”
As noted in the Executive Summary, the report largely rests on three studies for its conclusion: (i) a report by the Brookings Institution, (ii) a note by Freddie Mac, and (iii) a blog post by FHFA.[1] In our work, we have issued lengthy critiques that discredit the first two studies (see our rebuttal to Brookings and to Freddie Mac) and now take the opportunity to respond to the FHFA study.[2] Here is a summary of our findings:
The Brookings and Freddie Mac studies are not based on rigorous data analysis. Most importantly, they conflate race with socio-economic status (SES), i.e. income, buying power, marriage rates, credit scores, etc. Race-based gaps found in the Brookings and Freddie Mac studies either entirely or substantially disappear when adjusting for differences in SES. Furthermore, our analyses show that similar gaps are present in majority White or White-only tracts across different SES levels, raising serious questions regarding a race-based explanation.[3] We also addressed a rebuttal from the Brookings authors to our critique. We found that Perry and Rothwell’s (2021) rebuttal to our critique supported our claim of omitted variable bias, failed to rebuke our methodology, and never addressed our case studies. We also presented solutions based on our findings. The Freddie Mac study took pains to state that its research was both “exploratory” and “preliminary”. Yet PAVE accepted Freddie Mac’s findings at face-value, even though research by Fannie Mae provides a likely, non-race based explanation for the valuation discrepancy found by Freddie Mac. It is worth noting that Fannie Mae’s explanation castes a favorable light on the appraisal industry.
This conflation by both Brookings and Freddie Mac is of critical importance. While there is agreement regarding the symptoms observed by PAVE–racial and ethnic differences in homeownership rates, financial returns of owning a home, and median wealth–ascertaining the causes and workable solutions requires a competition of ideas.[4] PAVE excluded research that was inconvenient or inconsistent with the desired narrative and conclusion.[5]
The FHFA blog post, which we have not addressed until now, stated that in their “review of appraisals, we have observed references to race and ethnicity in the ‘Neighborhood Description’ and other free-form text fields in the appraisal form.” FHFA concluded that the use of such references is evidence of bias as the “racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood should never be a factor that influences the value of a family’s home” and released 16 specific examples.
While we all can agree with FHFA’s statement that “racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhood should never be a factor that influences the value of a family’s home”, the blog post failed to provide any specifics as to the frequency of such occurrences. It only stated:
From millions of appraisals submitted annually, a keyword search resulted in thousands of potential race-related flags. Individual review finds many instances of keywords to be false positives, but the following are [16] examples of references when the appraiser has clearly included race or other protected class references in the appraisal.
Without more information, one is unable to discern whether this is evidence of a few bad apples or systemic behavior. This is made all the more problematic given that there is other evidence showing no systemic appraisal bias. Unfortunately, PAVE ignored that body of research, to wit:
AEI Housing Center (2021) found that racial bias by appraisers on refinance loans is uncommon and not systemic. To evaluate the existence of bias, the AEI Housing Center assembled a unique dataset with over 240,000 loans for which we knew the race of the borrowers.
Ambrose et al. (2021) concluded that “contrary to media allegations, our statistical analysis found that racial bias by appraisers on refinance loans is uncommon and not systemic.”[6]
Fannie Mae (2022) concluded that for refinance applications “Black borrowers refinancing their home on average received a slightly lower appraisal value relative to automated valuation models” and that “the frequency of ‘undervaluation’ did not have a notable racial pattern.”[7]Interestingly, Fannie Mae (2022) also rebuked the methodological approach in Freddie Mac’s research note that was cited by PAVE as one of the three main studies.[8]
Our conclusion is that PAVE has misdiagnosed the problem.[9] PAVE proposed 21 agency actions. It is highly questionable that these will address racial and ethnic differences in homeownership rate, financial returns of owning a home, or median wealth. In some cases, they may make these differences worse or take the pressure off in finding effective solutions. It also must be noted that HUD, and its predecessors have played a major role in perpetuating segregation and racial wealth disparities.[10] This alone should give pause to any objective reader of the PAVE report.
Rather than PAVE’s finding of “inequities within current home lending and appraisal processes, which research shows disproportionately impact people in communities of color” the real culprit are inequities in SES, which PAVE acknowledges when it states that “[m]uch of the gap in rates of homeownership can be traced to socio-economic factors that differ on average between Black and white homeowners.” While lower SES certainly reflects a legacy of past racism and lingering racial bias, which leaves Blacks at a large income and wealth disadvantage relative to most Whites, PAVE should have addressed this in its policy recommendations. Thus, the PAVE Action Plan, by misdiagnosing the causes of the racial gap, will likely lead to unintended consequences as the Action Plan does not address the root problem.
We agree with PAVE that we ought to support opportunities for income and wealth growth among lower-income households. However, we should address the root cause for lower SES, and not unsubstantiated claims of systemic bias and racism in the housing finance sector.
Based on an objective diagnosis of symptoms and causes using rigorous data analysis, we propose the following solutions:
The housing policy solutions are:
Building generational wealth through sustainable homeownership for low SES households by reducing leverage for aspiring low-income home buyers.
Increasing supply and reducing income stratification through Light Touch Density.
Promoting Walkable Oriented Development in existing neighborhoods with a mix of residential and commercial properties.
Other policy solutions, which might be explored, are:[11]
Encouraging two parents in households with children (single-parent households have been found to be a significant SES factor by a wide ranch of academic researchers).
Enacting occupational licensing reforms and allowing small businesses to be run out of one’s home (this has been found to be a significant barrier to low SES households).
More economical childcare by rolling back burdensome government regulations (childcare costs are a significant barrier to gainful employment by low SES households).
Real school choice for access to quality elementary and secondary education (racial and ethnic minorities would benefit greatly from real school choice).
Improving access to technical and apprenticeship training (this would open up access by low SES households to these well-paying jobs).
Encouraging state and local governments to address public investment disparities relating to minority and lower income neighborhoods.
Recognizing the importance of SES factors is key to fashioning appropriate public and private responses. A misdiagnosis that focuses on other factors will not address the root problem and could potentially lead to unintended consequences. We must be mindful that many public policies aimed at addressing racial discrimination have had unintended consequences that have done substantial harm to low-income households generally, and minority households in particular.

Footnotes:
[1] Interagency Task Force on Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity (PAVE), Action Plan to Advance Property Appraisal and Valuation Equity: Closing the Racial Wealth Gap by Addressing Mis-valuations for Families and Communities of Color, March 24, 2022, pp. 2-3.
[2] Despite the AEI Housing Center having undertaken a significant body of research on the topic of racial bias in housing finance over a course of years and notwithstanding efforts to engage with PAVE and some of its members, we were unable to engage with PAVE and our work was not mentioned in the report. Yet, PAVE stated that “Over the past 180 days, the Task Force has undertaken a collaborative and comprehensive approach toward identifying actions to address appraisal bias. This approach involved extensive consultation with subject matter experts and leaders across industry, academia, trade and civil rights groups, and government.”
[3] The same critique to the Brookings paper also applies to research by Howell and Korver-Glenn (2021) and a recent Redfin post on the same topic.
[4] The University of Wisconsin Board of Regents stated this concept best over 125 years ago: “Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.” https://news.wisc.edu/sifting-and-winnowing-turns-125/
[5] This goes back to when President Biden in his January 26, 2021 “Memorandum on Redressing Our Nation’s and the Federal Government’s History of Discriminatory Housing Practices and Policies” for the Secretary of HUD cited as fact “a persistent undervaluation of properties owned by families of color.” Thus, PAVE would need to conform to the President’s stated narrative, notwithstanding strong evidence to the contrary. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-redressing-our-nations-and-the-federal-governments-history-of-discriminatory-housing-practices-and-policies/
[6] Ambrose, Brent W., James Conklin, N. Edward Coulson, Moussa Diop, and Luis A. Lopez. “Does Appraiser and Borrower Race Affect Valuation?” Available at SSRN 3951587 (2021).
[7] Williamson, Jake and Mark Palim. “Appraising the Appraisal: A closer look at divergent appraisal values for Black and white borrowers refinancing their home.” (2022).
[8] In particular, Fannie Mae wrote that “We chose to study refinance applications, as opposed to home purchase applications, because the appraiser in a refinance transaction typically interacts directly with the homeowner (i.e., the borrower), establishing a pathway for potential bias to influence the appraisal results. The race or ethnicity of the borrower is often disclosed in the loan data, making it possible to directly observe any correlation with value. On the other hand, in a purchase transaction, the appraiser typically does not interact with the buyer (i.e., the borrower) of the property but rather with the seller or the seller’s agent. The availability of racial or ethnic data of sellers and real estate agents is limited, thereby making an analysis of valuation differences by different demographics for purchase transactions limited or incomplete relative to the analysis detailed below using refinance transactions.” (p.3)
[9] At times, PAVE tried to have it both ways. On the topic of undervaluation, which is the main focus in the Freddie Mac analysis because of the negative impact on minority home buyers, the PAVE report stated that a lower appraisal can be beneficial to the buyer but hurtful to the seller as “it limits the seller’s realized home equity gains and therefore impacts the seller’s wealth.” (p.15)
[10] As noted by PAVE throughout the 20th century, the “federal…government systematically implemented discriminatory policies that led to housing segregation.” Not mentioned by PAVE was the U.S. Commerce Department’s role in implementing a zoning regime designed to keep Black and ethnic-minorities out of single-family detached neighborhoods (see Chapter 1, AEI Light Touch Density E-Book), the 1949 Housing Act which resulted in the high-rise public housing and urban renewal programs, both of which worked to the great detriment of Black households and neighborhoods, the 1967 Presidential Task Force on Housing and Urban Development (headed by HUD Secretary Weaver), which proposed a 10-year housing program to eliminate all substandard housing in the U.S. (source: Lyndon Johnson Library), that was enacted in the 1968 Housing and Urban Development Act, the consequences of which led to HUD and FHA destroying many American cities, especially Black neighborhoods (Cities Destroyed for Cash: The FHA Scandal at HUD), the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which created the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which has perpetuated racial segregation (Chicago tax credit program mostly produces affordable housing in poor black areas, March 15, 2021), the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, which granted HUD the authority to set affordable housing mandates for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and HUD’s 1995 National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream, which led to over 10 million foreclosures and did much to create the wealth disparities Blacks now face. All of these failures may be traced to HUD, or its predecessor agencies responsible for federal housing policy.
[11] Many thanks to our AEI colleagues Naomi Schaefer Riley and Angela Rachidi for many of these ideas. Please see their thoughtful analysis: https://reason.com/2021/02/24/fix-family-poverty-with-free-markets-for-once/

FANNIE MAE STUDY CONCLUDES NO RACIAL BIAS IN APPRAISALS

MARCH 12, 2002 – Now, two studies of millions of appraisals by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Fannie Mae have concluded that there is no racial bias in real estate appraisals.
For those involved in the industry, this comes as no surprise. It is essentially impossible for real estate appraisers to be biased. Probably 95% of the time the appraiser knows nothing about the physical characteristics of the borrower. Nearly 100% of the time the appraisal reviewers know nothing about the borrower. And ALL appraisals must be approved by a reviewer.
Also, the market sets prices and all appraisers do is analyze recent comparable sales and arrive at a value for the subject. Which, in purchase situations, is equal to or higher than the sales price 95%+ of the time.
Racist organizations like the Brookings Institution and others that are falsely complaining about appraisal bias need to ‘follow the science’ as they like to say. Scientific studies 100% conclusively say there is no appraisal bias.
Maxine Waters and President Biden owe the appraisal industry an apology. And so does the Appraisal Institute for not supporting its own members.
The real estate appraisal industry is the gold standard for an unbiased profession. We have been the independent referee for 80+ years.
Lastly, we all know about the Fair Housing Act, redlining, discrimination being illegal, et al. To say we need to be educated about such is ridiculous. If you have lived in America since the 1970’s, you know all about fair housing laws and what is and is not discrimination.
The true racists are those that accuse everyone else of being racist. These people need to be exposed and told where to stick their unfounded claims. They should be sued for slander and defamation, also.
Hey, Appraisal institute, get a backbone and stand up for your members! There is no legislation that can change 4,000+ years of economic theory. The appraisal industry does not need to make any changes. It is already fully diverse and inclusive of people of all socio-economic classes (I grew up in mobile homes and am Jewish….I have the low-priced housing and minority characteristics covered!). Remember, skin-color and the only two genders have nothing to do with diversity and inclusivity.
Shalom,
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

LIMITING CONDITIONS. WHO NEEDS LIMITING CONDITIONS.

February 2, 2020 – Recently, I was asked what I thought about appraisal reports that contain a limiting condition that says the appraiser’s liability is limited to the appraisal fee.   When I first saw this in a report several decades ago my first reaction was to laugh.  As they say, nice try, but no cigars.

I have seen financial institutions deal with this in two different ways.  Some banks prohibit appraisers from including this condition in reports done for them.  Appraisers then have the choice of complying or not doing work for that bank or credit union.

I went the second route and just ignored the condition.  i.e. I let appraisers put it in reports done for the banks I worked at.  I knew that it would not hold up in court, so it is a non-issue.

Another bank that contacted me about this issue is working on wording to place in their engagement letter to prohibit use of this condition.  They are running it by their counsel.  If they are willing to share it with me, I will update this post and include it here.

As an aside, I recently had one of my appraisal reports reviewed by a client I must keep confidential.  They flat out said that no limiting conditions are needed and for me to take out all of the general assumptions and limiting conditions.  After picking my jaw up off the floor, I mulled it over for a day and came to the conclusion that I am fine writing reports without these items.  At least for this client.  I am still mulling it over for other clients.

Limiting conditions.  Who needs limiting conditions:)

The Mann

LEASE-UP FOR OWNER-OCCUPIED BUILDINGS – A DEBATE YET TO BE SETTLED

August 9, 2018 – Over my 30+ year career, this question has come up every few years.  When performing the Income Approach for a vacant or owner-occupied building (same thing), should there be discounting for the time and cost to lease it up?

My short answer is – Yes.  However, I would say 99% of appraisers do not make such a deduction.  Why not?

A few notes before I summarize a great response from an appraiser who does make the deduction.

First, America’s definition of Market Value assumes a sale occurs.  Therefore, an owner-occupied property is vacant when it sells.  That occupant moves out so either a new owner occupant can move in or third-party tenants can move in.  I have long argued that EVERY house/condo in America sells vacant – regardless if the owner occupies it right up to closing or it is physically vacant beforehand.  Of course, rental properties are the exception.

Second, the Income Approach assumes an investor owns the property and will lease it up to stabilization to third-party tenants.  The Income Approach does not assume owner occupancy!

Therefore, a vacant or owner-occupied property has to be leased up to obtain stabilization that is assumed in the direct cap method of the Income Approach.  Lease-up is not free and instantaneous that often.  Below is the summarized response that was shared with me.

As always, I welcome your thoughts.  Unlike our cultural and political world, differing opinions are welcome and will not be called ‘tone deaf’ or racist or some kind of phobic and so on:)  If I get enough comments, I will do a follow up post.

(Oh, let me add that the Sales Comparison Approach will depend on what sales are used.  If the comps were 100% vacant and/or owner-occupied, then the SCA already reflects such discounting for lease-up.  If the comps were partially or 100% leased, then….hmmmmm….)

(Second oh….all of this is needed to determine one of the 3 highest & best use conclusion items – type of occupancy.  Sometimes it is Owner Occupancy and other times it is Third-Party Tenants via an Investor owning the property.)

OK, finally to the Anonymous Appraiser Reply:

  1.  For the purpose of our analysis, owner-occupied space is presumed vacant and subject to deductions to reach stabilized occupancy in the “As Is” Market Value.
  2. FIRREA requires appraisers to “Analyze and report appropriate deductions and discounts for proposed construction or renovation, partially leased buildings, non-market lease terms, and tract developments with unsold units.”
  3. The present value of all costs necessary to achieve stabilized occupancy (including rent loss, leasing commissions, concessions, tenant improvements, rehabilitation costs, and/or profit loss) incurred during the lease-up period must be considered in developing the “As Is” Market Value conclusion.
  4. ((In this particular appraisal, )) The sales utilized in the Sales Comparison Approach were all vacant or owner-occupied; therefore, no lease-up adjustment was applied to the Sales Comparison Approach.

I agree with this logic.  Even for non-FIRREA appraisals.

What does the market do?  Well, that is answered in the Sales Comparison Approach as prices for vacant and/or owner-occupied properties reflect how an owner values the property or an investor values it knowing s/he has to find a tenant(s).

Thoughts….

The Mann

Agencies Finalize EGRPRA Review with Joint Report to Congress

March 22, 2017 – After about 2 years, FFIEC has finally published their report that includes dealing with appraisal issues.

The link is below.   Pages 28 to 40 deal with appraisal issues.  Albeit, appraisals are discussed a bit in a few other places.  As noted, these are NOT final and official changes.

In general, if the proposal does not change, this is a big win for appraisers.  The small increase in a single threshold will not have a major affect on appraisal volume.

https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2017/nr-ia-2017-33a.pdf?utm_campaign=ABA-Newsbytes-032217-HTML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

2015 AEI/CRN CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, DC

November 3, 2015 – I attended the 4th annual AEI/CRN conference last week.  Instead of me trying to summarize what all of the great speakers said, you can go to the link below to see the presentations.

The speakers and people in attendance are major players in the residential real estate industry.  They recognize the appraisal process is broken and the current appraisal report is basically useless.  Major change is needed and I believe it will be these people who make it occur.

I encourage you to take the time to listen to the presenters and read their presentations.

George

The email below is from the AEI:

Thank you for your interest and participation in AEI’s recent event “Fourth annual international conference on housing risk: New risk measures and their applications.” We wanted to share the event summary and video with you; please feel free to share these with friends or colleagues.You can also view all of the presentations from the conference.

Learn more about the Wealth Building Home Loan, Edward Pinto and Stephen Oliner’s revolutionary approach to low-income home finance, which has received rave reviews in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Reuters, among other outlets.

Explore more of AEI’s work on issues related to housing risk at HousingRisk.org, the website of AEI’s International Center on Housing Risk, and don’t miss the November 23 briefing call with Steve Oliner and Ed Pinto to discuss this month’s release of the Mortgage Risk Index. Please contact Urbashee Paul to receive dial-in information for the conference call.

AEI is a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity, and strengthening free enterprise. To learn more about AEI, please bookmark AEI.org and visit often.

Yours cordially,

The AEI Events team

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.20036
www.aei.org

 

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

Adding value to the appraisal of the future – by Ed Pinto

August 24, 2015 – Ed Pinto of the American Enterprise Institute was a closing speaker at the Appraisal Institute’s national conference in Dallas a few weeks ago.  One of the new items he presented is summarized below.  As the title suggests, the idea is to make the appraisal of the future value-added – instead of simply providing Market Price as has been the case for the past 80 years.  The primary focus of Ed’s comments is residential appraising.

His ideas follow.  I will not add any commentary.  Just sharing the perspective from an independent party that is in contact with FHA, FNMA, Freddie Mac, etc – Ed was a prominent FNMA employee in the 1980s.

Determine (methodology):

–Market cycle history*

  • Create and review 10-year nominal and real home price trend to determine current position in market cycle relative to equilibrium
  • If the real price trend currently at equilibrium, robust comparable sales approach is likely appropriate.
  • If the real price trend currently elevated or depressed, the lesser of investment and replacement cost approaches is likely appropriate.

–History of buyer’s (>6 mo.) and or seller’s market (<=6 mo.) for existing homes**

  • Determine whether a buyer’s or seller’s market based on months of home inventory divided by listings/sales rate; determine whether a buyer’s or seller’s market
  • If real prices are increasing, it is almost certain that a seller’s market is present
  • Market disequilibrium more likely the longer an uninterrupted seller’s market continues

–Buying power due to change in power leverage**

  • AEI’s Center on Housing Risk plans to incorporate into its Mortgage Risk Index by year end

–Land value and change in land share trends**

  • Calculate land value by extraction using exchange value minus replacement cost

–Whether real price change due to leverage growth or improving utility or a mix

  • Evaluate role played by income leverage vs. fundamentals (i.e. job & real income growth)

*For the MSA, the subject property’s market area and price tier,(zip code or below), and the subject property

**For the MSA and the subject property’s market area and price tier (zip code or below)