JULY 2023 – The following is from the Appraisal Institute’s ‘Washington Report & State News.’ A big welcome to appraisers in Washington finally being able to perform non-USPAP Evaluations.
“Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on May 15 signed HB 1797, legislation that allows real estate appraisers to complete evaluations for federally regulated financial institutions. It was amended to include a “trigger” mechanism whereby the bill will not take effect until the state adopts administrative rules related to fair housing and valuation bias established by the Department of Licensing that require appraisers and appraiser trainees to complete nondiscrimination and fair housing training as dictated by the Appraiser Qualifications Board. “
Tag Archives: USPAP
APPRAISAL REVIEW QUESTION
FEBRUARY 22, 2022 – I received the following question:
Q: If I as a bank appraiser chose to do an in-house appraisal, will it need to be reviewed? If so, what is the benefit and why not just use one of my vendors?
As appraisals are rarely done in-house, I have never thought about this situation. I contacted the Regulators and received the following answer.
A: When the residential threshold was increased it also amended the agencies’ appraisal regulations to require regulated institutions to subject appraisals for federally related transactions to appropriate review for
compliance with USPAP. This became effective January 1, 2020 and is now part of the regulation. As such, a bank can be cited for a violation of law if the review is not completed.
We do not dictate who performs the review only that the reviewer is competent and independent of the transaction; the reviewer can be from the same appraisal department as the individual who performed the appraisal. The bank may perform the review internally or out-source the review.
Now we all know. As always, feel free to ask me any question regarding FIRREA. If I don’t know the answer, I will find it out.
Stay well and safe out there,
The Mann
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
WELCOME SOUTH DAKOTA TO THE EVALUATION WORLD
JUNE 29, 2020 – South Dakota has become the 11th state to allow licensed/certified appraisers to perform non-USPAP Evaluations. We have 39 more to go:) When we get back to in-person classes, if you are in a state that allows non-USPAP Evaluations, I have a 7-hour seminar on Evaluations and Validations that I will gladly come and teach. I don’t teach over the web. I can only share my 28 years of experience with Evaluations in person. The Appraisal institute’s news item on this follows:
South Dakota Passes Legislation Allowing Appraisers to Perform Evaluations
South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem on March 4 signed HB 1127, legislation that allows appraisers to provide real property evaluations to federally regulated financial institutions. When the law takes effect July 1, the state will join at least 10 others that allow appraisers to provide evaluation services. Several other states are considering similar laws.
Evaluations provided by appraisers must conform to Interagency Appraisal and Evaluation Guidelines. South Dakota’s secretary of the Department of Labor and Regulation will be authorized to promulgate rules relating to “exemptions and standards allowing appraisers to perform an evaluation for a federally insured depository institution.”
==========================================
Everyone stay safe.
The Mann
I HAVE HIT A NEW LOW :)
September 21, 2016 – Not too many people would use the above as a headline:) Let me explain…
About 8 years ago today in fact, the last review I did as Chief Appraiser for the fractional bank (as it was called…or Evil Empire by other banks) was an appraisal of a vacant residential lot in Detroit. The value conclusion was $100. It was well supported with two sales at $100 and a listing at $200 that the appraiser adjusted downward 50%.
I had spent 22 years appraising and reviewing. Made it to Chief Appraiser of a $100 Billion bank. And there I sat making the big bucks to review a $100 residential lot:) And, yes, the appraiser’s fee was higher than the value conclusion.
I have used that story many times over the years. Now, I can top it. I just got paid to review an appraisal of what has to be kept as a confidential property (and client). The value conclusion was $0! Yes, I have finally hit a new low! Now, I can finally say I have appraised and/or reviewed properties ranging in value from $0 to over $2 Billion. That is a resume builder! It was annoying to use $100 as the bottom of that range.
Oh, and yes again, my review fee was higher than the value conclusion. Thankfully, USPAP prohibited me from quoting a review fee that was a percentage of the value! LOL
Everyone have a great day:)
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.