Attached is an excerpt of a letter from the author of an Intangible Assets Class in 2004, during a period when Hmong poultry farmers were driving chicken farm prices sky high. New farms were being built and sold to the neophyte buyers right and left. A contract with the grower by an integrator is central to the use of the farm as a poultry operation. If you would like a copy of the whole four page letter, PM me. The gist of the letter was it was a response to a complaint made by Tim Kelley of the Missouri FSA and addressed to Sharon Lowman, Chair of the MO. Real Estate Commission...(the Board). The letter was addressed to James Vine, TAF chair at the time. (apparently forwarded to TAF from Ms. Lowman??) The author of the class, Mr. Ronald Geer, ASA and creator of the Intangible Assets class, authored the letter. Apparently Mr. Kelley objected to the class on the grounds that he felt the interpretation of the author would require 2 appraisals, one with the contract and one without. Mr. Geer wants to reassure Mr. Kelley that 2 appraisals are not required, only 1 but the impact of the BEV must be addressed. That's all good and well in the super hot market of 2004. The same could apply to a host of developments, hotels, and even housing....fast forward to current market conditions. Now read the excerpt. Mr. Geer gave a credible example of what BEV was by demonstrating that farms were selling for more than the depreciated cost of the barns thus the difference was "BEV" - a value accrued to the contract to grow birds according to Mr. Geer...a business enterprise value. There is an alternative view. I shall express it. Two issues. The buyers were ill informed about the economics of poultry farming in the first place...duh. Secondly, most of these farmers were from Minnesota. As refugees from Vietnam, many received subsidies . They call it "farming the government when it involves FSA. http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2415 http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/hmong/index.cfm As an appraiser I had more than one Hmong tell me that they were paid an annual payment of $4000~ per month as a "new" farmer. One said they got the subsidy in MN to grow vegetables and flowers but that the subsidy was phased out and they were told that if they moved south to grow poultry, they could get a "new farmer" subsidy. In fact, I have evidence that some farms changed hands between relatives after 2 years and the "new" farmer got the subsidy as well. Thus, there was an "intangible" value to certain people that was not disclosed nor was it calculatable in the poultry contract itself. Secondly, dozens of Realtors left this region regularly and gave seminars in Minnesota hawking the glories of chicken farming in the Ozarks and KY, E. Texas, etc. Speciality Realtors sprang up selling only farms and obviously, the bigger the better since FSA seemed to be unwilling to turn down any Hmong in fear of a discrimination complaint after all the grief they got from the lawsuit by Black Farmers. There was no "BEV", imho. Chicken farming is buying a job. Nothing more. And you only pay more because someone is giving you cheap and ready credit, an annual subsidy, and a snow job. The Hmong got screwed. Before the present financial crisis, Hmong realized the economic was decidely poor. By 2006, sales tailed off rapidly. Since then the farms are selling for a fraction and absolutely no one is building a new farm to market to Hmong. The last few new operations I have seen that sold are selling for a reasonable discount from the RCN and the rest that have gone under are selling as distressed property....some are put back in production. Most of the oldest are not. The difference between farms with and without a contract that Mr. Geer alludes to isn't a measure of the contract BEV. It is a measure of the distress of a farm that no longer can meet contract standards. There is no "BEV" and what was mistaken for it is nothing more than a whole ethnic group being duped by the government and Realtors preying upon their naivety.