1. Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premiere online community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.

Order of Depreciation Deduction

Discussion in 'General Appraisal Discussion' started by Abester, Oct 12, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Abester

    Abester Senior Member

    0
    Jun 12, 2003
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Florida
    A friend of mine called to ask for a source of the proper order to deduct depreciation as a percentage. For example, on a $100,000 improvement cost new, physical of 10%, functional of 9% and external of 8%.

    I was taught that the order is 100,000 x .90 x .91 x .92 so there is no double dipping. If that is correct (as I was taught), I don't find a straightforward source that shows the sequence of percentage adjustments (or the lump sum adjustments reflected as percentages). I've looked through the 11th, 12th and 13th Editions but didn't really see it.

    Anyone???
     
  2. Randolph Kinney

    Randolph Kinney Elite Member
    Gold Supporting Member

    82
    Apr 7, 2005
    Professional Status:
    Certified Residential Appraiser
    State:
    California
    Algebraically speaking, there is no difference in the order and the end result since you are multiplying.

    a X b X c = c X b X a
     
  3. Terrel L. Shields

    Terrel L. Shields Elite Member
    Gold Supporting Member

    315
    May 2, 2002
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Arkansas
    As a practical matter it would rarely mean much. Your estimate of EX OB and FUN OB are likely to be less precise than the mathematical variation of adding all 3 together vs doing one at a time...

    Say I have a house that is 10 years old (EA) and 40 years remaining life. It has a screwy layout say... And it has a cell tower on the adjacent property where a strobe light blinks all night and you lay within the fall distance of the tower..

    You find a sale (or sales) where a new house (no physical deterioration) suffers a 5% price deduction for having a similar layout.

    You find a sale (or sales) where a house sold for 20% less because it lay within the fall distance of a cell tower.

    You have a RCN of $100,000. Since 20% of the house is "used up", we assume the DCN (sans EX and FUN) is $80,000. So...do we knock off 5% off the RCN? or 5% off the DCN? It is the difference between $76,000 and $75,000...let's go with $75,000.
    Again, the EX OB is 20%...so is that 20% off $100,000 or off $75,000? That's the difference between $60,000 and $55,000...but wait!

    External obsolescence CAN (and in this case likely would) affect the LAND as well... So if the typical lot around is worth $40,000...(i.e. 75k + 40k = $115,000), then the EX OB could be $23,000....and would need to be taken from the total property amount rather than the improvements alone. ....or, you could argue the defect is in the location (land) and ALL the EX OB should come out of the land price.

    The issue is hopelessly complex and you probably should be careful how you ANALYZE the comparables to make sure that you REPLICATE (reverse engineer) the method you used to estimate obsolescences in the first place.

    And, imho, such obsolescences are the reason why the cost approach is generally weak when Ex Ob and Fun Ob are encountered....happy trails to you...
     
  4. Pittsburgh Pete

    Pittsburgh Pete Elite Member

    48
    May 6, 2008
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Pennsylvania
    Deduct external and functional prior to physical to avoid depreciating items (double dipping) that are already deducted as external and/or functional items. Ya can't depreciate something that doesn't contribute to value.
     
  5. Michigan CG

    Michigan CG Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    217
    Nov 1, 2006
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Michigan
    Funny, I was taught to deduct physical first and then the other two for the same reason. I remember we had a long discussion on this a few years back and my mentor said there were two "camps" on this subject.

    One camp said do them all at once and the other said no it was double dipping. :shrug:
     
  6. Abester

    Abester Senior Member

    0
    Jun 12, 2003
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Florida
    Of course the algebra is correct for the final answer. In this case, however, the dollar amount of each component is at issue. So, the order is relevent.
     
  7. Pittsburgh Pete

    Pittsburgh Pete Elite Member

    48
    May 6, 2008
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Pennsylvania
    It seems very clear that to "do" them all at once will lead to double dipping. Physical depreciating an over improvement clearly double dips. Assuming a $100,000 superadequacy that is physically depreciated before being deducted as functional obsolescence is simply wrong--unless of course you acknowledge the deduction for physical depreciation as lowering the deduction for functional--depreciate the over improvement 20% and deduct $80,000 for functional vs. deducting $100,000 for functional and not deducting for physical.

    Bottom line, you just have to know what you're doing! I sense that many do not.
     
  8. Pittsburgh Pete

    Pittsburgh Pete Elite Member

    48
    May 6, 2008
    Professional Status:
    Certified General Appraiser
    State:
    Pennsylvania
    Using Abe's original numbers: $100,000 - 17% (functional and external) = $83,000 x .90 (physical) = $74,700 VS. $100,000 X .27 (all three) = $73,000.


    Clearly there is a difference!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page