Real Estate Appraisal Forum

appraisersforum.com logo
The Premiere Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
 Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
 
 
Go Back   Appraisers Forum > Real Estate Appraisal Forums > General Appraisal Discussion
Register Help Our Rules Calendar Archives Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 08-28-2007, 01:07 AM
ZZGAMAZZ ZZGAMAZZ is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 2,637
Default 1004 Cost Approach -- Proposed Construction

1) I'm conducting a construction loan appraisal for a proposed construction SFR on a lot that the borrower already loans. The builder provides the line item breakdown of anticipated costs. Should I "un-itemize" the builder's specs into the various line item entries in the 1004 Cost Approach template? If so do I apply a square foot factor, which seems to be redunant if the builder is already providing the total estimated costs. 2) Whenever I conduct an analysis of vacant land sales in the Cost Approach section of the 1004 (even using appropriate per-square-foot factors above-and-beyond the M&S numbers) the final total inevitably is less than the result of the independent sales comparison approach. Do M&S include entrpeneurial profit? If not does the appraiser did to disclosure the fact that the result of the Cost Approach, by definition, is less than the SC approach? (I realize that these are very basic questions but I've been stumped for 2 years now...)
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 08-28-2007, 06:27 AM
Mike Garrett, RAA's Avatar
Mike Garrett, RAA Mike Garrett, RAA is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
State: Colorado
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 20,777
Default

There are several ways to handle it. I prefer the more simple one. Using Marshall/Swift lump sum figures, as adjusted to reflect the local market. Some appraisers will scan in the builders actual costs, some will do a break-out method using Marshall/Swift cost estimator sheets as attachments. If you do a really good job of estimating the costs and your cost approach is not coming out close to the sales comparison approach it is probably telling you the site value is incorrect.

Be sure to check for local and time multipliers. Are you including tap fees and utility hook-ups? IN MY MARKET those often are $8,000 to $10,000.
__________________
A Former AQB Certified USPAP Instructor
  #3  
Old 08-28-2007, 09:16 AM
leelansford leelansford is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
State: Illinois
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 13,563
Default

Just bear in mind...when you communicate the Cost Approach, it becomes YOUR Cost Approach. That is, what the builder is providing to you may, or may not, be a reasonable representation of the market. Be careful
__________________
Lee Lansford, IFA
"My opinions & my opinions only!"
  #4  
Old 08-28-2007, 10:11 AM
Mike Boyd Mike Boyd is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Retired Appraiser
Posts: 11,822
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Garrett, RAA View Post
There are several ways to handle it. I prefer the more simple one. Using Marshall/Swift lump sum figures, as adjusted to reflect the local market. Some appraisers will scan in the builders actual costs, some will do a break-out method using Marshall/Swift cost estimator sheets as attachments. If you do a really good job of estimating the costs and your cost approach is not coming out close to the sales comparison approach it is probably telling you the site value is incorrect.

Be sure to check for local and time multipliers. Are you including tap fees and utility hook-ups? IN MY MARKET those often are $8,000 to $10,000.
I agree with Mike G. In addition, since you asked, no, M&S does NOT include entreprenueal profit nor does it include projected selling costs or construction loan fees and interest. Also, any off-site costs may not be included.
  #5  
Old 08-28-2007, 10:13 AM
Mike Boyd Mike Boyd is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Retired Appraiser
Posts: 11,822
Default

One of the reasons why your client might want the cost approach is to compare the builders figures with what you have come up with. This will flag padded costs a builder might include hoping to get a higher LTV.
  #6  
Old 08-28-2007, 10:15 AM
Mr Rex's Avatar
Mr Rex Mr Rex is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: X Marks the spot
State: North Carolina
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 25,878
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Boyd View Post
I agree with Mike G. In addition, since you asked, no, M&S does NOT include entreprenueal profit nor does it include projected selling costs or construction loan fees and interest. Also, any off-site costs may not be included.
See Page 2, # 2 in M&S. Builders profit is included, see #7. Developers profit is not, and would likely be reflected in Land Costs
__________________
You talking to me?
  #7  
Old 08-28-2007, 10:39 AM
alex gilbert's Avatar
alex gilbert alex gilbert is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Oakland, Calif
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 531
Default

Develop your own opinion of cost so the client can compare to the builder's cost. Entreprenueal profit is not included in M&S. If there is entreprenueal profit you can add it into your per sf cost, show it as separate line item, or leave it out and comment in your reconciliation that the difference between cost and sales approaches may be due to e. p. Develop an opinion as to land value but do not include e.p. in the land value.

One technique you can use is to take the final Cost Approach value, subtract the land value and add back in any depreciation. That'll give you the total estimated cost to construct. That total can be compared with the builder's submitted total. I would think anything within 10% or so is reasonable. If there's much more of difference look for reasons why - maybe the submitted costs don't include soft costs or e.p. Maybe the submitted costs are padded. Sometimes submitted costs don't reflect work the owner is going to do themselves, sweat equity.

Not every proposed SFR will have entreprenueal profit. If its a "spec" project it should. Otherwise why build it? But I've seen many custom projects where the borrower is building their "dream house" where there is no e.p., or where the cost to construct exceeds the market value. If that's the case it can be reflected in the Cost Approach as a functional obsolescence superadequacy adjustment.

Last edited by alex gilbert : 08-28-2007 at 10:42 AM.
  #8  
Old 08-28-2007, 10:52 AM
Denis DeSaix Denis DeSaix is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Northern California
State: California
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 14,453
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alex gilbert View Post
Not every proposed SFR will have entreprenueal profit. If its a "spec" project it should. Otherwise why build it? But I've seen many custom projects where the borrower is building their "dream house" where there is no e.p., or where the cost to construct exceeds the market value. If that's the case it can be reflected in the Cost Approach as a functional obsolescence superadequacy adjustment.
(my bold)

Just to jump on Alex's point, I've seen this too and it required me to make a FO adjustment (some, rather big-time). If you do this, I suggest you explain it in detail.

One other thing I'd consider: When developing my opinion of the site value, if I am using the extraction or a vacant-land survey, I am going to have to consider the significant downturn in the markets (at least mine) that have occurred since the end of July. If I don't consider these, I may have a site-value that is out-of-whack with current market values.

(of course, if I failed to consider the same thing in my SCA, I'd have a SCA value that was equally out-of-whack!).

But it is easy to forget how the two approaches to value correspond in parts of their analyses. It be nice if they corresponded in end-result reliability too, but that's an argument for another day!

Good luck!
Sponsored Links

Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
     Terms of Use  Privacy Policy
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at AppraiserSites.com

Fastest Way to Find a Real Estate Appraiser Enter Zip Code:
Partner Sites:
AppraiserUSA.com - National Appraiser Directory AllDomainsUSA.com - Domain Name Registration
DeadbeatListings.com - Deadbeat ListingsAppraiserSites.com - Web Hosting for the Professional Real Estate Appraiser
Find FHA Appraisers - FHA Appraiser Search Commercial Appraisers - Commercial Appraiser Search
Relocation Appraisal - Find Relocation Appraisers Domain Reseller - Business Opportunity
Home Security Buzz - Home Security Info Radon Testing - Radon Gas Info
My Medicare Forum - Medicare Info Stop Smoking Help - Help Quitting Smoking
CordlessPhoneStore.com - Great Cordless Phones AndroidTabletCity.com - Android Tablet Computers

Follow AppraisersForum.com:          Find us on Facebook            Follow us on Twitter


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.

SiteMap: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93