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 > Commercial/Industrial Appraisals
Register Help Our Rules Calendar Archives Mark Forums Read


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:12 PM
Michael S Michael S is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albuquerque
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 1,084
Default Proposed Construction - Cost Approach Problem

I'm working on an appraisal of a proposed single-tenant retail building for a national credit tenant.

I'm at the reconcilliation and the cost approach is about 10% below the income approach. The sales and income approach are within about 2-3% of each other and I feel pretty confident on both.

The property is under contract for the purchase of the land for about $300,000. I've got several very good comps that place the value at closer to $200,000. The difference between the contract and market price for the land is pretty close to the difference between the cost and income approach. I'm trying to wrap my head around this and I feel like I've overlooked something. My supervisor is out of the office today so I haven't got a chance to discuss this with him yet.
Sponsored Links

  #2  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:23 PM
David Wimpelberg's Avatar
David Wimpelberg David Wimpelberg is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hamptons, NY
State: New York
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 15,656
Default

I am personally not a fan of using the Cost Approach for direct valuation of income-producing properties, though I believe it has it's use in determining feasibility.

With regard to the site valuation, were all sales researched and verified? Various approvals, permits, planning work, and other issues related to a specific site can significantly affect the value. As a simple real-world example, there is a commercial property (underimproved; HBU as vacant and ready for redevelopment) that was purchased and resold for 22% more a few months later without any physical alteration to the property. The difference was that in the first transaction the property was sold "as is," and the second transaction included all necessary approvals for redevelopment.
  #3  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:29 PM
Michael S Michael S is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albuquerque
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Wimpelberg View Post
I am personally not a fan of using the Cost Approach for direct valuation of income-producing properties, though I believe it has it's use in determining feasibility.

With regard to the site valuation, were all sales researched and verified? Various approvals, permits, planning work, and other issues related to a specific site can significantly affect the value. As a simple real-world example, there is a commercial property (underimproved; HBU as vacant and ready for redevelopment) that was purchased and resold for 22% more a few months later without any physical alteration to the property. The difference was that in the first transaction the property was sold "as is," and the second transaction included all necessary approvals for redevelopment.
All of the land sales had the same commercial zoning. It's a small town and the zoning code is pretty relaxed. The subject was a former gas station and the seller paid to remove all the tanks and improvements. The two best comps were all previously improved and the buyers had to pay to remove the improvements. The contract price made perfect since 7-8 months ago when it was signed based on the one decent sale, adjusted for an inferior interior location and the cost of demolition. However since the contract was signed two more similar sites have sold for about 2/3 the contract price.
  #4  
Old 11-30-2011, 12:49 PM
stefan olafson stefan olafson is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Grand Forks, ND
State: North Dakota
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 2,148
Default

I'd make sure, through verification with more than one party to each sale, what truly took place on each sale. If the contract made sense 7-8 months ago, maybe what you are seeing is a continued downward spiral of values because of the slump/recession in the national economy.

If income and sales comparison approaches are similar I'd hang my hat on those and maybe exclude the cost approach.
  #5  
Old 11-30-2011, 01:14 PM
Michael S Michael S is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albuquerque
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan olafson View Post
I'd make sure, through verification with more than one party to each sale, what truly took place on each sale. If the contract made sense 7-8 months ago, maybe what you are seeing is a continued downward spiral of values because of the slump/recession in the national economy.

If income and sales comparison approaches are similar I'd hang my hat on those and maybe exclude the cost approach.
The land value made sense when they signed the contract. There was a sale about 10 blocks away of a similar size interior site for about $9.50 a square foot. Add in the $30,000 in demolition costs and an adjustment for the subject superior corner location and it's right at the contract price of about $11.50/SF. However since then there were two sales that after demolition costs are both about $7.00-7.50. The two more recent sales didn't really require any adjustments, one is a block away the other about 8 blocks away.

I'm hanging my hat on the income approach since some of the sales required a fair amount of adjustments. However since this is proposed construction I feel like I need to explain why this gap exists. After all why would you pay more for new construction than what it costs to build? It seems like the difference has to do with the developer securing the long term contract and actually going through the development process. However it seems like that's already been accounted for in the indirect costs and entrepreneurial profit. I spoke with one developer who said he usually looks for about 20% or more, but the developer of this property seems willing to do it for 10% or less.
  #6  
Old 11-30-2011, 02:41 PM
sail143 sail143 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
State: Rhode Island
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 276
Default

With proposed construction the cost approach must be considered. You likley have a declining market since the signing of your contract. Like they say check it all out.
  #7  
Old 11-30-2011, 02:56 PM
skx172 skx172 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
State: New York
Professional Status: Appraiser Trainee
Posts: 30
Default

My input:

A site with a forward commitment by a credit tenant is worth more than a site without such a tenant.

its worth more because, a) you dont have leasup costs b) a credit tenancy implies a higher value upon completion that a speculative tenancy

did these guys secure a tenant before they signed the contract? did the contract have a hard deposit or was there a period during which they could have walked away.

its possible you need to adjust your land sales up because they did not have a commitment from a credit tenant like you did. the higher land value will tighten up your cost approach to the other two approaches.
  #8  
Old 11-30-2011, 03:16 PM
Michael S Michael S is online now
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Albuquerque
State: New Mexico
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skx172 View Post
My input:

A site with a forward commitment by a credit tenant is worth more than a site without such a tenant.

its worth more because, a) you dont have leasup costs b) a credit tenancy implies a higher value upon completion that a speculative tenancy

did these guys secure a tenant before they signed the contract? did the contract have a hard deposit or was there a period during which they could have walked away.

its possible you need to adjust your land sales up because they did not have a commitment from a credit tenant like you did. the higher land value will tighten up your cost approach to the other two approaches.
The land purchase contract was executed a month or two before the lease. The buyer is a national merchant builder/developer and the contract stated they had 45 days to get approval from their national retail tenant. If the tenant didn't give their approval the buyer could walk away. They put down some earnest money but just a few thousand.

I'm not sure if I agree with adjusting the land value because of the commitment from a national tenant. It's one thing if there's approval in place for development but this feels like something totally different.
  #9  
Old 11-30-2011, 04:39 PM
Pittsburgh Pete's Avatar
Pittsburgh Pete Pittsburgh Pete is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
State: Pennsylvania
Professional Status: Certified General Appraiser
Posts: 10,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael S View Post
The land purchase contract was executed a month or two before the lease. The buyer is a national merchant builder/developer and the contract stated they had 45 days to get approval from their national retail tenant. If the tenant didn't give their approval the buyer could walk away. They put down some earnest money but just a few thousand.

I'm not sure if I agree with adjusting the land value because of the commitment from a national tenant. It's one thing if there's approval in place for development but this feels like something totally different.
You might, however, adjust your level of entrepreneurial profit. If you went with the developer's 10% you might be underestimating the market, especially for a building with a quality national retail tenant. Perhaps the 20% quoted by your other developer might be more realistic and reflect the market better.
__________________
All our knowledge brings us nearer to our ignorance--T.S. Eliot
  #10  
Old 11-30-2011, 05:17 PM
CANative's Avatar
CANative CANative is online now
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Hopland, CA
State: California
Professional Status: Certified Residential Appraiser
Posts: 46,446
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pittsburgh Pete View Post
You might, however, adjust your level of entrepreneurial profit. If you went with the developer's 10% you might be underestimating the market, especially for a building with a quality national retail tenant. Perhaps the 20% quoted by your other developer might be more realistic and reflect the market better.
I was going to suggest that his developer buddy has more tolerance to risk. But then I started thinking the problem could be anywhere in the process (cap rate error, market noise, adjustments, etc., etc.)
__________________
“The peasants are revolting? Why yes, they are quite revolting.” ~ Oscar Wilde
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 01:21 PM.

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