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

Sensitivity Analysis For GLA

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I will throw in a curveball.

WRT my market area, for appraisals of existing homes, the CA is simply meant as a check on the validity of the SCA. If the CA is $1.3M and the SCA opinion is $1.5 that is usually considered reasonable. The older the home, the less reliable and less useful the comparison of course.

But in such cases, the CA is meant to answer the question, why should you pay such and such for an existing SFR, when you can go out and build one for less money? Well, the answer for most would be that they either don't have the time to deal with it, or the knowledge to be their own developer. So, the assumption is that most would have to hire a developer to deal with the issues. However, that is really not necessary as most General Contractors can take care of everything just fine. They have a ready buyer and are pretty much ensured of payment - depending on the details of the contract.

The point is, in using the CA for existing homes, I am not sure that introducing the EP, especially the standard EP, is even appropriate. The Contractors Profit is all the General Contractor typically deals with. He is quite capable of locking all estimated funds in advance of construction; ....

Of course, no one wants to talk about this sort of thing, and would rather just sidestep the discussion, - because, for one thing, you need EP to bridge the gap to SCA and for another thing, everybody just does it. However, point being, all such discussion is kind of fruitless, the approach is seriously incapacitated to begin with.

My point is consistently, on this forum, - yea, there is a hell of a lot of BS in appraisal. This is of course another example. I would keep going back to Eratosthenes fairly exact and simple calculation of the circumference of the earth around 200BC. You really have to ask yourself how it is that people, smart people, could not figure this out for another 2000 years. Columbus was off by 25% compared to Eratosthenes 3%. Having an IQ doesn't mean much without the right kind of motivation and focus.


A very good book I can recommend is "Superhuman: Life at the Extremes of Our Capacity". I like this from the section on focus:

"One day we were visited by a highly respected master from another club. He was an old man, and we were given the honor of facing him in combat practice. He held his shinai carelessly, drooping almost, so it grazed the floor. When it was my turn he seemed to be looking away, lost in thought. I was facing him in the usual pose, shinai raised and poised. Yet when I went to attack him—it would require only a small, fast movement to strike his head with my sword—he moved in a way I couldn’t afterward adequately describe. With insane rapidity yet somehow also with apparent casualness, he raised his weapon and struck my helmet before I could complete my strike. Immediately afterward he took on once more the appearance of a distracted old man. For the merest instant he had revealed his true self. Okay, the anecdote may say more about my poor technique than it does about the old man’s Yoda-like ability, but when he had left, my kendo sensei said the old master had extraordinary powers of concentration and reaction, honed over many decades of practice. He lived in the now. The old man encapsulates what we’re going to explore in this chapter: the ability to focus, to concentrate, and to react. Attention is a quality like the flame of a candle. It is ungraspable yet needs tending; it is always moving; it changes as you look at it. It is the “now” we live in. This is going to sound like a Zen koan, but those who can master the now will be able to perform at a higher level. Those who can focus their minds can achieve great things. …. (Hooper, Rowan. Superhuman: Life at the Extremes of Our Capacity (Kindle Locations 1239-1250). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition. )


Getting back to the CA. No one replied. Sensing I suppose a trap.

Yea, the EI and EP are BS for the CA, residential appraisal of existing construction.

It's "CONVENIENCE". Yea. People don't go out and build their own homes because they don't want to deal with it. You can add all kinds of ifs, and buts. But it comes down to CONVENIENCE. The gap between the true cost and market value is convenience. You could measure it. You could make some tables. EP is effectively the same as Convenience. Only Convenience has absolutely nothing to do with profit.

EI? What good is EI? Whatever the contractor makes it, if it is too high, it will sell for MV and EP wins, - simple as that. If it is too low, of course it gets raised to MV and EP wins. EI is for the CA NONSENSE.


And EP is a misnomer. It is what the home buyer is willing to pay for an existing home, new or used, above the cost of construction, and, well, the consumer doesn't know a thing about the costs. It is for the convenience of not building his own home.


+

Actually, per the 14th, the appraiser does have a lot of discretion in reconciling the 3 approaches to value. So, one could argue:

1. The cost approach should be carried out in the prescribed manner, IF it is considered appropriate for the appraisal assignment. Note that the prescribed manner is definitely that either EI or EP should be used.
2. Any issues can be taken care of during the reconciliation phase.

Caveat:
1. You simply can't average value indications, to take care of reconciliation. You have to provide good and reasonable arguments to account for the differences.

My objection:
1. The cost approach, as it makes sense to use in areas where there are available lots for sale and where there are available General Contractors to build, really shouldn't require EI or EP to begin with, because if a homeowner has to hire is own GC, then he is doing it most likely to (a) ensure high quality construction or (b) to save money and doesn't care about the effort he expends. His motives are completely different than those of a developer who is building a home to sell on the open market. A GC working for a home owner as opposed to a developer also has different motives. It is a different game. There should be leeway in the Cost Approach to deal with that.


2. Same with the requirement of including the CA for insurance. If your home burns down, you (or the insurance company) go out and find a GC to rebuild it. You already have the land. He has rights to a mechanics lien. Probably there is a mortgage on the land and he can't touch that as collateral, but who cares - he has the insurance company paying him. Safe bet. No risk. No EP or EI. Inconvenience to the homeowner is a given and not part of the equation. So, it should really be a stripped down CA, no EI, no EP, no Convenience adjustment (or whatever you want to call it).


3. A better name would be Home Owner Developer Incentive, HODI, for homeowners who hire General Contractors. And, maybe you also need a Home Owner Builder Incentive or HOBI for owner builders: https://ownerbuildertraining.com/ who also act as the GC.
 
Last edited:
this is due to the gap between valuing land as vacant lots, and valuing contributory value of the land to dwelling of a finished house.
Land is valued "as if vacant and available for its highest and best use". That is not a cost approach issue. It applies in HBU and sales approach. Land does not have a "contributory value". Improvements contribute to the land. Or, detract and have a cost to cure.
What we are really talking about is what is the site value when the value indication by sales comparison approach and extraction method are very different. Is the value indication by sales comparison approach always more reliable by default?
Obsolescence...one has to include all forms of depreciation.
 
It can apply to both land and improvements. Functionality is solely found in the improvements.

Sales comparison approach to value = $700k

Value of Site = $400k
Replacement Cost New = $200k
Physical Depreciation = ($100k)
Economic Depreciation = $200k

So you can have negative depreciation of $200k to explain the gap between sales comparison approach to value and cost approach to value?
 
I mean if your whole world view is based on lot sale price = site value 100% of the time then I might sound like a flat earther. :)
 
Sales comparison approach to value = $700k

Value of Site = $400k
Replacement Cost New = $200k
Physical Depreciation = ($100k)
Economic Depreciation = $200k

So you can have negative depreciation of $200k to explain the gap between sales comparison approach to value and cost approach to value?
I've done about 20 bank appraisals in the past year and did a site value/ depreciation analysis on several improved sale comparables to support my depreciation in the cost approach. A couple of the newer bank sales had limited negative obsolescence after deducting physical deterioration. Those were both purchased by banks, whereas the sales purchased by non-bank entities implied pretty significant obsolescence. Bank properties are an odd bird, but a couple thoughts on this type of issue:

Make sure to include EI in the cost analysis. Also, EI is the amount sufficient to motivate a developer to build, whereas EP is the amount actually received. I don't know George's market whatsoever, but if backwards-looking EP exceeds EI, then there would be an influx of new construction, which would in turn increase land values and eventually cause EP to be in line with EI.
 
The buyer for a $700k home in that area doesn't have the alternative to build their own at that price. The reason it is that price is because of the level of supply and demand at that price range, supported by the available financing, which again will be way different for an existing SFR (90% LTV, 30yr amtz @ 5%) than for a vacant parcel (50% LTV, 15yr amtz @ 8%). Then there are holding costs, lost opportunity costs, contingencies for the unknowns in both the development costs AND the potential changes in market trends during the interim. We're also running into the distinction between simple demand vs effective demand within the market segments in which each of these property types compete.

Long story short - there are additional reasons at play for why the accrued depreciation for the older existing home is not always as high as a straight line physical depreciation schedule might otherwise imply.
 
I've done about 20 bank appraisals in the past year and did a site value/ depreciation analysis on several improved sale comparables to support my depreciation in the cost approach. A couple of the newer bank sales had limited negative obsolescence after deducting physical deterioration. Those were both purchased by banks, whereas the sales purchased by non-bank entities implied pretty significant obsolescence. Bank properties are an odd bird, but a couple thoughts on this type of issue:

Make sure to include EI in the cost analysis. Also, EI is the amount sufficient to motivate a developer to build, whereas EP is the amount actually received. I don't know George's market whatsoever, but if backwards-looking EP exceeds EI, then there would be an influx of new construction, which would in turn increase land values and eventually cause EP to be in line with EI.

I generally agree with what you are saying about EI / EP.

We are not talking about limited negative depreciation. We are talking about massive negative depreciation where the negative depreciation is equal to replacement cost new. Replacement cost new includes EI. A $200k cost new improvement with 50% deprecioation that is worth $300k.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Find a Real Estate Appraiser - Enter Zip Code

Copyright © 2000-, AppraisersForum.com, All Rights Reserved
AppraisersForum.com is proudly hosted by the folks at
AppraiserSites.com
Back
Top