New Tools Improve Valuations, Appraisal Institute Reports

 

New Tools Improve Valuations, Appraisal Institute Reports

Aug 16, 2010 12:17 PM, By NREI Staff

The future of commercial real estate valuation will be shaped by innovative technology, according to reports published by the Appraisal Institute, an organization of professional real estate appraisers.

The valuation profession can make the transition from a data-poor discipline to a data-rich one by adapting the tools of “predictive analytics” used in other industries, according to "Visual Valuation: Implementing Valuation Modeling and Geographic Information Solutions.”

Edited by Mark Linne, with Michelle Thompson, the book features 15 chapters by experts who provide practical discussions on how to use GIS and modeling technology in valuations. It includes case studies by academicians who apply technology to solve problems in housing, resource management and other areas.

The valuation scenarios presented in the book range from approachable to complex, as contributors discuss valuation modeling and GIS while addressing the concerns of more sophisticated users already comfortable with the technology’s practical applications.

New Tools Improve Valuations, Appraisal Institute Reports

Loan-to-Value Ratios Spike Following Wave of Reappraisals, Says Trepp

 

Loan-to-Value Ratios Spike Following Wave of Reappraisals, Says Trepp

Jul 21, 2010 11:11 AM, By Matt Valley, NREI Editor-in-Chief

 

Special servicers face a daunting task in trying to resolve billions of dollars in troubled commercial real estate loans based on new research from Trepp LLC. Of the 1,125 CMBS loans on properties that were reappraised during the first half of this year, 986 recorded loan-to-value ratios of greater than 100% largely due to falling valuations.

It’s a cause for concern because the unpaid principal balance exceeded the new property appraisals by a wide margin in many cases. The average loan-to-value ratio among the 1,125 CMBS loans in the survey sample was a whopping 160%, up from 72.7% when the loans were securitized. (The 1,125 loans total $15.4 billion in volume.)

“In many cases you really almost have no choice but to have a distressed sale of the property because the value of the loan is less than the mortgage outstanding,” says Paul Mancuso, vice president with Trepp, a New York-based commercial real estate data and analytics firm.

“The new valuations will go a long way in determining the best workout strategy for a loan. The end goal is to preserve the most value for the CMBS trust,” emphasizes Mancuso.

Rather than sell real estate assets at fire sale prices, however, many special servicers prefer to work with financially strapped borrowers to extend existing loan terms in the hope that the tide will eventually turn in their favor.

“Why are you extending a loan right now?” Macuso says rhetorically. “Because you believe that we have fundamentally reached the bottom of the market. People are almost immune to bad news right now. It can only get better. The hope is that if you extend for 12 to 24 months the fundamentals of both the property and the economic environment will have improved enough to generate positive cash flow.”

Worst performers

Not surprisingly, loans originated from 2005 through 2007 dominate the list of underwater properties. The period was characterized by inflated property valuations. For example, when a $22 million CMBS loan on the Northland Inn hotel and conference center in suburban Minneapolis was originated in 2006, the appraised value of the asset was $34.2 million. Today’s appraised value on Northland Inn— whose status is classified by Trepp as real estate owned (REO)— is just $2.5 million (see table above).

In the survey sample, 300 of the 986 loans in special servicing with loan-to-values exceeding 100% are in the retail sector, followed by multifamily (245), office (183), lodging (126) and other sectors (132). By dollar volume, the office sector has the largest concentration of loans under water ($3.59 billion), followed by retail ($3.24 billion), multifamily ($2.97 billion), and lodging ($2.1 billion).

In total, 1,097 loans in the sample lost a staggering 51% of their value, falling from $23.9 billion at securitization to $11.8 billion currently. Conversely, only 22 of the 1,125 loans in the sample experienced an appreciation in property value since the loans were securitized.

Loan-to-Value Ratios Spike Following Wave of Reappraisals, Says Trepp

FHA apprasial changes coming

By Ken Harney | Columnist


WASHINGTON – Picture this: You’ve signed a contract to sell your house. Your buyers say they’ve nailed down the right mortgage. All is well. But then the appraisal comes in low – $25,000 to $50,000 under what was agreed in the contract.

The lender insists on cutting the mortgage amount to reflect the lower appraised value. You refuse to negotiate anywhere near the price indicated by the appraisal, and suddenly – poof! The whole deal is off. You, the buyers and the realty agents involved are all left sputtering over the appraisal that scuttled the transaction.

This scenario is not unusual in many markets across the country, say homebuilders, realty agents and appraisers. One little-publicized reason why: Lenders unilaterally may be lowering the numbers on the appraisals submitted to them in order to avoid accusations that the loans they sell to giant investors Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are based on inflated appraisals – even slightly inflated. Such value inflations can expose lenders to dreaded “buyback” demands, forcing them to repurchase loans at huge costs.

The vice chairman of the National Association of Realtors’ Appraisal Committee, Frank K. Gregoire of St. Petersburg, Fla., says it’s a widespread problem – large numbers of legitimate home sales “sabotaged by lenders and underwriters arbitrarily reducing the value estimate” provided by the appraiser.

Typically, Gregoire says, the lender orders a low-cost electronic valuation – based on publicly available statistical data with no on-site inspections – to review the accuracy of what was submitted by the appraiser. If there’s a discrepancy between what the computer says and the appraiser’s report, the lender’s underwriters sometimes simply cut the number – even if this means knocking the real estate transaction off track. Or they demand an immediate explanation from the appraiser.

But all this may be about to change. Effective Sept. 1, Fannie Mae is prohibiting lenders who sell it loans from changing appraisers’ numbers. In guidance issued June 30, Fannie Mae said lenders must contact appraisers to “resolve” any disagreements about the valuation. If that’s not possible, they should order a second appraisal – not just chop the value supporting the real estate contract.

Appraisers applauded the new rule. “This is huge,” said Gary Crabtree, president of Affiliated Appraisers of Bakersfield, Calif., and a member of the national government relations committee of the Appraisal Institute, an industry group. Pat Turner, an appraiser in Richmond, Va., said Fannie’s new requirement “is great news for consumers” because loan underwriters hundreds of miles from the property “no longer will be able to change the appraiser’s valuation” simply because they pulled a lower number off a computer.

Turner said these electronic models “are often inaccurate,” and provide no information on property condition. He said an appraisal completed recently in Virginia was challenged by a review company based in California using a proprietary electronic valuation system. The reviewer wanted to know why Turner hadn’t used a specific property in the area as a “comparable” in doing his appraisal on the house. Turner checked out the suggested “comp,” and it turned out to be a vacant lot, worth far less than the house – not a true comp “by any stretch of the imagination.”

Fannie Mae’s new guidelines also attempt to clarify other issues that have arisen during the past year, including the widespread use of inexperienced appraisers who are unfamiliar with local market conditions. Realtors, builders and mortgage brokers have complained to Congress that rules adopted by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2009 encouraged lenders to use “appraisal management” companies to value properties.

Those companies, in turn, often pay appraisers deeply discounted fees – half off traditional prevailing rates in some cases – and require them to complete their assignments far faster than normal turnaround times. Critics have charged that low-budget appraisers working for management companies frequently travel long distances to do their valuations, have minimal access to local realty data, and make excessive use of foreclosures and short sales as comparables – thereby depressing the values of non-distressed sales in the area.

Fannie’s letter attempts to clarify its “appraiser selection” standards. Tops on the list: Appraisers should be experienced, “have the requisite knowledge” about local market conditions, plus access to all local data sources. Fannie also emphasized that the demonstrated experience of an appraiser should always trump fees or turnaround times – a clear swipe at management companies who literally bid out their work on the latter two criteria.

Asked whether Freddie Mac plans to issue similar rules on appraisal quality standards, a spokesman said “we’re definitely looking at it.”

Published in: on July 20, 2010 at 15:18  Leave a Comment  
Tags: