data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/93efc/93efc5b02d883f6981ca16e88e11b9a02ceb5762" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/577a7/577a70879ceb0a84d17f89b38ac76bb3c846dce5" alt=""
Carrying Properties At Historical Cost When Seeking Credit Lines
I started a thread several months ago to explore people's thoughts on carrying properties on their balance sheet at historical cost. The concensus seemed to be that people like this approach because of the worry that values will be inflated by marking them to market. I guess nobody worries about the property dropping in value. Perhaps the mortgage crisis really hasn't taught us anything.
When I apply for credit lines with lenders it always strikes me as odd that they want a PFS and financial statements from my accountant. The valuation for my property always varies DRASTICALLY because we purchase property at a discount or the property has appreciated since we purchased it. It is always striking to me how different the equity positions are between what is reported on our PFS and our balance sheet.
I understand the desire to be conservative and the built-in problem with allowing a business owner to report the value of their fixed assets. However, a simple fix would seem to be a desk appraisal for property or some other non-biased approach to determining the true asset value for property. Summarily valuing everything at historical cost is completely stupid in my opinion. This is especially true when the asset valued is not tangentially related to the business being valued. GAAP rules seem to be set up for corporate structures and do not make exceptions when the business is charted to buy real estate at a discount to intrinsic market value.
If only things could be simple and the banker that is extending credit could see things more clearly from the other side of the lending table. The ebb and flow of reducing taxes and having good financials to show to increase credit lines isn't enough of a pain. We also have to deal with archaic GAAP rules that consistenly undervalue the equity in our business. Perhaps a change to some of these policies could help to suck some of the excess housing inventory off the market. I guess we can always dream!
Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings for the day!
Comments (2)
Not sure...I have yet to get to talk to the underwriter or loan committee. My file with Amplify should shed some good light on this in a few weeks.
Bryan Hancock, over 13 years ago
Bryan, what do your bankers typically say when they see contradicting values on your balance sheet vs. PFS?
Jon Klaus, over 13 years ago