- 49 -
concerns with his ability to testify persuasively on market
absorption discount, and, now that we have heard his testimony and
reviewed the record in full, our concerns have blossomed into firm
convictions.
Even if we were to consider Mr. Shanker's opinion on its merits,
we still would not adopt it. It is full of holes. First, he assumed
incorrectly that the appraisers valued the subject property by a
"market comparable method". The appraisers valued the apartment
complexes on the basis of an income capitalization method, and they
valued the remaining parcels of real estate on the basis of an
assortment of methods, one of which was a sales comparison method.
Second, he assumed incorrectly that the appraisers' values of the
subject property were based on the necessity of marketing each parcel
for 18 months. The only marketing periods taken into account by the
appraisers were an 18-month period for each of the apartment
complexes, a 1-year period for the Burger King property, and a
3-to-6-month period for the residential rental property at 6642 Kings
Pointe, Grand Blanc. Third, he assumed incorrectly that any market
absorption discount for the subject property could be tied directly
to the RTC's disposition of real estate held by insolvent S&L's. The
RTC was obligated to sell the S&L's real estate within a relatively
short time; the hypothetical seller, on the other hand, has a
reasonable time in which to sell the subject property. The RTC
Page: Previous 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011