This originally appeared over the Appraisal Buzz on Wednesday, December 3, 2014
As review appraisers, one of the issues that we see all the time is the failure to analyze highest and best use for a market value opinion related to mortgage lending appraisals. This makes sense to a large degree, because many appraisers believe that providing the "yes" answer relieves them of further analysis and communication. We wanted to address this topic and offer some insight as to why one may want to rethink their approach to this common issue. In that light, we thought that we would look at a key part of the valuation process, but one that often gets overlooked in residential reporting: Highest and Best Use. With the majority of reports being written on pre-formatted reports from Fannie Mae, many appraisers skip over this section as nothing but a box to check.
A required characteristic of any valuation professional is the ability to learn, and not just occasionally, but to continuously do so through one's career. Look at any successful appraiser that you know; chances are that he or she makes time for classes. Many of the leaders in the profession are even known to write course work or review it for publication. So do not look at this article as us telling you that the sky is falling, but rather as a perspective that many of us have adopted in our evolution as valuation professionals. I know that we both will periodically look back at past work and reevaluate how we approached a specific problem. After all, as we learn and experience more, we learn new ways to do things or ways to improve upon what we already do. The goal is continual improvement.
As appraisers, we are by nature opinionated. We have a tendency to believe our way is the only way, or the best way, and although we may expect perfection, none of us come into the world knowing how to appraise. Appraisal learning is life-long, and perfection is not possible, although we strive for it by continuing to have an open mind to gaining new insights. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) even addresses that perfection is impossible to attain, and competence does not require perfection.1 The Standard Rule 1-1 (a) comment also addresses how the principle-of-change it continues to affect the way that appraisers perform their work.2 These items are under the development standard with which we all abide, and are the set up the point we are making - which is that none of us are perfect, and hopefully we all simply try and improve our skillset, each and every day.
The Valuation Process is an eight-step procedure that starts with the identification of the problem to solve; flows on to the determination of the appraiser's scope of work; data collection and property description; followed by data analysis (see figure 1). Data analysis includes the market analysis as well as the Highest and Best Use Analysis - considering the land as vacant; what the ideal improvement would be, and the property as currently improved. Next, is the land value opinion; application of the approaches to value; reconciliation of the valuation approaches as well as a final opinion of value followed by the reporting of that defined value.
Clearly, the data analysis section requires a highest and best use analysis related to a market value opinion. This is also succinctly addressed in The Appraisal of Real Estate, 14th Edition on pages 42-43 for further reading.3
The 1004 form, which is the most common report form for residential mortgage assignments, specifically asks the question "is the highest and best use of the subject property as improved (or as proposed per plans and specifications) the present use?" followed by a check box for yes or no, and if no to describe (see figure 2).
As Standard 1-3 (b) in USPAP exhorts us to develop an opinion of highest and best use of the real estate when a market value opinion is developed (page U-19 2014-2015 USPAP), and Standard 2-2(a)(x) states specifically "when an opinion of highest and best use was developed by the appraiser, summarize the support and rationale for that opinion" (page U-24 2014-15 USPAP), checking the box without any further discussion is not adequate. Perhaps it is the lack of description in the box next to "yes" that throws appraisers off, but USPAP is clear that when it is developed, a summary for the opinion is required.5
To even start to address Highest and Best Use, the appraiser needs to have at least visited the zoning ordinance to not only understand what is an allowable use, but also what the minimum site size requirements are; what width is required; what the setbacks are, etc. Often we see zoning mislabeled, and more often than not, no information about what even the minimum site size is for the use. Without this basic information, it is not possible to start analyzing the highest and best use.
Discussing this issue with some appraisers online it was apparent that many do not believe any additional summation is required in the form other than checking the yes box, with the argument that as zoning is reported as either legal or not, meets the legally permissible criteria. That a house is built (or proposed) tests the physically possible criteria, and that reporting of functional depreciation in the cost approach or sales comparison approach addresses overall conformity and therefore financial feasibility, and that finally the remaining economic life provides for highest and best use as currently improved. While this may seem like a reasonable argument, we do not believe it is sufficient for a number of reasons, including it being nothing but an executive summary of real work and does not rise to the level of summation.
In addition, when doing work for a lender client, one must ask, "What is the purpose of this report?" The obvious answer is to determine market value, but the lender uses it as a risk assessment tool. They are trying to ascertain if the property is atypical to the market in any way and if so, how does that affect the value, and ultimately the ability to free them of the collateral in the event the loan goes sour. While an appraisal cannot answer that question in the entirety, it does help them assess their full risk by lending on a specific property.
Since the majority of appraisal work related to mortgage lending completed on form reports is for an improved property, much of the time the conclusion is that the highest and best use of the real property is that which is already in place. How difficult is it to flesh out a short paragraph related to this analysis? Given what we are seeing on a routine basis, it is apparently a monumentally difficult task given that it is rare for us to see anything beyond the "yes" check box.
What we are suggesting is that appraisers take a few extra minutes to summarize the highest and best use analysis. It can be done in as little as a sentence, but usually no more than a paragraph. One of the biggest reasons that we suggest it is that it will force you to slow down and look at your data. There have been instances where one of the authors has found out that some appraisals under review were in an illegal or a legal non-conforming use. During the review, it was discovered that the appraiser did not stop and do the analysis or did not really understand that they should look at it or report it. This puts a lender in a sticky position as they may have to shelf the loan and will not be able to sell it on the secondary or worse, have to buy it back.
In such instances, it may require several pages to support the highest and best use. Once it becomes something more complex, due diligence is paramount. The biggest reason appraisers should care about this is that it puts the appraiser in a more defensible position if something awry happens down the road with the loan. By attempting to address this directly up front you are less likely to be discredited for skipping or going too quickly through a section of the report.
One of the authors has done litigation review work where this specific issue was used by the attorneys as part of their strategy to discredit the appraisal report. In litigation, attorneys will often go to the fundamentals to challenge the appraiser's work. To a judge or a jury it easy to make the connection that if the report is short on a fundamental concept then it is easy to assume it is also short on the section most scrutinize the heaviest, the sales comparison approach. We have both seen reports that have great sales comparison approaches, but little else in the way of a well-written report. Those are the reports that can hurt you in situations where you must defend your work.
So there you have it folks. A seemingly simple thing that really is not so simple. If anything, we hope this offers you something to think about when you are writing your reports and developing the analysis. We are sure this will create some interesting comments as well. Please feel free to share your thoughts as discourse helps us all learn more.
- See more at: http://appraisalbuzz.com/buzz/features/highest-and-best-use-is-more-than-just-a-check-box#sthash.kXUgU1Qb.dpuf
When looking at residential values in a given market region, school districts will generally play a large role in what consumers are willing to pay for a home. The Wall Street Journal published an article in 2008 about this, and stated, “Even for buyers and owners who don’t have school-age children, good schools can ensure consistent demand for properties — and strong prices. Taxes are also a big factor when talking about schools and home prices because in many states property taxes fund education (Peck, 2008).”
Brendon DeSimone, a well-recognized realtor recently wrote in a blog on Zillow blog that:
1. You’ll pay more to live in a good school district
2. A good school district might protect you from the real estate market’s ups and downs
3. Though it may cost more to buy near a good school, it will be good for resale (DeSimone, 2013)
So how does that apply to the market here in Charlottesville? We are fortunate to have six school districts here that are all accredited and test well per state metrics. I ran some basic metrics on an array o f sold properties from 2013. All sales occurred in 2013, all are detached homes.
You will notice that Venable, Burnley-Moran and Jackson-Via lead the city with most sales per school with 72, 79 and 72, respectively. The chart is arrayed from highest price per square foot to least (Above grade finished). Venable leads the pack in price per square foot at $225.48/SqFt.
So how does this data speak to the local real estate agents? Does this reflect your understanding of the school district relationship to sales price? Are there any inherent biases that may influence this method of data metrics?
I would love to hear any comments related to this topic. I would also be open to looking at other unique ways to analyze residential data within the city markets, if you have a thought of two of more data points that are worth looking at, please suggest them. I will happily see how that data reacts when I run it through some charts.
Remember if you need any residential valuation services please give me an email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
DeSimone, B. (2013, October 4). 3 Reasons to Consider School Districts When Buying a Home. Retrieved from Zillow Blog: http://www.zillow.com/blog/2013-10-04/3-reasons-to-consider-school-districts-when-buying-a-home/
Peck, E. (2008, February 20). Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from Buying a New Home: How Important Is the School District?: http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2008/02/20/buying-a-new-home-how-important-is-the-school-district/
Reprinted from Appriasl Buzz
It is with a good deal of lament that I am writing this post. I opened my email this morning to see an announcement from Appraisal Advisor (AA) stating that they that would be ceasing operation as of February 1, 2014. For those that did not know about them, they were, to my knowledge, the only source for appraisers to post reviews about working with Appraisal Management Companies (AMCs). AA also developed credit ratings based on appraiser reviews of working with each rated AMC. Appraisal Advisor was truly a tool that was of great use to me and many other appraisers that worked with the AMCs.
This tale is common in the appraisal profession. Appraisers can be a testy lot to deal with, even more so when they are asked to pay for anything. I am an appraiser, and I get that money is tight in the profession. My comment is not an admonishment to appraisers, but rather a fact. In this case, I see where the thousands of appraisers have signed up but have failed to participate. Matthew Biggers, Co-Founder of AA, wrote in his announcement of the forthcoming shut down:
“Unfortunately, the lifeblood of Appraisal Advisor – appraisers submitting client reviews – fell prey to the age-old “80/20” rule. Over 79% of our many thousands of ASC-verified appraiser members submitted zero reviews, while only 3% submitted more than five reviews.
That was far below what we needed to support a revenue model of non-appraisers paying to access and advertise on the site. And since appraisers had already spoken loudly that they wouldn’t pay directly for it either, that cut off the only two sources of funding for Appraisal Advisor (Biggers, 2014).”
I wish it were not so, but we must bid adieu to yet another concept that is designed to help the profession at large; mostly, as a group, we cannot see the forest for the trees. The AMCs won out here at the expense of residential appraisers. Matt did share some interesting information about a yet unnamed AMC that was very pleased to know that AA was going off line. If I ever get a chance to update this blog with that information, I will share the relevant information pertaining to it. I am sure many AMCs will be happy to see that as well because the less transparency between independent professionals means more fracturing. More fracturing means more leverage for the AMCs.
Thanks for Trying Mr. Biggers!!
Works CitedBiggers, M. (2014, January 21). Important announcement about Appraisal Advisor; Email. Atlanta, GA, USA.
Competition, in a free market, is a fierce catalyst: one that can effectively sort out the bad apples from the bunch. Capitalism works, it is simple when left unfettered and when all parties are ethical in their approach to business. It works until politicians, however well meaning they try to be, step in with a”solution”. Through the Dodd-Frank reform and the Andrew Cuomo created Home Valuation Code of Conduct that predates Dodd-Frank, congress effectively went anti-small business again. I liken this profession’s recent undermining by congress to how they saw to sort out the small-family farmers by paving the way for companies like Monsanto and ConAgra.
Competition is fierce in the valuation profession these days. For competition to work, it does require a level playing field. Presently, in residential valuation, there is no such thing as a level playing field. There are still lots of mortgage-use reports to do, but these reports are being filtered through appraisal management companies (AMCs). The AMC model chooses the cheapest appraisers competency is a distant second to cost, and like most things, you get what you pay for.
The quality of appraisal reports ordered thorough AMCs is getting bad enough that members of the Appraisal Foundation (TAF) have been quoted recently in the media with some interesting points. In a recent Chicago Tribune, John Brenan, director of appraisal issues, is quoted as stating:
"First, there is no additional revenue to fund AMCs, so the fee that an appraiser would earn is now divided between the AMC and the appraiser. Appraisers are making less money, and they have a new middleman they wind up working through. They're looking to engage the cheapest and fastest appraisers. So, we're seeing appraisals done across the country where the appraiser does not have what is, in fact, required under standards we write for geographic competency" (Glink & Tamkin, 2013).
By Mr. Brenan’s comments, it is obvious that enough emphasis was not placed on the things that matter. Instead of requiring the banks to pay for the alteration, a market was enhanced for non-appraisal entities to make money. Instead of enhancing the appraisal process, they provided a market that actually counters retaining well-qualified appraisers. It is a pretty big deal when an organization like TAF is drawing attention to the deficiencies found in the appraisal profession. One should give pause when history has proven repeatedly what happens when the collateral of mortgages is not properly vetted. The recent mortgage bust was partially created by issues with appraisals.
I would also supplement that most of the problems fell squarely on the big banks and how they retained and utilized appraisal services. Instead of requiring lenders to do the correct thing with retaining qualified appraisers, AMCs were given preference as a means to outsource the responsibility or at least the appearance of responsibility. The lenders got the advantage of AMCs seeking out minimally qualified appraisers that follow narrow scope of works (SOWs). Rather than hiring appraisers that are both competent and confident, they hire those that are prone to following without question. They effectively dictate to a large section of these appraisers how to do their job.
I know what you are thinking: Fincham your title says non-lender valuation, so why are you writing about Dodd-Frank and AMCs? Good question…
Non-lender valuation is the last bastion of market share that exists where appraisers can actually bill at a commensurate rate. These types of assignments will include appraisal reports performed for many situations such as wealth-management, divorce, and other litigation related needs. Oftentimes, intended users need to find the most qualified and experienced appraisers. Well-vetted experts are most applicable when testimony is needed. As litigation and divorce proceedings have evolved over the years appraisers are not needed as much for testimony; a report will satisfy the streamlined processes. In these situations, attorneys are not as involved with selecting appraisers as they were in the past.
Attorneys understood the need of retaining the best appraiser he or she could find. They needed someone that could write reports well enough to be seamless and defensible but also handle cross-examination in a trial or handle the craziness that can be a pre-trial deposition. It takes a good professional to write the report, but an even greater one to be effective on the stand or to help with pre-trial preparation. In the case of wealth management: to talk to an accountant and walk them through a report or analysis on the phone.
With less emphasis placed on the interview skills of the appraiser, many attorneys have relegated the retainer of an appraiser back to the client. Most consumers do not really understand what they need. The consumer makes a call, or does an internet search, to find an appraiser based on the only criteria that the do understand: cost. They also negate the importance of selecting the right professional in case they may need testimony later in time.
They can contact a well-qualified appraiser that understands the work involved with their situational needs, or they can contact an appraiser that does mostly government sponsored enterprise (GSE) work. Appraisers that do mostly lender-use work within a very confined box, and unless they have a background in non-lender work, will likely not have the problem solving skills needed for thinking outside of that box. AMCs often provide such detailed instructions to their roster appraisers, that the appraiser is boxed into a very narrow scope of work (SOW). These appraisers are experts at meeting the SOW established with the AMC. However, what happens when these narrow SOWs are removed? You introduce someone that specializes in filling out a form to a world full of variables and possibilities.
An appraiser is only as valuable as their experiences allow them to be. Part of this value is knowing and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches to value. An even bigger part is thinking in the abstract and knowing that in trials and depositions, an attorney will exploit a weakness in a report. They will discredit an otherwise good appraiser if that appraiser is incapable of dealing with questioning effectively. Appraisers that concentrate solely on mortgage-use reports have no background to be effective in these types of situations.
So How Does Dodd-Frank Tie In?
Therein lies my problem with the AMC bred and conditioned appraisers. The fees have been beaten down so low for mortgage work that the appraisers that only do AMC related work are now trying to compete in the more lucrative non-lender market. Here we have members of TAF acknowledging that the lender market is using less-than-optimal appraisers. That alone is enough to make a normal person pause and pay attention. This was Washington’s answer to a problem they did not understand, and by stepping in, they created waves that extend beyond their intended design. They destabilized the market for established and trusted professionals.
These same mortgage-use appraisers have discovered that non-lender work pays better: in some cases, much better. They capitalize on the naivety of the consumer base. In a sense, they are capitalizing on a competitive advantage, but only an artificial one that was created by the meddling of politicians. In a very real way, Dodd-Frank is now affecting the valuation profession outside of the mortgage business.
In that same Chicago Tribune article, David Bunton the president of TAF stated "Most appraisers not going to turn around a top quality appraisal in 24 hours, for half of the normal fee. So you get people who are less experienced, who have less business clientele, and they may end up driving 4 to 6 hours for $150. We're concerned about quality" (Glink & Tamkin, 2013).
Mr. Bunton, we are all concerned over quality. Those of us that have refined our toolsets and experience are being passed over for appraisers that have been subsidized by a flawed mortgage market that is propped up by the AMC model. The weak links of that subset of appraisers are now matriculating into non-lender work. In a way, the biggest user of appraisal services, the mortgage companies have once again undermined the appraisal process. By law, appraisers are required to abide by USPAP to preserve the public trust. Until lenders and AMCs are required to follow it, it will remain nothing more than a very effective tool to make those that claim to be ethical blend in with those of us that actually are beholden to our professional integrity.
The bottom line for appraisers, attempt to educate your attorney clients and colleagues on the differences between what a true professional appraiser is and what a primary mortgage-use appraiser is. Reach out and network with your bar associations and other professional organizations. Distinguish yourselves from the group through education and networking opportunities.
The bottom line for consumers: be careful whom you attempt to retain. Be willing to ask an appraiser why they are a better pick than market of other appraisers. Be willing to check references and ask for a resume. Take your time and make sure this appraiser is well qualified and not just minimally qualified. The inverse to you using a well qualified can actually cost you more money. If you end up in a trial, the cost to have your attorney reorder a better report, or pay a well qualified appraiser to assist in pre-trial analysis. Even worse, you may find that across the courtroom, your opponent hired the appraiser you should have, and now your mortgage-use appraiser will be in contrast to a superior professional.
Glink, I., & Tamkin, S. (2013, December 26). How do you get a great appraisal? Try eliminating the AMC. Retrieved from Chicago Tribune real estate: http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/realestate/sns-201312221330--tms--realestmctnig-a20131226-20131226,0,4405990.column
Results: Amendment to limit eminent domain passes
By Jillian NolinThe Virginian-Pilot© November 7, 2012
Voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that some officials contend will make it nearly impossible for Virginia localities to seize private property for redevelopment.
As of 10:30 p.m., the statewide amendment had 76 percent approval, which was enough for The Associated Press to call it.
"When you give the voters a chance to affirm their constitutional rights, they take it," sponsor Del. Rob Bell, R-Charlottesville, said late Tuesday night.
"You don't really own your property if the government can take it from you and give it to someone else," he added.
The amendment's passage shows that property owners are fed up with the "abuse of power," said Central Radio business owner Bob Wilson, who is fighting the Norfolk Housing and Redevelopment Authority's efforts to seize his property. The housing authority is attempting to acquire five properties for a private, mixed-use development project near Old Dominion University.
"It's going to put it right back to where it was supposed to be from the start," Wilson said Tuesday night. "They're going to have to negotiate in good faith with property owners."
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli visited Norfolk in September and cited Central Radio as an example of why the amendment was needed. At the time, Cuccinelli said housing authorities have been the "most aggressive at grabbing property" in the commonwealth, and he pointed to southeastern Virginia as being the worst.
The amendment won't alter Wilson's case. But it will force localities, or their agents, to compensate property owners for lost profits and access in addition to purchasing their land. Governments will also have to prove that the seized property would be used for public use.
The General Assembly passed limitations on the use of eminent domain in 2007, two years after a controversial U.S. Supreme Court ruling that public entities could take private property and transfer it to a private business for economic development. Bell said the high court's 2005 decision was a "wake-up call."
The amendment goes further than the 2007 legislation did and requires a future constitutional amendment to undo the new restrictions.
"You've literally taken the power away from the politicians and given it to the voters," Bell said.
Local officials, such as Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim, have said that the amendment would greatly limit their use of the legal tool. In Hampton Roads, Norfolk and Portsmouth have been particularly reliant on eminent domain.
Norfolk used it to transform the neighborhood of East Ocean View; Portsmouth leaders used the threat of eminent domain to acquire the abandoned Mid-City Shopping Center in the mid-2000s.
Norfolk officials also say MacArthur Center would not have happened without the power of eminent domain.
Jillian Nolin, 757-446-2326, email@example.com
Reprinted is a web posting of some of the economic impact the new arena may have. Sourced from http://www.bringitva.com/new-study-shows-statewide-economic-impact-of-502-million-from-proposed-arena/
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. – A new economic impact report showcases the statewide economic impact from an arena and a potential NBA franchise in Virginia Beach would create more than $502 million a year in economic impact once the arena is operational in 2015.
The impact of an NBA franchise would be comparable with other major economic development projects in the state, according to the study. In 2008, Virginia attracted Rolls Royce to Prince George County resulting in an annual average economic impact of more than $200 million in Virginia’s Gateway region. The estimated economic impact of the arena and team is more than double the Rolls Royce project.
Other highlights from the study, prepared by Chmura Economics & Analytics, include:
The study focuses on the potential impact of a professional NBA team and a new arena on the state economy. Outside the 44 NBA games (three pre-season, and 41 regular season games), the arena can potentially host more than 150 other events per year. The economic impact is based on a conservative estimate that 85% of the seats would be utilized for the NBA games at the proposed 18,500-seat arena.
An earlier study, prepared by James V. Koch, Board of Visitors Professor of Economics and President Emeritus, Old Dominion University, estimated the economic impact of a new arena as more than $98 million to Hampton Roads alone.
More details, including both studies, are available at www.BringItVA.com.
Mortgage brokers in all 50 states will be required to undergo criminal background and credit checks, as well as licensing exams, by Jan. 1, 2010. The new rules will assign brokers identification numbers to enable regulators and borrowers to track their lending histories, according to a July 21 Bloomberg story.
Some states, such as California, are getting a head start on enacting the legislation. Other states, including Illinois, New Jersey and Virginia, already have adopted the rules.
Previous to the passage of the Secure and Fair Enforcement for Mortgage Licensing Act of 2008, or SAFE Act, about a third of states didn’t require mortgage sellers to have individual licenses. But after record mortgage defaults and foreclosures triggered the financial crisis, Congress adopted new rules to embed accountability into a sector of the market that lacked it.
By next year, states must have established systems in place to monitor and enforce broker rules. California’s rules take effect July 31. The only exception to the testing requirements is for mortgage brokers at federally regulated lenders, who have been exempted because they are “already regulated and overseen by a number of federal agencies,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., co-sponsor of the law, told Bloomberg.
Under the provisions of the SAFE Act, the Conference of State Bank Supervisors has been assigned responsibility to maintain the licensing system and national registry for brokers. Pete Marks, vice president for mortgage-testing programs at the CSBS, told Bloomberg that so far about 71 percent of people who have taken the national broker exams have passed on the first try.
Brokers impacted by the SAFE Act also face new regulations from the recently passed financial regulatory reform bill. Under provisions of the financial overhaul bill, brokers’ fees will be capped at 3 percent for most loans to eliminate incentives to issue costlier and riskier mortgages. Also, adjustable-rate mortgages won’t be allowed for borrowers who can’t afford to repay the maximum cost of the ARM based on current income, according to Bloomberg.
The Federal Housing Administration’s Mortgagee Review Board announced dozens of administrative actions against FHA-approved lenders on July 26 for failing to meet its requirements. The recent sanctions bring to nearly 1,500 the number of administrative actions taken against lenders this year.
"Lenders should know by now that FHA will not tolerate fraudulent or predatory lending practices," FHA Commissioner David Stevens said in a news release. "Any FHA-approved lender that does business with us must follow our standards. If we determine that our partners are not playing by the rules, we will take action – it's that simple."
This year’s actions against lenders have included reprimands, probations, suspensions, withdrawals of approval and civil money penalties. The Board’s recent actions were part of an effort to further protect homeowners from abusive or unfair lending practices, Credit.com reported.
FHA's Mortgagee Review Board sanctions FHA-approved lenders for violations of the agency's program requirements. For serious violations, the Board can withdraw a lender's FHA approval so that the lender cannot participate in FHA programs. In less serious cases, the Board enters into settlement agreements with lenders to bring them into compliance. The Board can also impose civil money penalties, probation, suspension, and issue letters of reprimand, the FHA’s release said.
The FHA has been instrumental in a number of programs aimed at preventing foreclosure, including the Hardest-Hit program, recently launched to provide more than $1.5 billion to states most heavily affected by the housing crisis. Nevada, Michigan, California, Florida and Arizona are among the states that have received funding to help create programs for homeowners defaulting on their mortgage loans, Credit.com reported.
For a full listing of the actions taken by the Board, see the Federal Register notice at http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=Rsc0ui/5/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve .