Rash was argued but before it was issued, the court focused, as we did in Rash, on the second sentence of § 506(a) in declaring that in a chapter 13 proceeding where, as here, the collateral is being retained by the debtor, no hypothetical costs of sale should be deducted, because “ ‘a disposition of the property is not reasonably in the offing.’ ” Id. at 404 (quoting Brown & Co. Sec. Corp. v. Balbus (In re Balbus), 933 F.2d 246, 251 (4th Cir.1991)). This holding, tantamount to declaring replacement, or retail, value, to be appropriate, is cited in the passage from Winthrop that we have quoted above. It is so ORDERED. 1 . The court also cites, in addition to the four circuit cases (Rash, McClurkin, Lomas, and Balbus), the following: In re Case, 115 B.R. 666, 670 (9th Cir. BAP 1990) (<HOLDING>); In re Arnette, 156 B.R. 366, 368
holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value holding that motor vehicle to be retained by chapter 13 debtor should be valued at the price the debtor could get for it in a free and open market ie its fair market value holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debt or holding that second sentence of  506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debtors real property to be retained by debt or holding that second sentence of  506a precludes deduction of hypothetical costs of sale in valuing chapter 13 debt ors real property to be retained by debtor