Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[George Hatch]

I predict that before this is over Fannie will backtrack on it. Possibly to the "sometimes" position.

At one time, Fannie's policies fell under the "Supplemental Standards Rule". Go back and read that one if you have any of those old USPAP editions around. The SSR was rendered redundant by the SOWR which has basically the same requirements and applications insofar as user guidelines go - they're always subordinate to our minimums.

The ASB isn't going to move, and even if they did it wouldn't change the fundamentals of who is doing what.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I predict that before this is over Fannie will backtrack on it. Possibly to the "sometimes" position.

The ASB isn't going to move, and even if they did it wouldn't change the fundamentals of who is doing what.

You must be a USPAP zealot!

 

[Eli]

I'll take that bet. $5

Again, i think you're kind of missing the point. Your comment would more accurately read "sales like this happen all the time, so the market sometimes recognizes and accepts it. There is data to support a value opinion"

Sometimes yes, sometimes no - it depends; which is why the more accurate answer will be it depends. Surely you can agree with that much?

You can’t be betting here. Against forum rules and ....other rules.

 

[George Hatch]

You must be a USPAP zealot!

I have no life.

 

[Carnivore]

Fannie is not an appraisal entity.

Nor are they the Law!

 

[Lee Lansford]

Nor are they the Law!

Correct.

Fannie has yet to issue an appraiser his or her license. to appraise.

 

[CANative]

That's where my license came from.

Hey! Wait. It says "Funny" not "Fannie."

 

[Mr Rex]

At one time the definition of market value was highest possible price or something similar? I'm sure the lifers here remember the exact wording. Sometimes things change, and the times they are a-changing.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

At one time the definition of market value was highest possible price or something similar?

And there was a "market approach" but no "sales comparison approach"...whatever.

 

[Andrei Fin]

Can't disregard it in the value conclusion either, which essentially IS what they were asking. And with which you apparently agree.

What if... since one component of the subject property has a separate HBU... you can provide the value for that component under a different definition of MV at the client's request? Does USPAP say that only one definition of value is allowed? Does it say you can't appraise two APNs on one form? Isn't the definition of value part of the scope of work?