1004MC Question

[Lee Lansford]

If anyone has discussions with "UW's" from AMCs, one will quickly learn that the reason that the numbers at the top of page 2 are to match the numbers on the 1004MC is because the "UW's" do not understand "shopping" in real estate and think that when a prospective buyer tells an agent when the buyer wants, the agent literally produces that "want" just as if you ordered a hamburger with mustard and ketchup and no cheese. Therefore, no eliminate discussions with the "UW's," unless the home is exactly like the subject, it is not considered comparable or competitive because they do not include ranges of features and pricing.

It's the appraiser's responsibility to identify what is a market substitute for the subject. The appraiser should use those criteria for populating the 1004MC and the top of page 2 (URAR).

The appraiser may find it necessary or appropriate to report and analyze a sold property that does not fit what the appraiser defines as a 'comp' (market substitute). These are not 'comps' (as the appraiser defines) and not included in the 1004MC and at the top of page 2 (URAR).

 

[WorkingTogether]

Supply & demand. How do you know the supply at a prior date and what was driving the prices if you can't find what was active?

If someone is conducting a retrospective appraisal, does it matter what was driving the market at that time?

 

[residentialguy]

Maybe. Sure would if you were doing a review.

 

[GCJim]

If I used some of the stringent, narrow search criteria designed to match the subject exactly, as some of you appear to do, I would have an extremely small data set of properties to work with....... Not so good for concluding trends....

I tend to start with the subject subdivision, open it up to the overall 'neighborhood' (within a gradually increased radius, as needed), and finally will use the entire municipality, if needed, to provide a sample large enough to conclude trends with a high degree of confidence. Many times, the overall sales in the entire municipality provide the best results and tend to best illustrate observable trends (which, is the purpose of the form, after all.) A useful exercise, but a flawed form.

 

[residentialguy]

If I used some of the stringent, narrow search criteria designed to match the subject exactly, as some of you appear to do, I would have an extremely small data set of properties to work with....... Not so good for concluding trends....

I tend to start with the subject subdivision, open it up to the overall 'neighborhood' (within a gradually increased radius, as needed), and finally will use the entire municipality, if needed, to provide a sample large enough to conclude trends with a high degree of confidence. Many times, the overall sales in the entire municipality provide the best results and tend to best illustrate observable trends (which, is the purpose of the form, after all.) A useful exercise, but a flawed form.

What you are doing is great...but only to be used as additional analysis to add to your market conditions on pg 1, not for the 1004MC. That is only for comps in the subject's neighborhood. It's not good for trends, but it gives the lender an idea what is going on in the market for houses like the ones they're lending money on. Not to mention it shows why you had to expand search area into other neighborhoods for comps in your grid.

 

[Webbed Feet]

The 1004MC is an embarrassing joke on this trade. It is a wart needing removal. The only worth it has is in keeping U.S. paper mills in production as one of the few remaining U.S. manufacturing industries that supply trade jobs. The only possible use for it is to prove how easy it is to get certain groups to brainwash themselves into believing having their time utterly wasted has some sort of meaning if they say so to themselves over and over and over.

 

[WorkingTogether]

What you are doing is great...but only to be used as additional analysis to add to your market conditions on pg 1, not for the 1004MC. That is only for comps in the subject's neighborhood. It's not good for trends, but it gives the lender an idea what is going on in the market for houses like the ones they're lending money on. Not to mention it shows why you had to expand search area into other neighborhoods for comps in your grid.

So which is the market trend, the data in the 1004MC and at the top of page 2? or the data (not arguing the point, trust me; just passing on copious time with UW's from AMCs) that you would include as an extension of market on page 1? Remember, the essence of the UAD, etc. is to reduce the work for appraisers, especially since "so much of the data is now available to appraisers" by automated companies and even other resources the names of which the AMCs constantly provide because that is "what the banks want".

 

[WorkingTogether]

The 1004MC is an embarrassing joke on this trade. It is a wart needing removal. The only worth it has is in keeping U.S. paper mills in production as one of the few remaining industries that supply jobs. The only possible use for it is to prove how easy it is to get certain groups to brainwash themselves into believing having their time utterly wasted has some sort of meaning if they say so to themselves over and over and over.

Piggybacking my post above to ResidentialGuy, since the UAD is supposed to make an appraisal legible to any reader, including non-appraisers which includes many employees of AMCs--and since definitions have to be attached so readers have a point of reference for UAD codes, if appraisers use both the 1004MC and the top of page 2 in accordance with the demands of "exact clones" (or explain why one did not bracket by everything and/or used older sales if there were more "comps" noted in the spaces and rather than in the sales grid), anyone thinks this simplifies for borrowers what IS the market trend?

 

[Webbed Feet]

<....snip.....> anyone thinks this simplifies for borrowers what IS the market trend?

Not this duck! I have entirely too much factual evidence that the only thing that form has accomplished is giving lazy and untrained appraisers something to point at as an excuse for all of their incorrect market conclusions. Leaving borrowers and the public more mystified than ever before.

We were far better off when the lazy, untrained, and/or fraudulent appraisers had nothing at all in their reports, to lie about claiming support, for their incorrect market conclusions.

:new_snipersmilie:

 

[residentialguy]

So which is the market trend, the data in the 1004MC and at the top of page 2? or the data (not arguing the point, trust me; just passing on copious time with UW's from AMCs) that you would include as an extension of market on page 1? Remember, the essence of the UAD, etc. is to reduce the work for appraisers, especially since "so much of the data is now available to appraisers" by automated companies and even other resources the names of which the AMCs constantly provide because that is "what the banks want".

Page 1

and I don't know where you heard that the MC was to cut down work, but I have a feeling they had a bridge to sell you. Sorry, but with everyone sueing these days, reducing your work only happens when you get a Govt job.