1004mc

[J Grant]

No, lack of data is not meaningless piffle. Appraisers are out in the market all the time, making us aware of larger trends. we don't work in a vacuum. Therefore scarce data on an MC search does not mean suddenly we have no idea what the larger market is doing. And a lack of sales or listings in a reasonable area around subject for that property type means something...perhaps the property is non conforming, atypical, or low demand, or scarce population (rural), it could mean a lot of things which we anlayze.
Some properties have lots of possible comps and listing activity, others a moderate amount, others very scarce. All of it is meaningful, because a buyer for property would face the same; they would have a lot of other comp substitute purchase choices, a moderate amount, or limited/scant choices . Same for a seller...they are either competing with a lot of properties for buyers, competing with a moderate amount of properties, or competing with very few properties. What it all means and what it is attributable to the appraiser has to explain...part of our analysis. We always know what is going on in the larger market, if we need to add any larger market information in narrative or as exhibits, having to fill out an MC form certainly allows for any other additions we want to include. But it is what it is, Fannie wants the neighborhood trends on page one ( demand/ supply/increasing/decreasing/stable etc)...those 3 boxes for neighborhood trends should reflect our analysis of data and questions on the MC form ( expanded only to additional comps for subject), not stick in general market information for those trends. The trends is only those three questions on page one. Price/value range of low high medium range I use what is in a reasonable geo area around the subject...

 

[ucbruin]

The data grid on the 1004MC form should match top of pg 2.
The overall trends on the 1004MC should match page 1 trends.
However, the data grid on the 1004MC form probably won't be enough data to line up with the overall trends on the form. You could have 4 comp sales in your data grid that show a decline, however, because of the lack of data necessary to show trend, it may give a false reading. Your trend box is to be the result of a full reliable market analysis, which you include in your additional comments to support the overall trend..

"The data grid on the 1004MC form should match top of pg 2."

Agreed....and maybe even "must" match...

"The overall trends on the 1004MC should match page 1 trends."

Agreed but I find that it often doesn't and when that happens I explain.....

"Your trend box is to be the result of a full reliable market analysis, which you include in your additional comments to support the overall trend.."

Agreed

 

[J Grant]

"Your trend box is to be the result of a full reliable market analysis, which you include in your additional comments to support the overall trend.."

Sorry to be the party pooper, but no. Fannie (and the pasted artricles in thread from blog of MIA/SRA) advises the trend box (page one) should be that of the MC analysis, supplemented by additional data of possible comps for subject..not a "full" market analysis...a broader market analysis would be an addiitonal/supplmental information,not the information on trend boxes on page one

 

[Slappy]

Another instance where the UAD "addon" requirements were not well thoughout out. They should not really expect an appraiser with a class or two of statistical interpretation (hopefully) teasing out market changes based on a limited MC format. Yes, expanding neighborhood boundaries may be necessary in order to get "better" data, but you are possibly introducing bias. My area is very sensitive to seasonal changes. If I use a MC as a basis for determining time adjustments, I would show a very hot market in the summer/ fall and a declining market in winter. That is not really the case. I always compare my MC data with a summary median price stat typically based on zip code so as to "smooth out" the data. As long as I explain to the client how I am deriving my time adjustments, they do not seem to have a problem.

 

[ucbruin]

"Your trend box is to be the result of a full reliable market analysis, which you include in your additional comments to support the overall trend.."

Sorry to be the party pooper, but no. Fannie (and the pasted artricles in thread from blog of MIA/SRA) advises the trend box (page one) should be that of the MC analysis, supplemented by additional data of possible comps for subject..not a "full" market analysis...a broader market analysis would be an addiitonal/supplmental information,not the information on trend boxes on page one

"should be"

I didn't take the time to verify if "should be" is the terminology employed...
I'll take your word on this....

So, in my opinion, you're not being a party pooper.....

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

a lack of sales or listings in a reasonable area around subject for that property type means something..

Thank you Captain Obvious ... I need an MC form to tell me that?

 

[residentialguy]

"The overall trends on the 1004MC should match page 1 trends."

Agreed but I find that it often doesn't and when that happens I explain.....

Why wouldn't it happen???

 

[ucbruin]

Another instance where the UAD "addon" requirements were not well thoughout out. They should not really expect an appraiser with a class or two of statistical interpretation (hopefully) teasing out market changes based on a limited MC format. Yes, expanding neighborhood boundaries may be necessary in order to get "better" data, but you are possibly introducing bias. My area is very sensitive to seasonal changes. If I use a MC as a basis for determining time adjustments, I would show a very hot market in the summer/ fall and a declining market in winter. That is not really the case. I always compare my MC data with a summary median price stat typically based on zip code so as to "smooth out" the data. As long as I explain to the client how I am deriving my time adjustments, they do not seem to have a problem.

So sorry for you but I think I agree with your overall sentiment....

Or at least until someone picks apart your post and then I'll have to delete this one.

 

[residentialguy]

"Your trend box is to be the result of a full reliable market analysis, which you include in your additional comments to support the overall trend.."

Sorry to be the party pooper, but no. Fannie (and the pasted artricles in thread from blog of MIA/SRA) advises the trend box (page one) should be that of the MC analysis, supplemented by additional data of possible comps for subject..not a "full" market analysis...a broader market analysis would be an addiitonal/supplmental information,not the information on trend boxes on page one

You mis read my statement....or maybe I didn't convey it correctly. Your market analysis is about your subject type, not all market, both on the MC and on pg 1, albeit the wording on pg 1 is misleading. That need to be supported, hence my statement "full reliable market analysis"....as opposed to reliable full-market analysis. Bear in mind that the MC analysis includes your analysis on the additional comments...it's not just about the grid data on the form.

 

[ucbruin]

Why wouldn't it happen???

I maybe incorrect in my interpretation (not surprising if this is the case)
One Unit Housing section considers all sales in the neighborhood
And
MC considers comparable sales in the neighborhood.