An Open Letter to Fannie Mae RE: multiple parcels

[Eli]

My presumption is that Fannie is looking at adjoining lots where the lot has a long exposure time where the exposure time is almost impossible to estimate with any reasonable credibility and where it is like way more than the improved site. Like years on exposure time compared to a site where the exposure time is like less than the improved site. I don't understand the problem. The form is the problem for many I assume.

For example, as I have mentioned, I can see the H&B use being the sites sold together. I can see the opposite with way different exposure times. I can see the vacant site being worth more than the improved site. HC and EA's are useful. Assignment conditions too. How do you like it darling?

 

[Mr Rex]

A problem as USPAP currently reads. It changes every 2 years like clock work. Again, please elucidate how the public trust is damaged by this clarification? Or are you waiting for the mystery man controlling the IL Appraiser Board to speak out? From the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. ELABORATE!

 

[Mr Rex]

Out of my yard you young whipper snapper, don't make me have to take my USPAP to you!!!

 

[Michigan CG]

I think I have seen this movie recently, twice.

 

[Lee Lansford]

A problem as USPAP currently reads. It changes every 2 years like clock work. Again, please elucidate how the public trust is damaged by this clarification? Or are you waiting for the mystery man controlling the IL Appraiser Board to speak out? From the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. ELABORATE!

Try reading my post #40.

 

[Eli]

"value" definition is huge in the dichotomy as well. "Value in use" or "use Value" vs "Market Value" are huge differences. If they want "use value" or "value in use", give it to them. Make them happy.

Might want to disclose in caveat's this is NOT a market value opinion.

Provide definitions of both use value and market value. Your good with USPAP then, imo. Make sure you reference the definition sources.

 

[George Hatch]

A problem as USPAP currently reads. It changes every 2 years like clock work. Again, please elucidate how the public trust is damaged by this clarification? Or are you waiting for the mystery man controlling the IL Appraiser Board to speak out? From the sublime to the ridiculous and back again. ELABORATE!

I've disagreed with some of the things coming out of the IL board before as being a bit too narrowly interpreted. But I don't think it's wrong to criticize an apparent assumption on Fannie's part that HBU isn't a significant factor in the analysis of such an assemblage.

If you've ever valued assemblages for an FRT you'll know that it's standard to first come to a retail value per unit, sum that up, and use that aggregate as the basis for analyzing the effect on value of the bulk sale conditions. The resulting value conclusion is characterized as the MV of the group.

 

[Andrei Fin]

My presumption is that Fannie is looking at adjoining lots where the lot has a long exposure time where the exposure time is almost impossible to estimate with any reasonable credibility and where it is like way more than the improved site.

Bingo, these are all marginal sites where in order for the owner to sell them off, it may take a really long time. The typical seller in our definition of MV doesn't have a really long time, they need to sell their house and move on. Which creates an impediment to selling subject property (A+B, adjoining and same effective date) at its most profitable. HBU is most profitable and MV is most probable. Both must be proven with data, but you may find it is not necessarily the same data. Properly identify the subject property and the problem to be solved.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Bingo, these are all marginal sites where in order for the owner to sell them off, it may take a really long time. The typical seller in our definition of MV doesn't have a really long time, they need to sell their house and move on. Which creates an impediment to selling subject property (A+B, adjoining and same effective date) at its most profitable. HBU is most profitable and MV is most probable. Both must be proven with data, but you may find it is not necessarily the same data. Properly identify the subject property and the problem to be solved.

Those aren't my words in the quote attributed to me.

 

[Eli]

I've disagreed with some of the things coming out of the IL board before as being a bit too narrowly interpreted. But I don't think it's wrong to criticize an apparent assumption on Fannie's part that HBU isn't a significant factor in the analysis of such an assemblage.

If you've ever valued assemblages for an FRT you'll know that it's standard to first come to a retail value per unit, sum that up, and use that aggregate as the basis for analyzing the effect on value of the bulk sale conditions. The resulting value conclusion is characterized as the MV of the group.

You don't want to come to a Tennessee appraiser coalition meeting. I'll leave it at that. They would love for you to come. I don't think you would like it. I can try to get it set up if you have time.