Appraised Value Below Contract Price

[J Grant]

If some don't see the generally accepted definition of the word "analyze" as sufficient support for my stance and Calvin's, more's the pity! You can continue to state what the SC says (that essentially seems to be the stance of most here), I will continue to analyze it with all the implications inherent given the word's denotation and connotation.

The inherent implication for you is that enough "analysis" will justify the equation of SC price = MV.

 

[Mr Rex]

Isn't the entire appraisal report the rationale for the opinions and conclusions?

If a rationale is needed for explaining why a MVO differs from a SC price, then why not also provide one for how they managed to come out exactly the same?

The actual explanation for why they are the same would be laughable, in many cases. Would love to see that requirement added.

I suspect that whatever the value, USPAP requires a summarization of your rationale. As a matter of fact, USPAP even goes so far as to say that if you feel the contract is irrelevant, you are to state so. So, have you been including such a statement in your reports?

USPAP, you ought to read it sometimes, it has some great info on appraising.

 

[mark hurlock]

I will continue to analyze it with all the implications inherent given the word's denotation and connotation.

I never said you shouldn't.

Again, that was not the argument.

And you said you are in litigation?

 

[J Grant]

I think you could easily make the case that analysis of the contract would extend to discussion of the opinion of value in light of the contracted amount. See USPAP lines 789-797.

What it boils down to is that the intended user has to understand the rationale for the opinions and conclusions. So would this not include providing the rationale for an opinion of value that differs from the contract price, whether higher or lower?

One of the problems with this is that we are not supposed to be appraising to a predetermined value, or an outcome that would favor a result, such as the approval of a loan. Since the SC price meets both criteria, explaining why the MVO differs, implies that the SC price was a target amount that was not met.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

I'm disappointed Pete that you could be lead off on this tangent. I'm even more disappointed that you waive your commercial license around (and little else) to support your statements.

Wow, reading between lines that aren't even there! Please show me where I "waive" (sic) anything other than my own practice to actually "analyze" a sales contract and its implications in the context of its specific market.

 

[Mr Rex]

One of the problems with this is that we are not supposed to be appraising to a predetermined value, or an outcome that would favor a result, such as the approval of a loan. Since the SC price meets both criteria, explaining why the MVO differs, implies that the SC price was a target amount that was not met.

Only in your mind. If you can't be unbiased its time for a career change.

FWIW, I didn't make this stuff up, its in USPAP. You really should spend more time reading it and less time posting here for a week or two. You will surprise yourself at how ill informed you are.

 

[mark hurlock]

I suspect that whatever the value, USPAP requires a summarization of your rationale. As a matter of fact, USPAP even goes so far as to say that if you feel the contract is irrelevant, you are to state so. So, have you been including such a statement in your reports?

USPAP, you ought to read it sometimes, it has some great info on appraising.

I was wondering when someone would finally get to a circumstance when and why it is appropriate to form and report an opinion of the contract price.

You see, it is not what you say but how you say it.

You are not finished rex, please continue.

 

[mark hurlock]

One of the problems with this is that we are not supposed to be appraising to a predetermined value, or an outcome that would favor a result, such as the approval of a loan. Since the SC price meets both criteria, explaining why the MVO differs, implies that the SC price was a target amount that was not met.

J,

rex is on the right track but needs to finish his thought.

 

[Mr Rex]

I was wondering when someone would finally get to a circumstance when and why it is appropriate to form and report an opinion of the contract price.

You see, it is not what you say but how you say it.

You are not finished rex, please continue.

I am finished, with the last line.


USPAP, you ought to read it sometimes, it has some great info on appraising.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

The inherent implication for you is that enough "analysis" will justify the equation of SC price = MV.

why do you keep circling back to this! Analysis will address as to why the SC=MV, why the SC>MV, and why the SC<MV. It's called "analysis." Your insulting implication to the contrary is hilarious--that said I can't be insulted by you for obvious reasons.