Appraised Value Below Contract Price

[mark hurlock]

Apparently the forum is malfunctioning as some must not have Post 146 by Mr. Rex. Start by looking between posts 145 and 147! That's where I found it!

I did not see that comment. So what? Obviously if I had, I would not have asked. And you say you are a litigator? OK.

Thanks, that is what I was looking for.

Now, you take that section and explain in detail how you interpret it to include a reconciliation of the contracted price and the appraised value.

 

[23Degrees]

Definition of Analyze: What the guy on the state board who just signed your sanction says it is.

Another appraisal argument that could be replaced with "how many pixies can dance on a donut crumb".

Go back and read post #86. For that board you better do everything Calvin indicates (right or wrong) and if it were me I'd be asking the buyers what they had for dinner the night before they signed, the consistency of their last bowel movement, and how many hours of sleep they got. Or to cover all possible bases I'd just learn how to read minds over the phone.

I'll thank this thread for another reason to charge a premium for purchase appraisals and almost never do them.

 

[Mr Rex]

I did not see that comment. So what? Obviously if I had, I would not have asked. And you say you are a litigator? OK.

Thanks, that is what I was looking for.

Now, you take that section and explain in detail how you interpret it to include a reconciliation of the contracted price and the appraised value.

Why don't you take that section and explain why you interpret it not to require sufficient discussion for the intended user to understand your rationale? Otherwise, you must be putting a comment that you consider the contract irrelevant.:icon_idea:

 

[CANative]

Please show me where I "waive" (sic) anything

Because the cluelessness in the residential sector takes many forms. Some are gutless and some are ignorant as evidenced by this thread. Just my take!

You stated that residential appraisers are clueless meaning that only commercial appraisers can understand this issue. Calvin did essentially the same thing. When he couldn't support his position that resolving the difference between the PRICE and the VALUE is REQUIRED BY REGULATIONS he resorted to "waving" his experience with an agency.

You can't state that something is there when it's not there (well, I guess you can but you'd be factually incorrect.)

You can't make your case without using the word "should."

 

[J Grant]

Pot meet kettle. Your posts #121 and #151 are funny--thanks for the laugh. Calvin and I propose a more comprehensive definition of the word "analyze" than you (i.e. we do more "analysis" than you apparently--your consider reporting facts to be analysis) and are labeled skippy.

I didn't label skippy because of your position to further analyze a contract, I labeled it for Calvin's absurd statement that a SC price and MV can be exactly the same number, and yet not identical (among other gems)

You guys love to call names, so expect the same back!:new_multi:.

 

[Pittsburgh Pete]

Let's review: appraisal comes in at a value that diverges from the SC (possibly higher, possibly lower). Client asks for explanation of this divergence. Therefore, users of our services expect such analysis. Gee, my approach must be wrong!

 

[mark hurlock]

Why don't you take that section and explain why you interpret it not to require sufficient discussion for the intended user to understand your rationale? Otherwise, you must be putting a comment that you consider the contract irrelevant.:icon_idea:

Rex, I do not interpret my analysis to conclude the reasonableness of the sale “price” or to reconcile the contract “price” to the appraised value. I interpret my analysis to determine if that price was influenced to the degree that it might not be an indication of an arms length transaction. So, it is not the “price” that I am analyzing. It is the circumstances that led to the price and the level of available information that can be obtained to document such influences.

The “price is not what determines if the contract is relevant or irrelevant. It is the motivations of the buyer and seller that make the contract relevant.

 

[CANative]

Let's review: appraisal comes in at a value that diverges from the SC (possibly higher, possibly lower). Client asks for explanation of this divergence. Therefore, users of our services expect such analysis. Gee, my approach must be wrong!

Thousands of purchase appraisals and I've only been asked for an explanation for the difference a couple of times. Maybe not even that many times. And I've only seen this issue come up on the forum a few times and I've been a member for almost ten years.

 

[J Grant]

Let's review: appraisal comes in at a value that diverges from the SC (possibly higher, possibly lower). Client asks for explanation of this divergence. Therefore, users of our services expect such analysis. Gee, my approach must be wrong!

That's not what Calvin was saying. I agree, that obviously, since clients are asking for an explanation, that they expect such an analysis. However, it is a client expectation, not a regulation or imposed by regulators or by the GSE's, all of which Calvin said it is.

This request for an explanation of the divergence has an odd pedigree. It is fairly recent from most clients, and triggered when the MVO and SC diverge, yet the same kind of explanation is not asked for when the MVO and SC happen to come out to be exactly the same.

Wonder why that is?

Is it not more odd that a private buyer and seller, weeks or months ago, managed to come up with the exact same number for a price that matches the appraised value of a report done at a later date using a different methodlogy? You'd think this would need more analysis, not that the two might have a variance.

 

[Mr Rex]

Rex, I do not interpret my analysis to conclude the reasonableness of the sale “price” or to reconcile the contract “price” to the appraised value. I interpret my analysis to determine if that price was influenced to the degree that it might not be an indication of an arms length transaction. So, it is not the “price” that I am analyzing. It is the circumstances that led to the price and the level of available information that can be obtained to document such influences.

The “price is not what determines if the contract is relevant or irrelevant. It is the motivations of the buyer and seller that make the contract relevant.

So you consider the contract relevant...and you explain your rationale for your opinion of value being at, above or below the contract?