Bad advice from Fannie--"Multiple Parcels" from Dec. 2019 'Appraiser Update'

[Lee Lansford]

That's where I have a problem with this. Most double lots here will sell to the buyer of the house. Long time since I have seen one split and sold off in this market. Sometimes larger parcels, 20 acres or more are offered choice, small lot with house and land, but side by side lots? Nope.

It all goes to H&BU analysis, doesn't it?

Yes, it does.

 

[Lee Lansford]

By the same token, the appraiser should know whether the sites are maximally productive separate or combined. Then, a hypothetical comes into play on H&B use if they are maximally productive being combined. If you do "use value" or "value in use", the hypothetical leaves the arena. H&B use too. I don't think any value definition requires H&B use analysis except "market value" definition.

The one person who has been most obvious in not understanding appraisal is the same one who asked me--in an earlier post--if I were the only one who asserted that H&BU is integral to Market Value.

She does not--or, will not--understand this most elementary appraisal concept.

How can one have a reasoned conversation with an appraiser who does not accept this basic comment? Well, you can't.

 

[Stone]

I don't have any problems whatsoever with them asking the question or making their decisions accordingly; but I want the lender to assume the responsibility for that decision. If the lenders can be cut loose to rely solely on a value in use that's fine by me - let's just call it that in our reports and not conflate it with the MV.

I get that - wasn't trying to argue that you weren't saying they couldn't ask for the value, only that it can't then be called market value. I'm just wondering what their reason for wanting it is (the dumb question from someone away from the lending area part) . I assume it is in case they have to get rid of the property, but I don't understand why they wouldn't want the actual market value - even if they came up with some other guideline for LTV on these types of properties. Seems odd to me that they don't actually want market value for what they have.

 

[Lee Lansford]

I get that - wasn't trying to argue that you weren't saying they couldn't ask for the value, only that it can't then be called market value. I'm just wondering what their reason for wanting it is (the dumb question from someone away from the lending area part) . I assume it is in case they have to get rid of the property, but I don't understand why they wouldn't want the actual market value - even if they came up with some other guideline for LTV on these types of properties. Seems odd to me that they don't actually want market value for what they have.

The "advice" is an error (in that it should not have seen the light of day) and hopefully it will be corrected.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Folks, we have one prominent poster in this string who asked me (in an earlier) post if (I'm paraphrasing here) it were only me or if there are other sources that assert that H&BU is integral to market value .

One can't have an intelligent conversation on this issue with someone who does not grasp such a basic principle. Hence, in great part why it is that this string has dragged on.

 

[George Hatch]

There are worse things than being in disagreement with each other. All we can do is make our case.

 

[J Grant]

The one person who has been most obvious in not understanding appraisal is the same one who asked me--in an earlier post--if I were the only one who asserted that H&BU is integral to Market Value.

She does not--or, will not--understand this most elementary appraisal concept.

How can one have a reasoned conversation with an appraiser who does not accept this basic comment? Well, you can't.

I don't know know who you are referring to, but I never asked you that. If it is me you are trying to attribute this to, ( incorrectly ) , then find my post where I supposedly asked that and paste it in full so I can see it, since I never asked that. .
. Lol I see you edited your thread from "she" to someone. So who asked it ...Name them. I bet nobody asked it, you've repeatedly attributed fake statements or questions to people. Why don't you stop doing that and contribute something of substance on the topic .

 

[Stone]

The "advice" is an error (in that it should not have seen the light of day) and hopefully it will be corrected.

Right - again, I understand the problem with the request. What I'm wondering is the "why". I can see a legitimate reason for wanting that number (though not on a form with a check box), but I'm curious as to what it actually is. Probably way too far in this thread to side track it, so I'll just let it be.

 

[Andrei Fin]

Right - again, I understand the problem with the request. What I'm wondering is the "why". I can see a legitimate reason for wanting that number (though not on a form with a check box), but I'm curious as to what it actually is. Probably way too far in this thread to side track it, so I'll just let it be.

Because it reflects the market.

 

[Lee Lansford]

Right - again, I understand the problem with the request. What I'm wondering is the "why". I can see a legitimate reason for wanting that number (though not on a form with a check box), but I'm curious as to what it actually is. Probably way too far in this thread to side track it, so I'll just let it be.

Because it reflects the market.

Do you understand that H&BU is fundamental to Market Value and cannot be separated?

Just wondering.