Yes indeed, the one I am working on right now has a trout stream/swimming hole on the second parcel. Sold together twice So when it's higher, does that mean HBU is Yes?
You keep bringing up this fake scenario, but I was never asked to appraise that property, it was offered as a real world example of how a vacant parcel sold for a bulk discount vs being sold separately. Do you have any actual real examples?
I understand you didn't actually appraise the property but you obviously did form an opinion on both it's value and the appropriate methodology to value it, and have been defending that opinion despite all the data coming out that indicates otherwise. Your methodology involved not even looking at the alternatives but committing to the one path based solely on the rationale that "Fannie accepts" it.
Just the implication that Fannie policies amount to a competing standard to USPAP is an expression of pure ignorance. It is factually incorrect. That has NEVER been the case since licensing. If I'm reviewing and you're appraising then neither one of us is automatically right by sole virtue of our roles or status. What's right is benchmarked against the applicable standards, not the status of the parties involved.
You haven't been around long enough to have ever been taught about the Supplemental Standards Rule, but back when it was in effect THAT was where Fannie's policies fit into the appraisal standards. The SSR was retired in conjunction with the switch to the SOWR at which point the Fannie policies still came into an appraiser's SOW decision in the form of an assignment condition. But in some ways the wording of the SSR was more explicit in laying out the relationship between a client or users' internal policies vs our appraisal standards. I don't have a pdf to pull a screen shot from so I'll have to retype it by hand, so here goes:
SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS RULE
These Uniform Standards provide the common basis for all appraisal practice. Supplemental standards applicable to appraisals prepared for specific purposes or property types may be issued by public agencies an certain client groups, e.g., regulator agencies, eminent domain authorities, asset managers, and financial institutions. Appraisers must ascertain where any supplemental standards in addition to these Uniform Standards apply to the assignment being conducted.
Comment: The purposes of the SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS RULE is to provide a reasonable means to augment USPAP with additional requirements set by clients, employers, governmental entities and/or professional appraisal organizations. Supplemental standards cannot diminish the purpose, intent or content of the requirements of USPAP.
The SSR used to appear right after the JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION RULE, so that's where it fit into USPAP for the first 14 years of USPAP's existence. It was only retired because the "assignment conditions" element of the SOWR rendered it redundant. The applicability of user preferences remains the same.
Note the references to client guidelines *augmenting* the minimums in USPAP, and the last sentence in the comment explicitly pointing out they cannot diminish the purpose, intent or content of USPAP itself. That means that if there is ever a conflict the client guidelines are what yields to the requirements in USPAP. It's never the other way around unless the element in question involves a Jurisdictional Exception -which means law or public policy, not Fannie or Wells Fargo appraisal policies.
As for Fannie's penchant for believing they are too big to fail and they function in their own universe, the solution there is for them to step in line like everyone else and operate within the existing framework. And appraisal aimed at Fannie should not be based on an entirely different application of value than is that appraisal was aimed at a court or an FRT or any other user who is using a MV-based appraisal.
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
Not to mention the unanswered question of the damage to the public trust and/or public interest as they are different but walk hand in fist. Release the inner Lee and lay some real George wisdom on us. H&BU is strict and absolute, until anybody questions its inherent weaknesses unless you are a devout believer that the original authors are/were infallible. I've heard that before somewhere. If so WTF are there required semi annual updates/changes? My guess is that the upcoming one will be a doozy that shakes some folks to their core. H&BU as vacant is not absolute in all cases? How dare the largest lender in the known universe dare suppose such a proposition. It's almost like they came out and denied Climate Change....
