Michigan CG
Elite Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Michigan
You do understand the definition of surplus land?
The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
Bad advice from Fannie--"Multiple Parcels" from Dec. 2019 'Appraiser Update'
- Thread starter Lee Lansford
- Start date
- Status
You do understand the definition of surplus land?
George Hatch
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
I'm getting the distinct impression that the median IQ on our Forum is in decline.
Carnivore
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
Editorial Comment: AMC Phone Monkeys are going to go ballistic on this! they are not going to understand why this is not a Fast N Cheap Appraisal Assignment. Does''t matter because someone out there in Residential Land wil not have gotten the Memo! or Will just disregard USPAP.
Let me begin by stating some Factoids:
1. USPA is not the Problem. There is no restriction in USPAP preventing you from developing an Appraisal for Value In Use, or Interim Value etc etc CG's do this and other kinds of work all the Time. For example: If you were ask by Joe Farmer/landowner to appraise only his house and five acres of his 17 acre tract!
Question: Can you do this and stay compliant with USPAP? Answer: Yes!
Question: Can you do this for a lender on a FNMA Form? Answer: NO!
WHY?
2. Federal Regulations are creating some if not all of this problem, Not USPAP.
3. Is FNMA Format contributing to this problem caused by Fed Regulations? Yes!
One of the elements that has been brought up a number of times is the Exposure time. My short definition of Exposure time is a mirror of the prior marketing time. In the common assignment we have been discussing it was assumed the two sites were identical. In other words; They both had the same MV as if ready for improvement. That would make sense since they are side by side and the same size.
Some of you have been using the Intended User aka Lender ... OK, but the solution has to work for almost any if not all residential assignment. Commercial Property is different, but their hands are not tied by a Standard Format aka FNMA and a Standard Definition of MV. AKA FNMA
Part of the decision process to make a loan is the factor of property disposition in case of default. So in your report is the development of the
three exposure times;
1, exposure time SFR and its site.
2. exposure time of Extra lot 2.
3. Exposure time of the improved site+extra SFR HBU lot. - This might be very difficult or should I say data poor.
This is valuable information to the lender for the loan making decision. They view/use your opined Value to determine RISK along with credit. They mitigate Risk using Interest rate, Mtg Loan Period and Down Payment and Loan to value for Refi's. The Excess land can distort that total Value that FNMA/Lenders want to know!
Example would be two side by side waterfront Lots!
This gets more difficult. Your not going to be able to opine a MV on the Vacant lot without some proof. Just like your Site Value in the cost approach you have to cite how you arrived at that Site MV. My guess is many do it wrong or just state they did it...i.e Extraction , allocation etc I always try to use Actual Vacant site sales if i can. Who wouldn't?
Good Grief!
Let me begin by stating some Factoids:
1. USPA is not the Problem. There is no restriction in USPAP preventing you from developing an Appraisal for Value In Use, or Interim Value etc etc CG's do this and other kinds of work all the Time. For example: If you were ask by Joe Farmer/landowner to appraise only his house and five acres of his 17 acre tract!
Question: Can you do this and stay compliant with USPAP? Answer: Yes!
Question: Can you do this for a lender on a FNMA Form? Answer: NO!
WHY?
2. Federal Regulations are creating some if not all of this problem, Not USPAP.
3. Is FNMA Format contributing to this problem caused by Fed Regulations? Yes!
One of the elements that has been brought up a number of times is the Exposure time. My short definition of Exposure time is a mirror of the prior marketing time. In the common assignment we have been discussing it was assumed the two sites were identical. In other words; They both had the same MV as if ready for improvement. That would make sense since they are side by side and the same size.
Some of you have been using the Intended User aka Lender ... OK, but the solution has to work for almost any if not all residential assignment. Commercial Property is different, but their hands are not tied by a Standard Format aka FNMA and a Standard Definition of MV. AKA FNMA
Part of the decision process to make a loan is the factor of property disposition in case of default. So in your report is the development of the
three exposure times;
1, exposure time SFR and its site.
2. exposure time of Extra lot 2.
3. Exposure time of the improved site+extra SFR HBU lot. - This might be very difficult or should I say data poor.
This is valuable information to the lender for the loan making decision. They view/use your opined Value to determine RISK along with credit. They mitigate Risk using Interest rate, Mtg Loan Period and Down Payment and Loan to value for Refi's. The Excess land can distort that total Value that FNMA/Lenders want to know!
Example would be two side by side waterfront Lots!
This gets more difficult. Your not going to be able to opine a MV on the Vacant lot without some proof. Just like your Site Value in the cost approach you have to cite how you arrived at that Site MV. My guess is many do it wrong or just state they did it...i.e Extraction , allocation etc I always try to use Actual Vacant site sales if i can. Who wouldn't?
Good Grief!
Last edited:
Andrei Fin
Junior Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2017
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- California
Low IQ = inability to provide a credible valuation outside of the URAR because muh textbook.
George Hatch
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
Low IQ never learned how to appraise
George Hatch
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- California
You know, there's nothing wrong with having a limited scope of experience or not knowing what you don't know. Everyone has to start from somewhere.
Incompetency is readily curable. Being stubborn about your incompetency is a lot more difficult to cure.
Incompetency is readily curable. Being stubborn about your incompetency is a lot more difficult to cure.
Stone
Elite Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2002
- Professional Status
- Certified General Appraiser
- State
- Wisconsin
But, boy is it a thing.
Andrei Fin
Junior Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2017
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- California
It's really not that complicated guys. Just takes a little problem solving and thinking outside the box. Every time I turn around someone is trash talking my understanding of this or that to make themselves look smart, but what's closer to the truth is that they are a Form Filler who doesn't understand Scope of Work, after just skipping over it completely for the past however many years. The client adds a second parcel and definition of value, and all hell breaks loose. Adhering to your rigid ideas doesn't make you look professional, it makes you look like a crusty fundamentalist that refuses to look up and see what buyers and sellers are doing. You talk about the public trust in terms of ethics, but the public doesn't trust you to actually understand real estate.
- Status