Do I have an "Ethical Obligation"?

[Fernando]

i think it's sufficient to say that "xxxxx transferred as doc# xxxxx that recorded on xxxxxx for xxxxxxx, as an xxxxxxx deed, which was a non-open market transfer."

And if in MLS, I would look back it's history and explain if any remodeling.
There's a house that sold back preCovid in 2019 and last month sold $900,000 higher. I would note that it has been completely remodeled since last sale.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

And if in MLS, I would look back it's history and explain if any remodeling.
There's a house that sold back preCovid in 2019 and last month sold $900,000 higher. I would note that it has been completely remodeled since last sale.

Although I've been remiss in failing to research the intended use of reporting prior transfers, it's my gut feeling that value--absolute or relative--is beyond the intent of the rationale for this standard. That is to say, going above min reporting requirements is a win-win, but going "outside" a standard by reporting info that appears to obfuscate the intent displays a lack of competency. But I don't know if USPAP addresses that scenario....

 

[Fernando]

Although I've been remiss in failing to research the intended use of reporting prior transfers, it's my gut feeling that value--absolute or relative--is beyond the intent of the rationale for this standard. That is to say, going above min reporting requirements is a win-win, but going "outside" a standard by reporting info that appears to obfuscate the intent displays a lack of competency. But I don't know if USPAP addresses that scenario....

That's the problem with USPAP. Appraisers only do what USPAP addresses or not. Real appraisers just do what they would do even without USPAP.

 

[ZZGAMAZZ]

That's the problem with USPAP. Appraisers only do what USPAP addresses or not. Real appraisers just do what they would do even without USPAP.

F. Years later and I still remember your perspective about the folly that exists when the top of FNMA page 2 corresponds with the 1004MC, despite that it must do so. One shouldnt debunk principle without a logical, perhaps quantitative, rationale for doing so...

 

[Fernando]

F. Years later and I still remember your perspective about the folly that exists when the top of FNMA page 2 corresponds with the 1004MC, despite that it must do so. One shouldnt debunk principle without a logical, perhaps quantitative, rationale for doing so...

You have a good memory. I still think the two should not be related but consistency is what the reviewers desire.

 

[sputnam]

Would mentioning the financial problems of the people involved be considered an act of value 'discrimination". Just wondering.

Dunno about discrimination. I know that the financial problems of the people involved is not relevant to the market value of the subject property.

 

[J Grant]

Would mentioning the financial problems of the people involved be considered an act of value 'discrimination". Just wondering.

It could be -discrimination is not always or only about race or ethnic. It is discrimination against a person or group for X reason. It is going way beyond SOW -

A lender is responsible for vetting their own applicants' buyers' financials and credit rating. We are not and in fact could create a problem for the client - a borrower could claim they were indeed a loan because of that info showing up in an appraisal.

 

[George Hatch]

That's the problem with USPAP. Appraisers only do what USPAP addresses or not. Real appraisers just do what they would do even without USPAP.

The minimum is the minimum. Appraisers are free to do more - if they can. Sometimes they can't do any more. Sometimes the minimum is where it is because "more" isn't universally possible across all property types, all market segments and all individual circumstances.


Not to mention the significance of the point of diminishing returns. Sure, an appraiser might be able to analyze in some detail a prior sale from 10 years ago, but to what end? How does doing that extra work help anyone to understand the current valuation?

For I have disclosed for many years what the records show about the prior sale regardless of how far back. On occasion they're recent enough to bear some scrutiny and analysis in my current assignment but usually not. I disclose anyway, knowing it's not useful. But that's me using some personal discretion, not some minimum requirement any of my users have. Not a minimum I would hold any other appraiser to in the event I was reviewing their work.

 

[Mark K]

Would mentioning the financial problems of the people involved be considered an act of value 'discrimination". Just wondering.

I see a confidentiality issue more than a discrimination issue.

Let the real estate speak for itself; the financial situation of any of the parties is unnecessary and irrelevant and could be considered a privacy invasion issue.

WWJFD: What would Joe Friday do? "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts."

 

[George Hatch]

I wouldn't even call it a confidentiality issue. It's just irrelevant to the question of the MV of the property. Which after all is based on a definition of MV that starts with the hypothetical close of a sales transaction and a change of ownership anyway.

"The seller is a criminal". Okay. So?