Does the 1004MC equal the Neighborhood One-Unit Housing trends on page 1

[Scott Brown]

Here:


reconcile your 1004MC to what HUD says about your county.

Yup, free market report and you don't even have to think about it, and, how are your clients going to argue with HUD's analysis?


.

Thanks for that link! Looks like some good data that I can use in my reports to make me look a lot smarter than I am...

 

[Lee Lansford]

I addressed it in two of my posts.

So if you're going to let me "add some data" to support a trend, I'm going right to the superior neighborhoods, and superior comps, and get that "increasing market" thing happening so I can make positive adjustments to all my comps, and bring it in at contract price or better,

Yeah that's the ticket.



No more ROV's for me!


.

I doubt that you would do as you--with a dose of good humor--suggest.

Others? Well, who knows how they arrive at the conclusions that they arrive at?

 

[Meandering]

I doubt that you would do as you--with a dose of good humor--suggest.

Others? Well, who knows how they arrive at the conclusions that they arrive at?

Thank you for your support.

I assure you, if you ever get a hold of one of my reports, you will never question if I "studied the market" and reported on trends. It's kind of my specialty you know.


.

 

[Pat Butler]

Didn't have time to read all the posts, but the biggest problem with the form is that it asks for comparable data, and that comparable data may be from more than just the subject's neighborhood. In effect, the comps could be coming from anywhere in the subject's 'market'.

So the main problem is that the URAR is talking about the subject's "neighborhood" while the MC form is talking about the subject's "market". In the perfect world where you can obtain enough comparable data directly from the subject's neighborhood then the forms will be in synch.

 

[J Grant]

I've had clients advise that the MC form is for relevant comps to subject only and that more data should not be added to make a trend show up. The forms are not designed for that, if one adds too much data those sales and listings are no longer comps for the subject (which is the limitation of the form). Thus, the MC form needs to be filled out with the smaller # of possible comps for subject and then appraiser needs to make additional study, not necessarily on a form, but some kind of additional study of broader market trend that is still relevant to subject, then comment on the two and reconcile differences. I base trends on page one, usually, on the wider but still relevant data and trends and then comment on any differences or similarity to MC form. If MC form has enough data to reliably indicate trend on page one that's ideal but does not always work out that way.

The main problem is the one hour training class the AMC gives their staff people who read appraisals for "review" does not allow them any perspective and they robotic-ally ask why the MC form and page one differ, even when it has already been explained in report. DOH.

 

[DWiley]

... and they robotic-ally ask why the MC form and page one differ, even when it has already been explained in report. DOH.

Given that the instructions explicitly state that the trends on page 1 MUST be supported by data in the 1004MC form, how does one complete the 1004MC correctly and still have conflicts between the 1004MC and page 1??

Is the explanantion that the appraiser did not follow the instructions??

 

[J Grant]

Given that the instructions explicitly state that the trends on page 1 MUST be supported by data in the 1004MC form, how does one complete the 1004MC correctly and still have conflicts between the 1004MC and page 1??

Is the explanantion that the appraiser did not follow the instructions??

USPAP says we have to provide credible results. If a form is designed so badly that credible results are not possible using it alone, then appraiser has to go beyond limitation of that MC form to provide credible results and explain why.

Support can be interpreted many ways, imo it does not mean exactly match a trend. Results have to be credible and not misleading.

 

[Lee Lansford]

USPAP says we have to provide credible results. If a form is designed so badly that credible results are not possible using it alone, then appraiser has to go beyond limitation of that MC form to provide credible results and explain why.

Support can be interpreted many ways, imo it does not mean exactly match a trend. Results have to be credible and not misleading.

You were doing just fine until you entered into this contradiction where the appraisal is for use in the secondary market and Fannie requirements dictate compliance.

Mr. Wiley is correct. The conclusions in the 1004MC are carried-over to page 1 of (by way of example) the URAR.

 

[JSmith43]

Jgrant, I have to go with Lee on this one. Just submit, for once

The specificity of the language on the 1004MC (must match/support the neighborhood section data, Page 1) rules. The plain English on Page One it thereby clarified (or trumped).

It is an ugly feeling, but inserting a well written paragraph or two explaining how the Neighborhood trends are developed & supported, should relieve the frustration.

 

[J Grant]

Got it. There are times when complaince and credible results can not align. I suppose in current clients compliance trumps all. Who am I to buck the tide! I'll go with the flow...