Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[J Grant]

The only conflict I see is you and this profession... Fannie determines your scope of work, we've established that. Good luck developing an opinion of market value, "per regulations". That means HBU; Fannie Mae issues trash advice which is contrary to appraisal theory (HBU analysis). Why do you think everyone is so "on board" with it being bad advice, except for a few evidently incompetent appraisers.... You better hope Fannie Mae's appraiser expert can provide you legal defense as you show no hesitation to completely depart from your obligations.

I have a 20 plus year career in this profession with mostly direct lender work - what do you have , a new license and AMC work?
Fannie did not issue trash advice , you interpret it that way. Fine, take it up with them. There is nothing in what they recomend that is contrary to appraisal theory. A few incompetent appraisers...Mr Rex, who knows more than you will forget, Greg B, a cert gen and George Hatch understands the issues and the fannie guideline - of course, any appraiser should decline if it is an unacceptable assignment condition . You should flat out decline since you can not understand the assignment let alone fannie interpretation of the way to handle it and commensurate HBU reconciliation of two properties.

 

[J Grant]

The "per regulations" is one of those "assignment conditions" which contribute to the SOW decision in the SOWR.

And no, a "value in use" opinion for the 2nd parcel is not a substitute for its MV.

Then opine both, a MV for the vacant lot alone ( which I said early on to do ) and a value in use for it as a contributory lot. And see Dictionary of Real Estate ( value in use and MV may be equal)

 

[J Grant]

Earlier JGrant asked me--other than me --where is it written that Market Value and consistency with H&BU are linked and cannot be separated.

I replied by suggesting that she conduct her own search of the 'net with the key words MARKET VALUE HIGHEST & BEST USE. The results (IF read and IF understood), but of course, answer her question . Likely an inconvenient truth, she has moved on...yet she continues to ask "what drivel?" does she share. Truly amazing.

No, I asked you a question and you refuse to answer, instead deflect it to me to look things up in a search. AND, the above is NOT the question I asked you. The question I did ask, is where in USPAP does its say a single market value opinion can not be provided for two properties or multiple properties together?

You know USPAP does not say that, but that is the position you take, so to avoid admitting it, you keep squirming around it and posting personal stuff.

 

[George Hatch]

Fannie does not determine the appraiser's SOW. The appraiser does that for themself (which is how the appraiser can be held accountable for their SOW decisions). But part of that SOW decision in a GSE assignment is to understand and meet their requirements, so long as the result doesn't undermine our minimums.

In other words, Fannie decides what they consider to be meaningful to their use within the context of their own programs. Same as any other type of user.

 

[J Grant]

What is the "drivel;", Lee? That USPAP does allow a market value opinion on multiple properties conveyed together? It is true, so what is your objection?Once again, you post personal nonsense instead of any credible defense of your position ( whatever it is at this point )
He was not responding to me, he pasted a regulation - I'd be happy btw if he put me on ignore but that is up to him.

This was my question, Lee. The question was not about HBU and consistency.

 

[J Grant]

Fannie does not determine the appraiser's SOW. The appraiser does that for themself (which is how the appraiser can be held accountable for their SOW decisions). But part of that SOW decision in a GSE assignment is to understand and meet their requirements, so long as the result doesn't undermine our minimums.

In other words, Fannie decides what they consider to be meaningful to their use within the context of their own programs. Same as any other type of user.

Agree. I never said fannie determined SOW. Econobot invented that as attributed to me. This is a fannie guideline of how to handle it as an appraisal of two properties conveyed together. It could apply in some situations not others. Appraisers should not accept it if they feel it is unacceptable for a property or area....simple.

 

[George Hatch]

Then opine both, a MV for the vacant lot alone ( which I said early on to do ) and a value in use for it as a contributory lot. And see Dictionary of Real Estate ( value in use and MV may be equal)

"can be equal" doesn't mean the concepts are the same or that including a value-in-use meets the requirements for providing the MV of the property.

Lots of types of value can return the same numerical result, but that still doesn't make them the same thing. In a hot market, the number from your MV analysis can and sometimes will be the same number you return with your "Liquidation Value" or "Disposition Value" . So although the number is the same, the different values are not synonymous with each other.

 

[George Hatch]

Agree. I never said fannie determined SOW. Econobot invented that as attributed to me. This is a fannie guideline of how to handle it as an appraisal of two properties conveyed together. It could apply in some situations not others. Appraisers should not accept it if they feel it is unacceptable for a property or area....simple.

I was reponding to E-bot's comment about Fannie determining the appraiser's SOW.

 

[Artemis Fowl]

Pics or it didn't happen.
Oh sorry...wrong forum.

 

[George Hatch]

This was my question, Lee. The question was not about HBU and consistency.

"That USPAP does allow a market value opinion on multiple properties conveyed together? "

Yes, your subject can be a gas station property+apartment property+2/lot residential+oil refinery. That doesn't mean that selling them all together in that bundle will return the MV for each of them.