Fannie Mae and "Multiple Parcels"

[J Grant]

As noted earlier, Fannie has long said H&BU is as improved (not as vacant as USPAP indicates), The latest clarification simply indicated that 2 lots with improvements on one are eligible as one and should be considered as one. I wonder if DW needs an assistant over at Freddie?

He must be laughing his head off at this thread. I wish he were still free to post here...

 

[George Hatch]

If the market data is so strong that the 2nd lot has a H&BU separate, then why hasn't it sold? Has the market spoken?

I'm an appraiser, not a broker; so I don't look at market segments on the basis of "why hasn't it sold that way yet".

Why didn't any other other SFR parcels located in proximity of this site sell before now? I found several such sites which had "recently" sold in that area Just because a parcel is vacant in 2019 doesn't mean it will still be vacant in 2030. Doesn't mean it will be built out by then, either. All RE is local.

I'm curious what you think it means when I can find multiple sales of vacant SFR parcels in an area - including a couple that had been held by the same owner as the adjacent SFR up until they sold - and almost no sales of SFR+lot where the lot contributed almost nothing to the total.

 

[George Hatch]

He must be laughing his head off at this thread. I wish he were still free to post here...

I'm thinking that if he did post here some people would be hating that response.

 

[J Grant]

I'm thinking that if he did post here some people would be hating that response.

he never actually posts what " the correct way"is - more what it isn't , by accusing people about not grasping correct Practice. The fact that he praises E bot for "understanding " the issue when you yourself shot down E bots' HC convoluted mush - ? I guess it is a macho thing to never admit one could be wrong - or even consider another perspective. We see it here where a thread becomes a blood sport and has to have a "winner" and a " loser"- rather than people exchanging view points.

 

[George Hatch]

AFAICT he doesn't do a lot of "always" or "never".

 

[Andrei Fin]

almost no sales of SFR+lot where the lot contributed almost nothing to the total.

When something contributes almost nothing, it often doesn't end up on a listing. So how are you searching this? It's not likely to show up in MLS except for the remarks, and even then only sometimes.

 

[Lee Lansford]

He must be laughing his head off at this thread. I wish he were still free to post here...

You might not like his answer.

 

[Mr Rex]

You might not like his answer.

And you? Still waiting on the elaboration Lee. Cut the suspense...

 

[George Hatch]

When something contributes almost nothing, it often doesn't end up on a listing. So how are you searching this? It's not likely to show up in MLS except for the remarks, and even then only sometimes.

That's right, we seldom have all the data we want.

The primary point I've been making all along is that "looking but not finding" > "not looking". If I look but don't find and say that in my report then that conveys a very different level of diligence when compared to omitting the issue outright from the report and not even trying to look.

What you should be asking yourself is how it is that I found any site sales data at all, and how I found the 2016 sales of house+extra that sold without even having access to the local MLS. How it is I'm looking at assessor maps and financing and sales histories. That might lead you to recognize that my normal process - which I use for every property type I appraise - is never limited to inputting a simple search into an MLS database and relying solely on that output.

 

[Andrei Fin]

You're accusing me of something I never did or advocated and then you pulled comps with filters of 15% GLA and year built 1980.