community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
I tried one (1) of those for a conventional lending assignment during Covid. Way more trouble than it was worth. I still do some pre-foreclosure work using that form (used to be a lot), however lenders seem to be using alternatives for the majority of that niche now as well.
Asseblabe packages as comps are forbidden in UARA appraisals, so we don't use them because we guarantee that we did n't.It's an "assemblage sale". There is no reasonable time and manner of exposure which would render that particular combination as acceptable evidence of "market value". There is an industrywide prohibition against adding the price someone paid for piece of land, plus the price of installing a manufactured home on said land, and then using the combined "price" someone paid for both as a comparable when forming a market value opinion.
- The appraiser must not create comparable sales by combining vacant land sales with the contract purchase price of the home. This type of information may be used as additional supporting documentation.
What are the comparable sale requirements for manufactured homes?
selling-guide.fanniemae.com
We had one appraiser in market who always had a hip pocket FSBO to pull out when he needed to justify some overvaluation. They would always be well above all the other market value indications from MLS exposed properties, and we all knew they had large seller concessions involved with them, however, in this nondisclosure state contract details & seller concessions are not typically disclosed to third parties. So, when a lender had something that didn't fit normal lending parameters (typically involving inadequate down payment & large seller concessions via some "equity gifting program"), they knew who to call, because he had a built-in database of non-MLS exposed properties full of seller concessions which he didn't bother to disclose. And nobody, absolutely nobody involved, would discuss anything about those situations, as to do so would implicate them & their lending pipeline in mortgage fraud. I confronted him about at one time, and asked him why people were consistently paying more for those FSBO properties than properties which were professionally marketed to a much broader audience via the MLS and he replied, "those are smart people, with extensively updated homes, who knew they didn't need to engage the services of a realtor to sell them ". I will always have a bad taste in my mouth over "FSBO's as comps" after seeing firsthand how the concept can be abused.
Yes, it was not properly used by that one appraiser.
Yes, it was not properly used by that one appraiser.
I'm assuming that it would be much harder to run a scam like that in "full disclosure states" where financing is a matter of public record than it is out here in the wild, wild west. I just thought it might be helpful to illustrate why some of us have a bad attitude over seemingly innocent situations such as that.
I agree! Unfortunately, depressingly few people who make a living selling their lending risk onto the bond market seem to care about that concept. What they do care about, however, is making their deals work, and they are the ones that are calling the balls and strikes. Implicit in their decision-making as well, are the realtors who will tell them, "you make these deals work, and I will bring you every deal I do. You don't, I take all of my business down the street to your competitor." The outcome of that conversation is generally "scam artist" (1), "honest appraiser" (0). Reliance upon so-called "comparables" which weren't properly exposed to the market makes it easier for evildoers in the mortgage industry to flourish. So, to paraphrase yourself, are we discussing "the way things actually are"? Or "the way they should be"?