Marshall & Swift

[Mr Rex]

Elliot, what about the location multipliers?

 

[Elliott]

Mike,
By comparing M&S value with the new construction that
comes across your desk, you'll become Michael & Swift.
I've never had to do it, but if I were on a witness stand
and the other guy was using M/S and I was using local
new construction job A/B/C & D to develop my local
value per square foot, I bet I'd impress a judge/jury
more. M&S doesn't employ spy satellites, its hard for
them to keep up with costs everywhere.

elliott

 

[Mr Rex]

My problem is limited new construction. Most new stuff is on lake etc. and land values dictate. Builders are all over the road and in both ditches cost wise, some because they are good, some because they are good salesmen, **** poor builders. Use to be one (builder) I know one when I see one. I was **** poor salesman.

On the other hand, how do you handle the "replicable" nature of the cost approach on the new and improved Fannie form if you use local builder data?

 

[Couch Potato]

Just informed ignorant appraisers.

Im just curious on how many of you still subscribe to Marshall & Swift since the cost approach is not really relevant on the new 1004 forms.

What does the existence of wording on a form have to do with the relevance of the cost approach? The cost approach is no more relevant or irrelevant on the new 1004 than it was on the old 1004. The new 1004 merely informed those appraisers ignorant of the fact that FNMA does not now, nor has it ever required the cost approach.

Many residential appraisers still have not read through the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.

 

[George W Dodd]

I also use SwiftEstimator. No more need to use the book, prints out on the 1007 form, and insert into the report. It's neat and clean.

 

[hastalavista]

you'll become Michael & Swift.

What do you charge for your annual subscription?:laugh:

 

[Mr Rex]

Thats on an old post of mine Denis. The MRBSCA is $299 per year.

 

[jay trotta]

we use similar to Greg, with the added attraction of local builders; in our tiny little State, you would be amazed at the differences town to town and if you break it out any different, you'll be in trouble.

never found it to hold alot of weight in or out of court - depreciation estimates would cause the most harm anyway for older homes. then again it really depends on the builder (s).

alot of us see housing that is over 200 years old in our different market places, part of the reason, "builder pride" - it is definitely lacking in the industry today; from plumbing the corners of the dwelling to how the footings are poured; to how the concrete mix is set, etc. - we find more "shrinkage" in housing today than ever before.

Good Luck in your area.

 

[Mr Rex]

Jay, I have to ask, do you provide CA for the 200 year old house. If so what data source? And has your E&O provider seen one of these CA?

 

[goumcanes]

What does the existence of wording on a form have to do with the relevance of the cost approach? The cost approach is no more relevant or irrelevant on the new 1004 than it was on the old 1004. The new 1004 merely informed those appraisers ignorant of the fact that FNMA does not now, nor has it ever required the cost approach.

Many residential appraisers still have not read through the Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.

Im with Greg on this one. The FNMA handbook for appraisers, p.27 "In the cost approach, you assume that a home buyer would consider building a substitue residence that has the same use as the property being appraised. This approach MAY be a good indicator for new or renovated properties....however as the effective age of the property increases, the reliability of the cost approach typically decreases because of the subjectivity of estimating depreciation and the difficulty in accurately estimating the reproduction cost of the improvements. FNMA will NOT accept appraisals that rely solely on the cost approach as an indicator of value."