No listings, top of page 2

[Dublin ohio]

Do you consider repossessions & tear downs along with McMansions with helicopter pads to be comparable to most manufactured homes you appraise or do you filter those out by price?

I filter them out by them being comparable or not. All poodles are dogs. But all dogs are not poodles.

 

[Dublin ohio]

The neighborhood could be overrun and oversupplied with listings that you don't consider "comparable" that somebody else might.

If someone else is doing the appraisal. They can do what they want.

 

[Mike Ault]

I filter them out by them being comparable or not. All poodles are dogs. But all dogs are not poodles.

Why do you think they want that dataset identified by "price range" anyway? Why not some other element of comparability such as "acreage"?

 

[Dublin ohio]

dataset

If you have no listings. You have no dataset. But I can't fight someone who use the "Fernando" method.

 

[Mike Ault]

If you have no listings. You have no dataset. But I can't fight someone who use the "Fernando" method.

Why do you even bother to put zeros in those fields? Are you just filling out fields with zeros because they are there or are you trying to convey meaningful information in your appraisal reports?

 

[Dublin ohio]

Why do you even bother to put zeros in those fields? Are you just filling out fields with zeros because they are there or are you trying to convey meaningful information in your appraisal reports?

Because that is what the "dataset" says. No listings is no listings. No listings. No listing price range in the context of what it says at the top of page 2. Nowhere do I see "price range search criteria"

 

[TerryRohrer]

The 1004MC and top of Page 2 were required to match. I assume that is where all zeros stems from. That would be consistent for those who believe if the 1004MC is in the report the rules that was apply. I have never been questioned for all zeros, but was regularly stipped for blanks. That is consistent with use of the grid that requires zeros where no adjustments are made.

I typically state the criteria ( age and total square feet) I use for the 1004MC form and indicate that information in the grid may not match the top of page 2, page 1, or the 1004MC if I had to expand the area of consideration to find sufficient sales data.

 

[Mike Ault]

Because that is what the "dataset" says. No listings is no listings. No listings. No listing price range in the context of what it says at the top of page 2. Nowhere do I see "price range search criteria"

No listings found between $0-$999,999 would at least inform the reader of the report that you searched "something". The out-of-town guys with no MLS access and sales fed to them by their pet realtor absolutely hated it when the URAR was redesigned in 2005 with that information at the top. That information at the top of the URAR was an attempt to prove, among other things, that appraisers had access to data that other people might consider when purchasing a home or forming an opinion of value.

 

[Mike Ault]

The 1004MC and top of Page 2 were required to match. I assume that is where all zeros stems from. That would be consistent for those who believe if the 1004MC is in the report the rules that was apply. I have never been questioned for all zeros, but was regularly stipped for blanks. That is consistent with use of the grid that requires zeros where no adjustments are made.

I typically state the criteria ( age and total square feet) I use for the 1004MC form and indicate that information in the grid may not match the top of page 2, page 1, or the 1004MC if I had to expand the area of consideration to find sufficient sales data.

Since you are going to the extra trouble of including the 1004MC which hopefully details the search criteria that you used when defining comparability then this discussion does not apply to you. Lots of appraisers don't go to the trouble of filling that form out after it was rescinded and leave the reader of the report guessing as to what they considered to be "comparable". That would not fall under the "best practices" category.

 

[TerryRohrer]

Since you are going to the extra trouble of including the 1004MC which hopefully details the search criteria that you used when defining comparability then this discussion does not apply to you. Lots of appraisers don't go to the trouble of filling that form out after it was rescinded and leave the reader of the report guessing as to what they considered to be "comparable". That would not fall under the "best practices" category.

No extra trouble to include the 1004MC, so my work flow almost never changes. But I don't think there is any broadly accepted reason to criticize another for putting all zeros. As stated, I have had requests for that every time I exclude them. Nor do I make any effort to narrowly or specifically define comparability. While I agree with the notion, there are unlikely to be more than one in agreement with each possible definition. If an industry approaching 100 years old has not defined it yet, I don't plan to be first.