Objectionable Valuations Become Hate Speech,' Inflating Home Prices

[shrubberyvaluation]

What do you mean you don't know? You were required to *analyze* that prior sale due to it being inside the 3yr sales history window. 9/10 lenders would also require you to reconcile between that known recent prior sale and your current valuation anyway. AND comment how common or rare it is in that market for properties to sell above their list.

If the waivers stop at 80% then the other 20% was the borrower's own money. Duh

You don't have to do a full appraisal on a prior sale. He knew it was bid up and got a waiver.

 

[George Hatch]

This is the post where you mention the listing was 8 months ago, which I am assuming the sale occurred during the interim:

I just appraised a waiver home last week. Listed in late 2023 for 750, purchased for 800. When I was doing my appraisal inspection for his refinance, the borrower informed me that he knew he paid above list price and was surprised when they told him they didn’t need an appraisal. He figured he was gonna have to come out of pocket for the difference, but he was thankful that the GSE waver king put the risk on the American taxpayer and not him.

Now we’ve had a year of that data cancer point in that market. I have no doubt that waivers play a big part in the current inflated values. It’s hard to ignore….assuming you’re out there in the real world appraising.

How would you or any other competent appraiser perform an appraisal in 08/2024 without giving a LOT of attention to a 01/2024 sale that closed at $50k over list?

 

[George Hatch]

You don't have to do a full appraisal on a prior sale. He knew it was bid up and got a waiver.

So that's what passes for a *required* analysis of a recent sale?

He knows what the current value conclusion is because he DID do a full appraisal on that. If it was different he'd have been quick to say so.

 

[George Hatch]

Am I required to apply that adjustment even if the user doesn’t want it? That’s a hell of a dilemma, because we have to give the user what they want.

Are you required to disclose the physical deficiency even if the client or user doesn't want it? Yes.

And what is it with you two idiots constantly trying to say that the SOWR requires appraisers to lie for their clients? You're supposed to know better than that.

User-driven extras cannot undermine the applicability of our minimums. They can add to, but not replace or conflict. That's basic.

Here's some light reading you were supposed to have done however many years ago it was when you first started appraising. It shouldn't take you 2 minutes to get to the part where the appraiser "must not allow... a client's objectives to cause the assignment results to be biased."

 

[chad hampton]

You can’t blame George for not understanding, he doesn’t do GSE appraisals. So I try to cut him some slack on these topics.

 

[Surf Cat]

I have no idea if it was worth 800 when it was sold, I suspect not being that I know what the market was a year ago.

"we know who you are. You know what we want. If you are looking to side step us we can tell you it won't work, because what we do have are a very particular set of skills. Skills we have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make us a nightmare for people like you. If you give us the values now that'll be the end of it. We will not look for you, we will not pursue you, but if you don't, we will look for you, we will find you....

 

[George Hatch]

You can’t blame George for not understanding, he doesn’t do GSE appraisals. So I try to cut him some slack on these topics.

And yet, I'm apparently more familiar than you with the content of the GSE forms which comprise the entirety of what you do. Tell us, what part of the GSE policies translates into the illogical and poorly reasoned allegation that

Am I required to apply that adjustment even if the user doesn’t want it? That’s a hell of a dilemma, because we have to give the user what they want.​

​

Which is directly contradicted by the certification that you sign in every appraisal assignment you perform, which includes the following assertion:

​

​

​

​

 

[George Hatch]

There are only two ways you can be saying such stupid things; either

• you don't know WTH you're talking about (aka incompetent at the one thing you do for a living), or
• you do know what you're talking about but are deliberately feigning ignorance in order to advance an untruth for the sole purpose of not taking the beating in an discussion (unethical)

There is no 3rd explanation for your errors in fact. You're a specialist who operates in a very narrow niche of professional appraisal practice - even if that niche does run deep and does take years to master. I shouldn't have to explain anything to you about what you do. Especially when the discussion involves some of these fundamental principles.

 

[The Bob]

What do you mean you don't know? You were required to *analyze* that prior sale due to it being inside the 3yr sales history window. 9/10 lenders would also require you to reconcile between that known recent prior sale and your current valuation anyway. AND comment how common or rare it is in that market for properties to sell above their list.

If the waivers stop at 80% then the other 20% was the borrower's own money. Duh

In my experience with a really recent prior sale, the client isn't going to let you off not commenting on how that prior sale relates to your current OMV. Is it higher, lower or the same? WHY?

What did you (Chad) indicate for current trend?

 

[djd09]

and still not one address of any property that has been waived...secrets in an free and open society are repugnant jfk...