Properties used to Complete Form 1004MC

[SutnNC]

My 2 sense

To answer a couple of your questions and comment.

1-Nobody here can tell you what you want to hear: that the "other" properties should not have been included. Your side would indicate that they probably should not have, but what do we really know about the specifics?

2- The intimidation tactic was a bad idea. I would bet that the appraiser did not have your LTV in mind when they completed this assignment. Even if they did, it would not matter. This is not what you're getting at, we know.

3- And so on.

On a lighter note-

The problem (or part of) with what you have presented is that it has become common for just anybody to inquire (and be permitted to without any real consideration or filtering) who, what, when, where, should have, did not do, didn't use, did use, etc. Arm chair appraisers are ever present. It's a p-i-t-a and really just another form of influence, but for some reason, is OK because...... well who the h- knows.

If the data is supported, go you and everyone else. The constant questioning about "but what about my house, blah, blah, blah" is exhausting. The data you are presenting appears to be supported, but you need to take that to your lender. If it makes sense than it makes sense.

I would bet that after sending out that letter you will not be as well received than if you had taken a deep breath and thought things through first. Personally, I would have sent that letter to my attorney and told him to file it just in case....would not have been to your benefit with how it reads. At this point, if the appraiser has received that letter, you have probably lengthened that road.

Sounds like you sent the letter, not the best move. It does appear that the MC is not the indicator that everyone thinks it is. It's another add on to make things more transparent which, in turn, has caused more confusion than results. This is apparent by what I have seen and what others are saying.

Start over, use your head and don't try to intimidate anyone. Data that is supported is worth looking at. You may get a bit (or could have gotten) a bit further with some tact instead of showing up with your two guns a blazin'.

At any rate, good luck. :blush:

 

[AndrewBiz]

AndrewBiz,

I have to make a comment about one of your earlier post that raised red flags with me almost immediately. You had said something about using MLS and that your search results were identical to the original appraisers results and you stated there were three(If I recall correctly) improper sales used in the MC analysis by the original appraiser.

I am calling shannigans on you. You could only know if your MLS search results were identical to the original appraisers results if; 1. you had access to his work file and 2. you are more then the general public but a member of that specific MLS system.

Please state the real purpose of your orignal post and your true intentions.

What ever they are, I for one am not playing.

Have a good July fourth.

What??? You're not playing what? It's pretty simply to get prior sales data and be part of the "general public".

In order to find the dataset the appraiser used on the MC addendum I searched prior sales records and then sorted the data by date and sure enough the results came up with the same number of properties and average sale prices for each grid the appraiser had on the MC form. The fact that all these figures matched up EXACTLY with the grid on form 1004MC I knew I had the same data used by the appraiser.

 

[AndrewBiz]

To answer a couple of your questions and comment.

1-Nobody here can tell you what you want to hear: that the "other" properties should not have been included. Your side would indicate that they probably should not have, but what do we really know about the specifics?

2- The intimidation tactic was a bad idea. I would bet that the appraiser did not have your LTV in mind when they completed this assignment. Even if they did, it would not matter. This is not what you're getting at, we know.

3- And so on.

On a lighter note-

The problem (or part of) with what you have presented is that it has become common for just anybody to inquire (and be permitted to without any real consideration or filtering) who, what, when, where, should have, did not do, didn't use, did use, etc. Arm chair appraisers are ever present. It's a p-i-t-a and really just another form of influence, but for some reason, is OK because...... well who the h- knows.

If the data is supported, go you and everyone else. The constant questioning about "but what about my house, blah, blah, blah" is exhausting. The data you are presenting appears to be supported, but you need to take that to your lender. If it makes sense than it makes sense.

I would bet that after sending out that letter you will not be as well received than if you had taken a deep breath and thought things through first. Personally, I would have sent that letter to my attorney and told him to file it just in case....would not have been to your benefit with how it reads. At this point, if the appraiser has received that letter, you have probably lengthened that road.

Sounds like you sent the letter, not the best move. It does appear that the MC is not the indicator that everyone thinks it is. It's another add on to make things more transparent which, in turn, has caused more confusion than results. This is apparent by what I have seen and what others are saying.

Start over, use your head and don't try to intimidate anyone. Data that is supported is worth looking at. You may get a bit (or could have gotten) a bit further with some tact instead of showing up with your two guns a blazin'.

At any rate, good luck. :blush:

I was concerned with being to harsh in my letter as you have stated. I had a few people look at it before sending it and they thought it was more factual than threatening. Looking back I suppose if I initially thought it needed to be reviewed for tactfullness then perhaps that should have been enough for me to consider re-wording some of the letter (you catch more bees with honey).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

 

[Gabriel Chavez]

AndrewBiz,

I know I’m late to the party, and you may have already moved on by now, but I would like to point out two major hot button issues not addressed in these posts (at least I didn’t see them while skimming).

First let me start out by apologizing for some of my more cynical colleagues – we tend to be an insular bunch that hates being questioned.

Now, the one topic I do not see addressed by my peers, and the biggest issue you have, concerns the flawed dataset used to fill out the 1004MC. This could have easily been avoided had the appraiser utilized the correct methodology in obtaining the dataset. That means, in NO WAY should the search parameters have been based on sales price!

As you already know, “The instructions for form 1004MC states, “Sales and listings must be properties that compete with the subject property, determined by applying the criteria that would be used by a prospective buyer of the subject property.” As you correctly found, by running searches based on sales price, the appraiser allowed for statistical outliers to corrupt his determination of overall decline in the market.

The second issue is more educational in what appraisers face running analyses for the 1004MC. It should be noted that while you were able to duplicate the results, there are many instances that I am unable to re-produce my own search results. This is usually due inherent flaws in the MLS system – geo-coding errors being the most prevalent.

If a flawed dataset led to an unreasonable time adjustment, then it stands to reason that you should have some recourse. Unfortunately, outside of any legal channels there may be very few options.

 

[SALVO]

Face the facts, your property is in a declining market..period. Your picking at several comparables to favor you own outcome. Keep in mind, chances are, if an appraiser is to take all the factual neighborhood statistics, employment, foreclosures, all nesessary adjustments.. etc.. your declining number may come in less than your expecting... whould it make a difference then... should the appraiser countersue...how are you so certain the incorrect sales you are "assuming" the appraiser utilized in error are the sales you had pointed out.. it looks like your putting your #s together and guessing?? You obviously have access to MLS and some knowledge of statistics... this does not make your opinion of market value correct and the appraisers in error.. The appraiser did his job well.

 

[David Metzger]

The MC form works in fairly well in large markets with many sales. It is simply not a good method for determining the change in values over time for the majority of properties. The median of 10 sales to the median of a different 3 months of 3-15 sales is just not statistically valid. The home used may be "comparable" but may be quite different.

I guess this form was created to make appraisers analyze decreasing and increasing markets (which they should have already been doing). Although it give some idea of what is happening in a market and makes the appraiser not avoid the issue - it is incredibly lacking in statistical significance for most properties. It sounds like your area has few sales and is difficult to analyze even with good techniques.

Good Luck