The original poster did mention that his futile efforts were encountered when trying to learn of any concessionary amount that might be (augmenting and) in a posted/recorded transaction price for a COMPARABLE he was considering for an on-going report. I do not think that this was anything to do with "contract review" of an imminent purchase of the subject.
His option to DISregard the use of this good, similar, and appropriate comparable is certainly a viable decision......even when it is so frustrating to have to do so. By all means keep that sale's data in the workfile and be stalwart in rejecting any suggestion by the client that "you missed this one comp, please re-consider it and amend your report" !
I find it appauling that authoritative figures could chastise and sanction an appraiser for what they might call a misleading act.........whereby something like zoning, or occupancy status or the simple presence of an air conditioner unit were not perfectly stated in the report........and yet those same authoritative voices are UNWILLING to make bold comments about the significance and importance of representing property transaction prices in formal databases withOUT enabling any MISrepresentation of those actual prices. It was five years ago, this month, that my state's realty and appraisal boards made a position statement on the issue of price-fact disclosure. I appluad them for that. They should re-announce the same thing again THIS summer ! This time, however, make that a statement as a mandate......and not a suggestion.
I will agree with Mike G. that our local MLS system, its board, and many of its participating members ARE progressively more diligent and conscientious about their entry of information for "concessions, incentives, and sold remarks" within the field content of their listings after the sale has closed. Some even post the prospective offer of a concessionary amount while that listing is still active and not yet under-contract. At least the public, and appraisers, get a measure of heads-up about the motivations of a seller and their property in that market.
I am aghast to learn that so many other MLS boards in many other states willingly promote this element of secrecy and non-disclosure with regard to appraisers being given this piece of information about a historical transaction....after the sale is completed ! I can understand one NOT wanting to divulge such details prior to a closing and while the transaction is still fluid and has the potential of being interrupted. Once the sale is completed.......there should be "rules" which lift these veils of secrecy about the representation of ACTUAL selling price for a property. There is one piece of numeric fact that will be pristine from that day forward. It will be the anchor upon which future interaction for and with that property (mortgage ?) will be based. It will be the ACTUAL and residual selling price of the house+land.....without extra baggage attached that enabled that property's sale to carry forward a differing appearance of puffery, embellishment and......"inflation" that was not warranted. There are millions and millions of database records across the land that should be cleansed, and never will be.
The appraiser's required diligence to inquire about and reveal a concessionary influence upon a "price" should be fulfilled as any other normal development process for a report, and in doing so deserves a "special chapter" within the greater set of Standards that are now re-written every two years. If nothing else it deserves becoming its own Advisory Opinion. I am quite curious to learn how this new AI seminar is evolving during its launch across the country. It is the one about.....declining markets and concessions, etc. Anybody taken that seminar ? Good, bad or indifferent ? Are there any rock-solid conclusions that result from the seminar that the ASB could embrace ? After all, it is the A.I. introducing the seminar ! That must mean something to somebody.
In the meantime, however, the original posting here is just another example of how appraisers continue to face obstacles and road-blocks to acquiring one of the most fundamental pieces of fact while developing a report. We just want to know the ACTUAL selling price of the house+land so that we can make the other simple arithmetic calculations and get on with reaching a realistic opinion of value.
As if the housing, realty, and extremely corrupted mortgage markets don't have enough other stuff to work through during this tumultuous year of 2008....and beyond. Of course, we understand how the AVM'ers and the Zillows of the world could care less about reconciling the true selling price issue that is out there !
