Reasonable Exposure Time

[Meandering]

No, that is NOT what I am saying.

What the form says is meaningless without context. That is why USPAP requires the valeu definition to be in the report..

Again,
The market value definition is already in the report. It's pre-printed on the URAR. The REO addenda is the addenda to the URAR.

So, what i am saying is that in most REO assignmenst one must report multiple values, bit the standard 1004 contains only one value definition. If other types of value are developed, the the applicable definition(s), and source citation(s), should be added to the definition already in the form.

I never disagreed with you on this. What I disagreed with is the pre-printed language of the REO addenda does not say they are two different values, it says they are both market value.

If one reports a "60-day market value" then one cannot rely on the pre-printed definition to meet the USPAP requirement to provide the value definition in the report. The rpeort has no pre-printed definition for "60-day market value." The only definition on the form is one that allows for "reasonable exposure." So, the rpeort must be supplemented to include the applicable definition(s) needed.

Where on the above pasted REO addenda to you see the option to say 60 day value, or any other value? it is printed as only market value. you want to make up value definitions, fine, but the form above does not allow for that value to be indicated as anything other than market value, which, is already defined, by Fannie, on the 1004 that goes with this addenda.

The main point is that there is no prohibition against adding and using any definition of value tha the client needs. As taught in the USPAP courses, the proper value definition to be used in an assignment is driven by the intended use and intended user.

Actually no.
The main point is that there is resistance to changing the form like I did below, so that the second value is clearly indicated.



And why can't that happen?

Why is it so desperately important to leave that second set of values saying market value, and then try and explain else where in the report, that the second set of values are different market values than the first set, without any indication on the form.

Change the form.

.

 

[J Grant]

lol, since more posts don't pay anything means nothing to me!

 

[DWiley]

But then the REO addenda asks for the Market Value with a client defined exposure time.

No can do.
.

Yes, you can.

Nothing in USPAP prevents/prohibits an appraiser from providing multiple value opinions or using multiple value definitions within the same report. Just ask the ASB.

 

[George Hatch]

Marion, if you really think the forms are sacrosanct and that this represents an irreconcilable conflict then the minimums in USPAP trump whatever that forms designer has in mind. Failing that you're running into an unacceptable assignment condition.

This reminds me of the house-n-five acres thing where the property rights they're asking you to value (and the resulting value conclusion) are not the same as the property rights identified throughout the report.

Not even Fannie can force you to mislead your readers.

 

[Eli]

Trust me at this point, the last thing in the world FNMA wants to do is mislead anybody. They have a dragon breathing down their neck. The dragon is breathing down the wrong neck is the only problem. But, that may change soon, we can hope and as a result of technology provided by FNMA.

 

[George Hatch]

It's not their intent that I criticize so much as their competency.

If you wanted appraisers to provide both a market value and a liquidation value in the same report wouldn't you provide both definitions in the report so that there wouldn't be any confusion? Same with insurable value opinions, when applicable. The definitions of value being used are supposed to be provided in the report, not left to the reader to divine on the "if you really loved me you'd know what I meant without me having to say it" basis.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Only when reasonable, will the client imposed market exposure fit the definition of value. So changing USPAP even that small bit, does not negate that the Fannie Forms are talking out of both sides of their mouth.

Again, meaningless estimates. Recent article in App. Journal made that case. Exposure time is a moot event. The fact a property sells in less than six months only tells me that the Realtor listed the property for six months...and the sale was consummated based on price offered, not listed.

 

[VolcanoLvr]

Always include the Exposure and Marketing time definitions from USPAP in reports. That keeps the wolves at bay, because often they don't know the difference.

It appears the reviewer of the OP's report has that problem, and needs to be educated.

Don't forget to actually state your opinion of EXPOSURE TIME, per USPAP instructions. My opinion comes from the on-market times of the comps...which appears to be how the OP does it as well.

 

[VolcanoLvr]

Terrel and I were posting at the same time.

Unfortunately the Journal article is itself moot. ET is tied to the Definition of Market Value, where it mentions exposure to the market. Then USPAP says "when ET is a component of the OMV", then the opinion of ET must be stated in the report.

My report templates have this basic info pre-written so it's in every report.