A static definition of "market" value defies logic
Thank you.
I see some here inventing their own caveats to MV, such as it represents a "static " definition. Good luck trying to defend an appraisal based on that. The word "static" or "static defintion of MV ", or any variation thereof, occurs nowhere in USPAP, Fannie, or in any credible appariasal guidelines. And nowhere do the standards even imply that, you made it up and it sounds important/ professional, but it is in fact based on an assumption that is in direct opposition to developing a market value per appraisal guidelines.
How about the static definition of Newton's Laws of motion?
Now think about the definition of 1G (as in gravity; generally considered 9.80665m/s^2 or roughly 32ft/sec^2 ).
Now think of what fun it would be to have to calculate exactly what the local gravity is at the specific latitude, longitude, and altitude above see level you are currently at because the standard definition is not exact (actually, gravity varies depending on those exact factors), and to be specific even the pull of the moon could be factored in.
[sarcasm]Yeah, it is definitely a good idea to define things as applicable to the smallest local area rather than have some more generic definition out there that is logical[/sarcasm]
The terms "logical" and "local" are also not in the FNMA definition, so we should burn at the stake any definition of market value that does not include them!
In other words it is your assumption that is illogical as it does not take into account ANY factor except that which you wish it to. You don't like the standard meaning of "typically motivated" so poof, you change it to mean the mean; don't want to think about seller motivations, "poof" wish that away; don't comprehend "undue stimulus", darn that away as well be either stating "that isn't what it means", "that isn't important", or even "the whole market is under undue stimulus" without ever considering what you are saying or the ramifications; don't what to be bothered about analyzing whether or not buyers or sellers are acting prudently or in their own best interests then just will-o that away as well; since "reasonable exposure time" is never hard coded in anything you have looked at you just ignore FNMA culture and writing on that and ignore the fact that certain "comps" you want to use were priced to sell within that time frame; don't want to be bothered about "special or creative financing", "sales concessions" or the term "granted by anyone associated with" then those are just meaningless drivel not applicable to any "comps" you want to use; heck, since we have a definition of market value in USPAP we should just be able to use that and thus will-away any other definition and ignore any parts we don;t want to follow especially the part about "its authority" because it is easier to do what we want instead of doing it the right way.
Don't believe you are doing what I said? Then, on the very next appraisal you do where you have exactly one traditional sale as a comp and all the rest are REOs, apply a negative adjustment to the traditional sale to bring it in line with your new vision of market value because it is not "typical" for the market. It's one way or the other, not interpreting the definition both ways simultaneously.
So, if you don't want to follow the technical definition of market value as written when doing a summary report on a FNMA form with a predefined set of definitions and limiting conditions then by all means, do whatever you please. Just don't go around trying to tell people they are wrong just because you decided to alter how you interpret the definition.
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
