So Punk, Can You Prove Your Adjustments, Go Ahead Prove Them !

[residentialguy]

Thats alot of pages to read. What was the point you were trying to make? I see that some people calim that their MLS would not allow the mapping of the database?????

No, there are just a lot of good points to consider. I can guarantee you that it doesn't do the MC correctly unless your subject is a cookie cutter in a market with tons of data and no REOs/Short sales.

 

[Frederick R. Ruffell]

No, there are just a lot of good points to consider. I can guarantee you that it doesn't do the MC correctly unless your subject is a cookie cutter in a market with tons of data and no REOs/Short sales.

you are correct about the MC. I use DataMaster for the MC. Does a much better job, but the MC is a very flawed form and concept as written and imposed. But that is another discussion entirely. I am just responding to supporting/proving adjustments as asked by the OP.

 

[residentialguy]

you are correct about the MC. I use DataMaster for the MC. Does a much better job, but the MC is a very flawed form and concept as written and imposed. But that is another discussion entirely. I am just responding to supporting/proving adjustments as asked by the OP.

I agree with the bold, hence why DataMaster can't do it correctly, either. But, as you pointed out, that is another discussion entirely

 

[Mr Rex]

A few tweaks here and there and you can make the MC form sing the tune you want it to...

 

[Su Long]

For paired sales our office uses a proprietarty program we developed to compare MLS data against eachother over 16 criteria. It compares across those criteria and allows you to specify which item you are trying to measure, and tolerances for the other 15 items. It's a beast and takes about 5-7 minutes to cross-compare about 300 properties. But the needles in the haystack are there, though it requires computing power and algorithims. The total number of calculations is a factorial and runs into the hundreds of thousands. It is excel based but should not be, as excel was not designed as a procedural database. We are playing with the idea of converting it to SQL and making it available to the appraisal public. My week is consumed with appraisal and I never seem to find the time to work on it, so it remains a pet project. Every time I see one of these discussions about paired sales I get a little more motivated, as the technology exists to runs pairs for each appriasal. We do it every day. I am not the smartest guy in the room, just a tinkerer. I guess I'm just not convinced other appraisers would find it valuable as they have concluded paired sales is only an abstraction taught in school.

 

[timd354]

A few tweaks here and there and you can make the MC form sing the tune you want it to...

How is that different from the rest of the appraisal report? Just about anything and everything in an appraisal report can be manipulated to produce a desired result if the appraiser is dishonest.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

Just about anything and everything in an appraisal report can be manipulated to produce a desired result if the appraiser is dishonest.

Why is it necessarily dishonest? Throwing out the outliers is a well established practice.

 

[timd354]

Why is it necessarily dishonest? Throwing out the outliers is a well established practice.

My point was to address manipulation of the appraisal to achieve a desired result, not the legitimate exclusion of outliers (which in theory should be explained in the appraisal report)

 

[Elliott]

My adjustments are made based on collection of sales data over decades. The method and data is proprietary. I can tell you about it in general, but I will not tell you the exact process.

 

[hastalavista]

My adjustments are made based on collection of sales data over decades. The method and data is proprietary. I can tell you about it in general, but I will not tell you the exact process.

Speaking as a reviewer....

I have no issue with the above. As long as I can read the report and evaluate the analysis, and it appears reasonable, I'm good to go. FWIW, I don't get into too many arguments about adjustment amounts; I may ask a question if the adjustment is unexpected and not explained. The clients I work for as a reviewer are not into nit-picking reports. They want something that is reliable so they can use it to make their lending decision. Most of the reports I see fall into that bucket.

I have had situations where the adjustments were not supported in the report and they didn't make any sense to me. In other words, based on what was presented, I could not evaluate the report and come to the conclusion that the results were credible. In those cases, I may ask for specific support; and I'll explain why I'm asking for it and what my challenge is.
I've received responses that "I've been doing this for 20+ years and based on my experience, this is what it is." That response does not address the review concerns. I'm fine with the appraiser responding like that and it makes my review process relatively simple. Those responses usually create friction with the client, however.

It is our report and we get to write it as we think best.
Our clients get to determine if it meets their requirements or not.
Ideally, when the two are in alignment, everyone is well served. When the two are out of alignment and cannot be re-aligned, that is when problems occur.
As long as we (as appraisers) are fine with clients deciding that our reports do not meet their minimum requirements and we are willing to accept that those clients' needs are not going to be met by the work we produce (and as a consequence, we part company), then all should be good in the world.